Barbara Finamore has been involved in environmental policy in China for decades. Her new book, Will China Save the Planet?, is a succinct report (120 pg.) on the short, yet promising history of China’s actions to address climate change and pollution.

Chapter 1 is about the recent global leadership role that China has taken in the fight against climate change. At first, the PRC was hesitant to commit to specific pollution-reduction benchmarks. After experiencing increasingly devastating bouts of industrial smog in the 1990s however, China began to take its environmental commitments more seriously. It has set out to become the de facto leader in combatting climate change through ambitious domestic action and sponsoring international conferences. The Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement has only furthered China’s dominance.

Chapters 2-4 give in-depth analysis on China’s efforts to wean itself off of coal, develop its renewable energy capacity and become a global leader in electric vehicle production. China has long used coal to fuel its unprecedented rate of industrialization. In recent years, it has pledged to wean itself off of coal dependency by enforcing coal plant efficiency standards, enacting a cap-and-trade program, managing grid output, promoting local politicians based on their success in implementing green policies and supporting green energy developments. China is now home to many of the world’s top manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and commercial & private electric vehicles.

There is much to applaud China for in its efforts. Finamore writes that, “After growing by an average of 10% annually from 2002-2012, China’s coal consumption leveled off in 2013 & decreased in each of the following three years… Largely because of the dip in China’s coal consumption, global CO2 emissions growth was basically flat between 2014-2016.” By moving away from coal, China has been able to, “Every hour… erects a new wind turbine & installs enough solar panels to cover a soccer field.” As of last year, “Chinese solar manufacturers accounted for about 68% of global solar cell production & more than 70% of the world’s production of solar panels.”

Chapter 5 focuses on China’s mission to export its green initiatives around the world, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI is shaping up to be the largest international infrastructure plan in history, investing trillions of dollars in 65 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. China thus has a golden chance to help much of the developing world to adopt clean energy goals and foster economic growth. The Chinese government is encouraging its citizens to invest in renewable energy initiatives in the BRI countries by implementing a “green finance” system. Through its pivotal role in the G20, China can also help to lead the developed world by spearheading reports and policies among the 20 member nations.

Barbara Finamore has written a highly readable and informative overview of China’s role in the global climate change battle. She lists the Chinese government policies that have led the world’s largest nation to meet and exceed many of the green benchmarks that it set for itself. It would have been helpful if Finamore had written more about China’s water instability and how that ties to the Tibetan occupation, as access to drinking water is one of the top environmental issues in the world today. As a whole, Will China Save the Planet? is a good primer for environmental policy analysts and anyone else interested in studying feasible solutions to climate change, humanity’s greatest threat.

Ethnic militias have killed over 200 civilians and burned dozens of villages in communal violence in central Mali during 2018, Human Rights Watch said in a recent report. Most victims have been ethnic Peuhl villagers targeted by Dogon and Bambara “self-defense groups” for their alleged support of Islamist armed groups linked to Al-Qaeda.

The 108-page report, “‘We Used to Be Brothers’: Self-Defense Group Abuses in Central Mali,” documents communal attacks by armed groups against 42 villages and hamlets in Mopti region, particularly near the Burkina Faso border, and the town of Djenne, a UNESCO World Heritage site. The violence has led to widespread displacement, hunger, and looting of livestock, affecting civilians from various communities. President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita should ensure that Mali’s security forces impartially protect all civilians at risk from attacks by militias and Islamist armed groups. Judicial authorities should investigate and prosecute groups responsible for abuses.

“Abusive militias in central Mali are committing murder and mayhem and leaving scores of dead in their wake,” said Corinne Dufka, Sahel director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “The pace and brutality of the violence is alarming, as is the government’s failure to investigate and bring those responsible to justice.”

The report is based on research trips to central Mali in February, May and July and phone interviews throughout 2018. Human Rights Watch interviewed 148 victims and witnesses, as well as leaders from the ethnic Peuhl, Dogon, and Bambara communities, and local government, security and justice officials, among others.

Since 2015, Islamist armed groups have progressively increased their presence in central Mali, executing scores of civilians and government officials and committing other abuses. Their presence, and recruitment of pastoralist Peuhl residents, has inflamed tensions with the Bambara and Dogon communities, and led to the formation of ethnic self-defense groups.

The self-defense groups say they took security into their own hands because the government had failed to adequately protect their villages and property. Easy access to firearms, including military assault weapons, has contributed to the groups’ growth and militarization.

Witnesses described the killing of 156 Peuhl civilians by alleged Bambara and Dogon self-defense groups. These included 10 massacres in each of which up to 23 villagers were killed on the same day, most recently in late November. About 50 Peuhl villagers, including children, who were either detained by the militias or fled the attacks, remain missing. The worst militia atrocities have been sparked by the killing of a respected member of the Dogon or Bambara communities. In response, the militias engaged in retaliatory killings, often targeting an entire Peuhl hamlet.

A witness described one attack by Bambara militiamen, or Dozos: “I was in my house and started hearing motorcycles…then gunfire and the sound of women screaming. I hid with my family but could see from a window that the Dozos had come. … I saw them entering houses, one by one, and then shooting people as they ran away, and later stealing… I heard one of them saying in Bambara, ‘Kill all the Peuhl…don’t let anyone escape.’”

Witnesses said that Dozos dragged 11 men from the mosque in Dankoussa in early September and then executed them. Others described how militiamen killed 17 men in July and threw their bodies into the village well. An attack on the village of Komboko in September by Dogon militiamen killed 14 villagers, including elderly women and children who were burned in their homes.

Witnesses also said that Islamist armed groups, allegedly supported at times by Peuhl self-defense groups, killed 46 Dogon villagers. Witnesses described the killings of a Muslim teacher, and of villagers, including children, foraging for wood or bringing food aid; or burned alive when their villages came under attack. At least 10 Dogon villagers died in 2018 from improvised explosive devices that armed Islamists appear to have planted.

The Malian government has inadequately followed through with their March commitment to disarm the militias and prosecute anyone carrying unauthorized weapons and implicated in abuses. Leaders from all communities said the Malian security forces were often slow to respond and at times failed to protect them from attacks by armed Islamist groups and self-defense militias.

Peuhl villagers described seeing militiamen, some involved in killings, carrying weapons, including military assault weapons, or circulating freely just a few days after the killings with no apparent attempt by the security forces to disarm or detain them for questioning. In some cases, the names of the alleged perpetrators had been reported to the authorities.

Prior to publication of the report, Human Rights Watch shared the major findings and recommendations with the Malian government, which, in response, detailed measures being taken to address the communal violence. The measures included establishing 16 new security posts in vulnerable areas, confiscating over 360 weapons, and opening investigations into the violence. Officials said their ability to protect civilians was hampered by competing security priorities and a lack of resources.

The government should more vigorously prosecute the killings, step up security force patrols to protect vulnerable populations, set up a hotline to report imminent attacks, and ensure that security forces respond to the violence quickly and impartially.

“The worsening violence in central Mali thrusts members of all ethnic groups into the dangerous cycle of violence and impunity,” Dufka said. “The Malian government and its allies need to confront this insecurity head-on before more blood is shed.”

(RFE/RL) — The United States remains the global leader in arms sales, while Russia has surpassed Britain to take the No. 2 spot as it attempts to modernize its military, a leading research group says.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said on December 10 in its annual report the combined sales of arms and military services by U.S. companies rose 2 percent in 2017 to $222.6 billion.

Russia became the second-largest arms producer, it said, with $37.7 billion, up 8.5 percent from a year earlier.

The group based its calculations on the combined sales of arms-related enterprises ranked among the top 100 producers worldwide. The United States had 42 of the top 100 companies, while Russia had 10, it said.

“Russian companies have experienced significant growth in their arms sales since 2011,” said Siemon Wezeman, senior researcher with SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Program.

“This is in line with Russia’s increased spending on arms procurement to modernize its armed forces,” he added.

The report said that for the first time, a Russian company, state-owned Almaz-Antey, appeared in the Top 10 in the ranking for global arms sales.

Alexandra Kuimova, a research assistant, said that Almaz-Antey, already Russia’s largest arms-producing company, increased arms sales 17 percent in 2017 to $8.6 billion.

The report said that along with Almaz-Antey, three other Russian Top 100 firms increased their arms sales by more than 15 percent: United Engine Corp. (25 percent), High Precision Systems (22 percent) and Tactical Missiles Corp. (19 percent).

Britain remained Western Europe’s largest arms seller, with a total of $35.7 billion, and it had seven companies listed in the Top 100.

The report also cited strong growth of Turkish arms sales, saying it “reflects Turkey’s ambitions to develop its arms industry to fulfill its growing demand for weapons and become less dependent on foreign suppliers.”

Overall, the report said, sales of the top 100 firms totaled $398.2 billion in 2017, a 2.5 percent increase over 2016. Sales of Chinese firms were not included, it noted, saying the information was not reliable.

SIPRI, established in 1966, describes itself as an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control, and disarmament.

Moscow faces prospects of harsher sanctions this coming January as the US Congress is set to discuss a new package of anti-Russian penalties. The Russian central bank has warned the country’s lenders over potential risks.

The regulator has recommended that Russian financial institutions take the necessary preventive steps in case their partner-banks are forced to stop providing connection to services by the world’s two most used payment systems – Visa and Mastercard, reports Russian business daily Vedomosti.

The list of Russia’s banking majors that are currently working as an intermediary include Credit Union “Payment Center,” one of Russia’s largest private lenders Uralsib, Rosbank that operates as a Russian subsidiary of the international financial group Societe Generale, Russia’s second biggest bank VTB and privately owned Promsvyazbank.

VTB and Promsvyazbank have already been included in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), approved by US Congress last summer. The legislation allows Washington to introduce penalties against enterprises and individuals that are seen as hostile towards the US or loyal to regimes that are hostile to the US.

The Central Bank of Russia advises that Russian banks should look for an alternative sponsor that will be able substitute a current provider of Visa and MasterCard services, seal a maintenance service contract and test an opportunity of integrating.

In response to sanctions Russia has developed its own national payment system. The Mir payment system was introduced in 2015 after clients of several Russian banks were temporarily unable to use Visa and Mastercard due to US sanctions. Customers found bank issued credit cards linked to Visa and Mastercard systems no longer worked. The country issued 37 million Mir cards as of June 2018.

Earlier this month, Sberbank CEO German Gref said one or two of the Russian lenders are vulnerable to potential US sanctions. However, Gref stressed that none of the banking majors would be sanctioned.

Polls in Armenia to elect members of parliament in the first vote after the velvet revolution closed at 8:00 pm on Sunday, December 9.

According to data provided by the Central Electoral Commission, 1.025 million (39.54%) eligible voters cast ballots in Armenia’s parliamentary elections as of 17:00 pm.

Acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan swept to power after months of peaceful protests and a civil disobedience campaign as tens of thousands of people took to the streets across the country demanding the resignation of former authorities.

Election campaign launched across Armenia on November 26 with leaders of parties and alliances traveling to the various provinces of the country for 12 days through December 7.

Eleven political forces were running in elections, including two blocs – Im Kayl “(My Step) and Menk (We) – as well as nine parties – Prosperous Armenia, National Progress, Christian Democratic Revival, Sasna Tsrer, Rule of Law, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Bright Armenia, the Republican Party of Armenia, Citizen’s Decision Social-Democratic Party.

Pashinyan resigned on October 16 after sweeping to power back in May.

My Step, led by Pashinyan himself, is expected to get a majority in the new legislature.

As planet Earth stumbles to the brink of ecological collapse, from irreversible climate change impact caused by man, survival of species, including Homo sapiens, is a vital issue. How can flora and fauna, thousands of species of which are now either threatened or endangered, be sustained?

How can economic growth like food production be sustained in a world now exceeding its carrying capacity without sacrificing remaining biodiversity habitats? How can we tame our energy-intensive appetite for luxury without effecting negative trade-offs in our ecosystems? How can we rein-in an economy based on greed totally detached from the web of life? Are we doing enough of our inter-generational responsibility to ensure that those yet unborn, may be able to benefit from today’s biodiversity?

The time of Descartes and Newton in the 17th and 18th centuries ushered in a “modern devotion”, a movement that went full steam ahead towards domination of nature and exploitation of its apparent unlimited riches.

But all of a sudden, at the turn of the 20th century, we are facing the grave ecological consequences of this domineering and disenchanting approach to the physical and natural world.

Development for What and For Whom?

All through 500 years until the dawn of this 21st century humans toiled, scarcely slowing down, bogged by the consciousness of progress and development. Yet, the dusk of the last century also brought in a reenchantment of reality– awareness of the limits of growth, the dwindling natural resources and the place of nature in man’s search for sustainability.

The economic models of growth were based on industries that although brought high standard of living for the Western nations, has entailed treating the world as an object of endless manipulation, alienating humans from their surroundings.

Today, the global cost for a high standard of living is enormous and hard to sustain. Worse, we have trespassed, raped and looted the resources meant for the unborn generations.

With thousands of floral and faunal species entering the Red Handbook of endangered, threatened and extinct species of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), there are signs that the historical stage of carefree over-development is coming to an end.

Man’s march to progress, now spells more doom than boom. Adverse climate change impacts mean environmental bills are coming. We are paying the price.

As our economic and environmental limits become more obvious, we are obliged to shift into a new framework and approach of thought in development.

Making Room for God

We need a to live not only in a new paradigm, view and live our world as a cosmos of organic system whose parts, both human and non-human, form an intricate network of interdependent components but more importantly put eco-spirituality in our approach to development wrote Charles Cummings, a monk of Holy Trinity Abbey, in Huntsville, Utah, USA.

Cummings, who holds a degree in formative spirituality from Duquesne University says in his book “Eco-Spirituality” there must be a spiritual dimension to our ecological approach because the universe is a deliberate result of a Creator with creative capacity and inexhaustible imagination.

The indigenous and tribal peoples of the world understood the relationship with the Earth much better, because of spirituality which allowed them to physically sustain it. This is often manifested in their ways of life, and expressed through their rituals and prayers.

The spirituality can be sensed in the way they respect their surroundings as they live in peace and wonder at the natural world around them, something rarely valued by modern man’s economic images of progress.

“God created heaven and earth”, Cummings quoted Genesis 1:1 of the Bible. But we misread our mandate, he says, misunderstanding the Genesis when it said “subdue and master Earth. We believed we have dominion, can control and exert power, and to dominate. Dominance led to devastation, he wrote.

We must reflect a divine image, to mirror God’s own way, as faithful caretakers of God’s garden which is this world, he said.

Caretakers Not Stewards

“Humanity does possess the unchallenged right to use the goods of the Earth but use has become abuse. The proper role of humans on earth is that of caretaker. The caretaker model incorporates the best features of stewardship model and adds the quality of faithful, respecting loving care,” Cummings explained.

The stewardship model defines that humans are agents or trustees of God charged with the safekeeeping of the Earth’s resources for the benefit of all. In Luke 12:42, Jesus praised the trustworthy steward who gave their allowance of food at the proper time but pointed out the danger of a steward growing careless or being concerned only for his own welfare, a likely reference of today’s reality.

Stewards are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the earth and will have to give an account to God of how we have used or abused our position. “Draw me up an account of your stewardship” says the master in a parable of Jesus in Luke 16:2.

Cummings says to give a spiritual dimension to stewardship, we need to include the soul in caring for planet Earth. The stewardship model does no go far enough and it is ambivalent as there are honest and dishonest stewards.

“The caretaker model never exploits, never acts like a tyrant, he is not the owner but then guardian, God is the owner, maker.”To him belongs the sea and the land,” Cummings quoted Psalms 95:4.

“The caretaker’s task is to nurture, heal and restore fostering the life and harmony everywhere, “ Cummings wrote.

A State of Disconnection

It is not difficult to analyze that the root cause of our ecological crisis is the absence of our connection to conscious awareness to life and all that gives life. Reverence is the foundational principle behind eco-spirituality. Everything that gives life must be treated as sacred.

This of course moves against the current irreverence of today’s society. A society that allows trees to be massacred to put up malls and parking spaces, dumping of garbage in the seas and rivers and tolerates animals to be slain for their tusks, fins or bileducts.

These societies have lost their reverence toward life, are irreverent toward the Earth. The hectic pace most people maintain in our post industrial culture is inimical to the spirit of reverence. Hasty living has no time to pause, no time to ponder the beautiful, haste is blind to everything except the deadline it is rushing to meet. Whatever gets in its way is likely to be run over with no regret. Haste is intrinsically irreverent.

The challenge now is to bring in spirituality in our relation with Earth, develop a values-based development structure, that is not concerned solely with our material well-being, but embraces reverence and love for the rich biodiversity of the Earth.

The human race must explore and work out ways that humanity can be served in its deepest sense, where Earth’s resources we use are not just commodities to be consumed, but part of the living fabric of a sacred Earth.

This may seem idealistic and impractical to most, but only a few decades ago organic farming, a practice of our ancestors, which respects the well-being of the soil, insects, microorganisms, cleanliness of water, diversity of heirloom, was considered uneconomic and idealistic. Now it is recognized and accepted as the only environmentally approach to sustainable farming.

Humans must reconnect with a way of life that respects and includes the soul as well as the land, water, landscape and every living and non living thing like the air, sun, moon and the forces of nature. Through spiritual values that respect both the individual and the environment, we will be able to comprehend God’s gifts and how central they are to the world we will leave to our children and grandchildren.

We are left with no choice, eco-spirituality will eventually usher new ways that support the idea that the best business environment is the environment.

But ours is the first move, to love, care and treat nature with reverence.

*Michael A. Bengwayan has a Masters Degree and Ph.D. in Development Studies and Environmental Resource Management from University College Dublin, Ireland as a European Union Fellow. He writes for the British Gemini News Service, New York’s Earth Times and the Environmental News Service. He is currently a Fellow of Echoing Green Foundation, New York

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said that he will honorably accept whatever ruling given by the Supreme Court on the petitions filed against the Gazette notification issued by him to dissolve Parliament and take future political actions according to it.

Sirisena said he is not happy about the administrative process vested in the President as a single individual under the Constitution as it should not be so in a country, with strong democratic traditions. He expressed confidence that this situation would soon change enabling him to work with a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers.

Sirisena said that he acted in a very responsible and patient manner in a country without a functioning Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers within the last few days.The President expressed these sentiments addressing the gathering at a programme held in Polonnaruwa on December 9.

The President who described the current political crisis as a problem among political parties added that certain people are attempting to interpret it as a problem between him and Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Sirisena however described this as a clash between an indigenous and foreign philosophy and added that when one implemented the philosophy of rising up independently through self-reliance without succumbing to foreign pressures, foreign forces would naturally become a challenge.“This was a matter which should be understood by the people,” the President added. Sirisena said he was certain that all the people who loved the country would take decisions favourable to the motherland.

“Of course there’s one Spain. If there was another, we’d all be in that one.” — Joke on Franco’s Spain, in London Review of Books, 37, July, 2015

Beware the corpse that never truly expires. General Francisco Franco might well be entombed in the Valley of the Fallen (Valle de los Caídos) – at least for the moment – but his remains are set for exhumation, to be disturbed on the wishes of Spain’s socialist government led by Pedro Sánchez. Fernando Martínez of the Justice Ministry, entrusted with handling matters on the delicate subject of historical memory, explains the rationale. “In a democratic society, there cannot be a dictator who is the subject of homages, or whose tomb is a site of fascist pilgrimage, or who has a monument in his honour.”

This might be all well and good, though it tends to jar with the delicate transition process Spain endured in the 1970s. It also sits uncomfortably with voters, whether as a priority or as a necessity. Sigma Dos, in a July poll for the daily El Mundo, found a mere 41 percent of Spaniards in agreement with moving the remains, while 54 percent also felt that the issue was not of importance at this time.

What came after the general’s death was a matter of political juggling, as much a case of rehearsed, and encouraged amnesia, as it did archiving matters of the mind. This form of forgetting had much practice, perfected by Franco himself before his death through what was termed “recuperation”. Reconciliation was off the books, though Franco, in his last message, sought “pardon of all my enemies, as I pardon with all my heart all those who declared themselves my enemy, although I did not consider them to be so.”

To attain the goal of democracy came with its own distasteful compromises, not least of all an acceptance that Francoist officials would be left untouched by any prosecuting process. Victims of Franco’s Spain duly felt confined to the status of víctimas de segunda – “second class citizens”, contributing to the new, and reformed country, in painful silence.

There have been attempts to edge towards confronting the bloody past of the Civil War and Franco’s legacy. In 2000, unmarked graves of the Civil War began being opened at the behest of such organisations as the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory. Eight years later, Judge Baltasar Garzón embarked on his own mission to investigate Franco’s blood-soaked handiwork, deemed by him crimes against humanity.

Garzón subsequently found himself in hot water, accused of knowingly exceeding his powers in ignoring the Amnesty law of 1977 injuncting any effort to initiate prosecutions against Francoists. In February 2012, the Supreme Court of Spain affirmed the law had a barring effect on the investigating efforts, though the enthusiastic examining magistrate was cleared at trial in a case brought by three right-wing organisations, including Franco’s own party, Falange España. It is a testament to the stubbornly vibrant legacy of Franco’s memory that Garzón could mount prosecutions against terrorists and authoritarian figures such as Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, but fall foul of the dead generalissimo.

From the Valley of the Fallen, where he resides in sombre reminder about wars and divisions, where then? Franco’s seven grandchildren, preferring the status quo, filed a petition with the Ombudsman’s Office in October to stop the move.

Failing that, the grandchildren insisted that a 2010 decree entitles Franco to be buried with full military honours with the whole complement of “national anthem, volley shots and a canon gun salute”. This might be, pardon the pun, ceremonial overkill, given that Franco already received one after he died in November 1975, an occasion marked by his coffin’s journey from the Victory Arch in La Moncloa in Madrid to the Valley of the Fallen monument.

The monument itself attests to the slaughter between 1936 and 1939, Europe’s own variant of Syria’s current civil war where a state withers before ravishment and military molestation. It saw the collapse of the Republican government at the hands of Franco’s Falangists and paramilitaries bent on a Christian reclamation, and the death of hundreds of thousands, 33,000 of whom are buried on the site. Powers such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could test their arms against army personnel and civilians; hypocrisy and cant ruled in the corridors of state across Europe. While Franco himself remained unmistakably adorned with his marker at the monument, his identity as victor known to all, most remain unmarked. To name would be to give suffering an identity, and render loss intimate.

The family’s plea now is to have the remains interred in the La Almudena cathedral, the very notion of which is unnerving to those of Spain’s political divide who fear a pro-Franco resurgence. To do so would also go against the object of this entire, potentially risky exercise, which is to de-sacralise and demystify the Franco cult. Franco, at least symbolically placed outside the perimeter of the capital, would find himself buried at its heart.

This newly invigorated drive has received some added momentum with the rise of a new political right in Spain. Since Franco’s death, Spain has kept host, in some minor form, to right-wing pretenders calling for the return of a strongman undaunted by the effete effects of democracy. Fuerza Nueva, España 2000 and Democracía Nacional can count themselves amongst them. Previously, goes one line of reasoning on this, there was no need for a larger neo-fascist following, if only because, in Dan Hancox’s words, “the political, bureaucratic and ideological legacy of Francoism lives on in the mainstream of Spanish power.”

Now, the Vox party has shown its credentials at the ballot box, despite being considered previously to be a dramatic, clownish outfit led by Santiago Abascal intent on initiating his own version of the “reconquest”. They have done well in regional elections, picking up 12 seats in Andalucía’s 109-seat parliament, thereby giving the socialist PSOE party a considering bruising. Vox’s Andalucían leader, Francisco Serrano, has given some flavouring of what the movement stands for: a revived, virile misogyny in the face of “psychopathic feminazis” and a reassertion of European values.

Franco’s remains might as well be Spain’s kryptonite, a sort of character flaw that, if disturbed, will merely serve to show a country permanently riven. Íñigo Errejón of Podemos prefers to read the lay of the land differently. To move Franco, he suggested in June, “would not open any wounds. On the contrary, it would reconcile Spanish democracy with democrats.” But Paloma Aguilar’s Memory and Amnesia (2002) reminds us how “the memory of historical misfortune and the fear of the dangers of radicalization contributed most to moderating the demands of all the important political and social groups of the time.”

Ironically enough, for officials charged with the management of memory, disturbing such matters as managed memory may well serve to enliven, rather than bury, the very subject of the exercise. Franco remains, in a very troubling way to Spanish history, a reminder and an influence.

Malaysia’s December 8, 50,000-strong rally against the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd) – which took place without any real reason, since Putrajaya had backed off from its original aim to ratify the treaty – saw 99.9 percent Malays staying at home out of boredom of being stupefyingly represented by ‘amuk Malays’.

Rallygoers went on a ‘melatah’ (exclamation) trip, where they protested for the sake of protesting.

This moment in history is a challenge to our Education Ministry to radically revamp the curriculum. It should underscore the importance of the direction of writing and teaching history that we are to embark upon.

What kind of history, or rather whose history, are we going to pass down to make the young peaceful and peaceable, and to help build a better Malaysia?

I have these notes for the Education Ministry to use as a guide:

Neuroscience and teaching

The science of brain-based learning has shed light on optimal learning conditions.

In Malaysia today, we have produced a nation of people that are angry and use race and religion as negative tools of engagement.

The nation’s brain has become ‘reptilian’ in this age of race-rooted mental insecurities, perpetually defaulting to fight or flight mode. This explains why we display signs and symbols of anger in public forums both in physical as well as cyberspace – keris wielding, internet spamming, and all other forms of human aggression.

Our education has failed to force our educators to teach tolerance. Had our schools and universities been less segregated, the evolution of our civil society would have taken place at a much faster pace.

Our institutions – political, cultural, and economic – are based on racism. We have forgotten that in each and every religion and culture lies the idea of the universality of human need, and how these will never be met through greed, or through institutions built upon wants and not needs.

We can help tap our students’ brain potential by guiding them to move away from the level of the ‘reptilian’ brain, and towards the ‘higher’ brain. The latter is a suitable condition for the advancement of higher order thinking skills, much needed to develop the three-pound universe in our head.

The mind will need new ways to be stimulated in order to grow. A plethora of research on brain-hemispheric dominance attests to the idea of mind expansion through proper care and education of both sides of the brain.

Newer strategies of teaching history, culture, and consciousness are therefore needed. Race and ethnicity are merely constructs of social dominance, containing neither scientific nor philosophical bases.

A new interpretation of history needs to be made, one that will debunk the myth of superiority of any race.

New historical accounts need to be constructed so that we may teach our students to interrogate the makers and producers of history, question signs and symbols of dominance, deconstruct theories built upon selective memory, put on trial glorified villains who abuse power, rediscover newer heroes, understand the issue of author, authorship, and authoritarianism in historicising, speak for the poor, silenced, marginalised, and oppressed, and have students explore creative dimension of subaltern history.

Essentially, we must make history and the study of cultures meaningful to our students.

Concepts to teach

New Bumiputeraism. Radical multiculturalism. Humanism. Evolving self. Alternative futures. Social reconstructionism. Counter-factual and alternative historicising. People’s history. Power and ideology.

All these concepts can be taught to our students of this New Malaysia; those young and curious minds that need a new understanding of Malaysian nationalism, or Bangsa Malaysia.

How do we teach these concepts?

We can involve students in activities that allow them to explore the meanings and mechanisms of culture. We can have them examine the universal and the particular in human motivations, behaviours, attitudes, values and beliefs.

We must expand their understanding of the dynamic nature of culture and increase their awareness of their own place in global series of cultures and subcultures, and the challenges and opportunities such situations present in cross-cultural communications.

We can get our students to construct alternative futures that draw out the ethical humanistic values into an integrative concept of ‘new bumiputeraism’ based on the premise that we are all human beings sharing a living space in borrowed time, and that the litmus test is how we treat fellow human beings with knowledge, understanding, and wisdom sound enough to make each other see through the lens of race, colour and creed.

I believe that if we resolve this issue of bumiputera versus non-bumiputera through education for peace, justice, and tolerance, we will see the demise of race-based politics and the dissolution of political parties that champion this or that race.

Ethnic studies as a vehicle of change for culture and consciousness will do the job – of course successfully in the hands of skilled trainers and professors who are colour-blind.

The challenge is this: do we have colour-blind educators who will profess colour-blind ideology? I hope we have them in all our public universities. After all, their training should allow them to be true to the subjectivity of culture and the sensitivity to race and ethnicity.

In fact, if we are sincere in developing our students’ intelligence, we should even have them revise our History syllabus in schools and ethnic studies module in our universities from time to time – so that we may not be the ‘sage on stage’ but a ‘guide on the side’.

Kings, queens, datuks, datins, slaves, serfs, sultans, subjects, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans – all these are artificial constructs.

Through time, space, and place, we create these constructs to enable or disable our understanding of what it means to be human.

Educators of multicultural studies must be trained to counter-hegemonise apartheid, bigotry, arrogance, racism, and disabling cultures through the art and science of teaching and through their own repertoire of strategies of mental liberation and cultural action for freedom.

It might be the longest battle – but this is going to be a great victory for Malaysian children of all races.

Dare we take up this educational challenge of crafting a people’s history of Malaysia?

On Dec. 8, Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary meeting of the 18th United Russia party congress, reiterated the key challenges, problems and accomplishments for the nation. The congress delegates identified the challenges and priorities in the party’s work for the coming year.

Putin acknowledged the party’s support during his presidential election campaign, saying it was “a momentous thing shaping the top institution of power” in Russia. This concerns the president, the government, the region – any level, down to the local or municipal one.

Putin further referred to an action plan that was presented in a condensed form in the Executive Order in May 2018 and that set out in national projects drafted by the Government (the majority in the Government are United Russia members) and was supported by legislators (United Russia holds the majority in the State Duma). He pointed to the fact that there would not be any success without United Russia’s backing at the regional and municipal level.

“The United Russia party plays a special role. For a number of years the party has been showing its competence, its ability to make responsible decisions, explain these decisions to the people,” Putin told the party delegates during his address, while acknowledging frankly that there have been pitfalls and problems in the political leadership.

Leadership means making responsible decisions the country needs. This leadership is an enormous resource to achieve dynamic and substantive change that can ensure a radical improvement in the quality of life and greater well-being of the population.

Putin reminded the party meeting that the entire world going through a dramatic situation. In his words: “the world is undergoing a transformation, a very powerful and dynamically evolving transformation, and if we do not get our bearings, if we do not understand what we need to do and how, we may fall behind for good.”

He suggested that United Russia with its tremendous legislative, organisational and human resource potential must fully utilise it and consolidate all of society, in solving development issues, in implementing the nationwide agenda.

Putin told the party delegates never allow any sort of rudeness, arrogance, insolence towards people at any level – at the top level and the lowest, municipal level. This is important because it does the country a disservice, it is unfair to the people and it denigrates the party to the lowest of the low. The public demands fairness, honesty and openness.

What is “society” after all? It is the people. Thus, one key factor here is that people’s opinions and attitudes must necessarily be taken into account. There must be commitment to implementing people’s initiatives, and their initiatives must be used in attaining common goals, especially at the municipal level, according to the Russian leader.

The most crucial thing for a political party is a steady standing of its representatives and that United Russia does not have to fear change but rather work strategically towards making a change for the better.

Putin further asked the delegates to work relentlessly for a free democratic country, development of nationwide tasks, realisation of new ideas and approaches. Discussions and competition, including within the party itself are very efficient tools for solving problems in the interests of the nation. United Russia has to do everything needed to instil both inside the party in particular and in society in general this political culture, an atmosphere of dialogue, trust and cooperation with all political forces of Russia.

President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to Singapore this week, and in particular his participation in the 3rd ASEAN-Russia Summit and 13th East Asia Summit (EAS), mark an important step in Russia’s efforts to broaden its pivot to the East. Hitherto, its pivot has been focused on China and Northeast Asia.

By Chris Cheang*

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin made his first-ever state visit to Singapore this week, on 13 November 2018, coinciding with the 33rd ASEAN Summit and related regional summits of geopolitical significance to Moscow and the larger Asia-Pacific. His inaugural visit took place “as both countries celebrate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations, reaffirms our broad-based and long-standing friendship with Russia,” a statement from the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

President Putin called on Singapore President Halimah Yacob and met Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Presidents Putin and Halimah also co-officiated the groundbreaking ceremony of the Russian Cultural Centre (RCC). The RCC will promote the study of the Russian language and culture, and facilitate the exchange of performances, exhibitions and science and technology. Moreover, four bilateral agreements were signed on the sidelines of the visit.

Growing Economic Links

President Putin’s visit comes nine years after that of Dmitry Medvedev in 2009, and more than two years after Prime Minister Lee’s 2016 visit to Russia.

Bilateral trade relations in the interim have grown from S$1.9 billion in 2007 to $7.4 billion in 2017; as of 2017, 690 Russian companies were present in Singapore with Russia being Singapore’s 24th largest trading partner. Singapore companies are active in Moscow, Tatarstan and the Penza region.

Singapore’s stock of Direct Investment Abroad in Russia amounted to $420 million as at the end of 2015; there are about 20 Singapore companies in Russia, in various sectors such as technology, consumer goods and services, infrastructure and trade.

Singapore’s economic links with Russia would be further enhanced with the possible role of Pavilion Energy (PE), a Singapore-based LNG company incorporated by Temasek, the Singapore global investment company, in the US$25.5 billion LNG project, Arctic LNG 2, to be developed by Novatek, Russia’s largest independent gas producer. This is a potential area of collaboration outlined in an agreement signed by Novatek’s Chairman, Leonid Mikhelson and PE CEO, Frederic Barnaud during the visit.

The fact that Singapore and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) are working on a free trade agreement (FTA) also made the state visit worthwhile; currently, Vietnam is the only ASEAN member to have concluded an FTA with the EEU (in 2016).

President Putin’s first visit to Singapore would add momentum to moving the bilateral relationship to a higher level, in particular on the part of large Russian state companies seeking to expand their presence in Singapore or the region, using Singapore as a springboard.

Geopolitical Element

President Putin’s other goal in making the trip to Singapore is to further cement the growing perception that Western attempts to isolate Russia have come to naught.

By attending the ASEAN-Russia and East Asia Summits, his first, President Putin has succeeded in signalling to Moscow’s Southeast Asian partner countries that he intends to broaden Russia’s widely-known pivot to the East, which has been hitherto more focused on China and Northeast Asia.

That there is an economic agenda as well is obvious. Many of the other EAS countries (the ASEAN 10 and their dialogue partners: Australia, Japan, India, China, New Zealand, the South Korea, and the United States) are already important and/or growing economic partners of Russia.

By attending these two meetings, President Putin has sought to assure his Southeast Asian partner countries and specifically ASEAN, that Russia is serious about enhancing ties; second, he would like to “show the flag” and perhaps illustrate to Southeast Asia that Russia is a power to be reckoned with in this region and cannot be written off; finally, he is signalling to the US and China, the current two major powers that are rivals in the region, that they must now expect Russia to become more active in and to seek influence in the region as well.

Implications for ASEAN

Russia’s growing interest in the Asia Pacific region bears implications for ASEAN.

On the one hand, ASEAN should welcome a strong Russian presence in the region in political, economic and cultural and other spheres. It would benefit both sides if the current state of the relationship, which leaves much to be desired, were to be enhanced. Moreover, the region should neither become hostage to the current political, strategic and economic tension between the United States and China nor fall victim to the ramifications of this state of affairs, a tall order indeed but one certainly worth striving for.

On the other hand, ASEAN should be cognisant of the possibility that great power rivalry in the region could only intensify should President Putin’s visit lead to higher and more active levels of Russian influence. The US and China are also not likely to welcome any “competition” in this regard.

All things considered, however, it is unlikely that Russia would be able or even willing to invest the necessary resources to make itself felt in the region. This is not for want of trying or desire. But it will act practically as its current relationship with China, Japan and South Korea/North Korea in Northeast Asia is of a higher order in economic, political and strategic terms than with ASEAN.

*Chris Cheang is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He served three tours of duty in the Singapore Embassy in Moscow between 1994 and 2013.

By Anchal Vohra

On December 3, Qatar quit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in a snub to rival Saudi Arabia.

Officially, the country’s Energy Minister Saad Sherida al-Kaabi said that Qatar would rather focus efforts on the production of liquified Natural Gas. The tiny peninsula is sitting on vast reserves of LNG and is the world’s top exporter of the resource. On the contrary, it makes up for merely 2% of the OPEC’s oil production.

Though the Qatari minister delinked the decision from regional politics, in tetchy remarks aimed at the Saudis, he said, “We are not saying we are going to get out of the oil business, but it is controlled by an organization managed by a country,” alluding to the Saudi control over the OPEC, and added that Qatar isn’t keen “to put efforts and resources and time in an organization that we are a very small player in, and I don’t have a say in what happens.”

Qatar’s latest salvo is yet another indication of how the Emir of Qatar doesn’t see any benefit in sticking to a cartel that he doesn’t derive much benefit out of but nonetheless continued to be a member of to appease Saudi Arabia, his overarching neighbour. Their relationship has been moving downwards since June last year when the Saudis imposed a land, sea and air blockade on Qatar, along with acolytes – the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. It was, supposedly, a punishment for supporting terrorists and fanning the Arab spring, charges Qatar denies. Leaving the OPEC is a sign that Qatar has not received any signs of the blockade lifting anytime soon.

I have been visiting Qatar over the last few months to ascertain how the Qataris are dealing with the embargo. Initially, there was some hope of the impasse resolving. But now, it has been replaced by nationalistic rhetoric. In the beginning, what seemed like a tale of envy among the monarch cousins, a mood swing, has now turned into status quo which experts close to Qatar’s royal house predict, “may last our life times”.

Qatar is learning to live with the blockade and trying to move towards self-reliance, to whatever extent it can.

The Persian Gulf nation has a wealth fund of $340 billion, more than enough to survive any crisis. Overnight, the Al-Thanis were forced to reroute the imports the tiny nation lives of and they did.  The shortage inflicted by the blockade lasted for just a few days. The shelves went empty although, mainly because of panic shopping.  Qatar’s supporters — Turkey and Iran included — supplied the essentials and unloaded them at the newly built $7.4 billion Hamad port. Within months, a Qatari company called ‘Baladna’ or ‘Our Country’ started manufacturing perishables like milk and cheese. It also  managed to streamline the import of supplies through newer routes. While Qatar airways showed losses, other Qatari businesses were boasting about remarkable profits.

Ibrahim Al-Emadi, a man running a range of businesses and is the cousin of the country’s finance minister, told this author: “Walla! Nothing better could have happened to us.” Emadi, also a member of the second most influential clan in Qatar, said that cutting out the Saudi and Emirati middleman has led to a substantial increase in his profits. “My businesses now earn 40% more.”

Last month, the International Monetary Fund stamped Qatar’s growth rates and announced that Qatar’s economy has grown despite the blockade. A statement issued by the IMF read, “Qatar’s economic performance continues to strengthen.”

Qatari riches ensured the Al-Thanis can opt for an independent foreign policy. The Emir hasn’t given in on any of the Saudi demands and instead is focusing on strengthening Qatar’s weak spots, such as its defence. They have decided to expand the American airbase of Al-Udeid — the largest US military facility in the region — to incorporate the families of 10,000 soldiers and earned a few browny points with Donald Trump, besides asserting to its neighbours that the base is its biggest bulwark against any misadventure the Saudi Crown prince may have in mind now or in the future. Besides, Qatar has decided to invest billions of dollars to purchase advanced weapon systems such as 36 American F-15s, 12 French Rafale fighters and 24 Eurofighter Typhoon aircrafts to buttress its defence. Qatar has also announced to double up its naval forces by 2025 and expanded its national service programme from 3-12 months. In a first, by next year, Qatar will also accept females to enlist.

The Saudis and the Emiratis have much larger forces. They have modernised their armed forces over the decades. Matching up to their numbers is a daunting task for the Qataris, home to all of 300,000 native citizens.

Qataris are the most pampered citizens in the world, with the state providing them with much of what is needed to live for free. It remains to be seen how much enthusiasm will the Qataris show to become a part of the armed forces which requires a tougher routine.  Nonetheless, the Qatari government seems determined to persuade the natives to take charge of the country’s security as the possibility of an attack from the neighbours takes birth in the mind of the ruling class.

Strategically, the Qataris have neither stopped supporting the Muslim Brotherhood nor have they severed ties with Iran. They have though benefitted out of the Saudi prince Mohamad bin Salman’s whimsical foreign policy manoeuvres and his authoritarian governing style. Salman’s Yemen policy is now slammed for exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the war-torn country. His idea to have Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri resign whilst in Riyadh yielded nothing. At home, arresting the Saudi women’s rights activist shut up those hailing him as a new age Arab reformer. The brutal killing of dissident Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, proved to be the last straw. The Qataris said the minimum on the Khashoggi case. It was a clever move. Saudi trolls were already trying to blame the Qatari-Turkish nexus behind the killing. Qatar surmised that a Saudi loss of face adds to their credibility and that too without them doing or saying anything.

A series of Gulf and Middle East-related developments suggest that resolving some of the Middle East’s most debilitating and devastating crises while ensuring that efforts to pressure Iran do not perpetuate the mayhem may be easier said than done. They also suggest that the same is true for keeping US and Saudi interests aligned.

Optimists garner hope from the fact that the US Senate may censor Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman for the October 2 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul; the positive start of Yemeni peace talks in Sweden with an agreement to exchange prisoners, Saudi Arabia’s invitation to Qatar to attend an October 9 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in Riyadh, and a decision by the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut production.

That optimism, however, may not be borne out by facts on the ground and analysis of developments that are likely to produce at best motion rather than movement. In fact, more fundamentally, what many of the developments suggest is an unacknowledged progressive shift in the region’s alliances stemming in part from the fact that the bandwidth of shared US-Saudi interests is narrowing.

There is no indication that, even if Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani decides to accept an invitation by Saudi king Salman to attend the GCC summit rather than send a lower level delegation or not attend at all, either the kingdom or the United Arab Emirates, the main drivers behind the 17-month old economic and diplomatic boycott of the Gulf state, are open to a face-saving solution despite US pressure to end to the rift.

Signalling that the invitation and an earlier comment by Prince Mohammed that “despite the differences we have, (Qatar) has a great economy and will be doing a lot in the next five years” do not indicate a potential policy shift, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash insisted that the GCC remained strong despite the rift. “The political crisis will end when the cause behind it ends and that is Qatar’s support of extremism and its interference in the stability of the region.,” Mr. Gargash said, reiterating long-standing Saudi-UAE allegations.

Similarly, United Nations-sponsored peace talks in Sweden convened with the help of the United States may at best result in alleviating the suffering of millions as a result of the almost four-year old Saudi-UAE military intervention in Yemen but are unlikely to ensure that a stable resolution of the conflict is achievable without a lowering of tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even humanitarian relief remains in question with the parties in Sweden unable to agree on a reopening of Sana’a airport to facilitate the flow of aid.

More realistically, with the Trump administration, backed by Saudi Arabia and Israel, determined to cripple Iran economically in a bid to force it to alter its regional policies, if not change the regime in Tehran, chances are the Yemeni conflict will be perpetuated rather than resolved.

To Yemen’s detriment, Iran is emerging as one of the foremost remaining shared US-Saudi interests as the two countries struggle to manage their relationship in the wake of Mr. Khashoggi’s killing. That struggle is evident with the kingdom’s Washington backers divided between erstwhile backers-turned-vehement critics like Republican senator Graham Lindsey and hardline supporters such as national security advisor John Bolton. The jury is out on who will emerge on top in the Washington debate.

The risks of the Saud-Iranian rivalry spinning out of control possibly with the support of hardliners like Mr. Bolton were evident in this week’s suicide bombing in the Iranian port of Chabahar, an Indian-backed project granted a waiver from US sanctions against the Islamic republic to counter influence of China that support the nearby Pakistani port of Gwadar.

Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Revolutionary Guards spokesman Brigadier General Ramadan Sharif suggested without providing evidence that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the attack that targeted the city’s police headquarters, killing two people and wounding 40 others.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency, believed to be close to the Guards, said the attack was the work of Ansar al-Furqan, an Iranian Sunni jihadi group that Iran claims enjoys Saudi backing.

Iran’s allegation of Saudi complicity is partly grounded in the fact that a Saudi thinktank linked to Prince Mohammed last year advocated fuelling an insurgency in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchistan that incudes Chabahar in a bid to thwart the port development while Mr. Bolton before becoming US President Donald J. Trump’s advisor called for US support of ethnic minorities in Iran.

In a bid to create building blocks for the fuelling of ethnic insurgencies in Iran, Pakistani militants have said that Saudi Arabia had in recent years poured money into militant anti-Iranian, anti-Shiite madrassas or religious seminaries in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders on Sistan and Baluchistan.

The divergence of US-Saudi interests, agreement on Iran notwithstanding, was on display in this week’s defeat of a US effort to get the UN General Assembly to condemn Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip. Saudi Arabia, despite the kingdom’s denunciation of Hamas as a terrorist organization and its demand that Qatar halt support of it, voted against the resolution.

The vote suggested that Mr. Trump may be hoping in vain for Saudi backing of his as yet undisclosed plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that is believed to be slanted towards Israel’s position.

Saudi ambassador to the UN Abdallah Al-Mouallimi said the defeated UN resolution would “undermine the two-state solution which we aspire to” and divert attention from Israel’s occupation, settlement activities and “blockade” of territories occupied during the 1967 Middle East war.

Saudi Arabia’s changing status and the divergence of longer-term US-Saudi interests was also evident in this week’s OPEC meeting in Vienna.

To get an OPEC deal on production levels, the kingdom, once the oil market’s dominant swing producer, needed an agreement with non-OPEC member Russia on production levels as well as Russian assistance in managing Iranian resistance, suggesting

The agreement, moreover, had to balance Mr. Trump’s frequently tweeted demand for lower prices, and the kingdom’s need for higher ones to fund its budgetary requirements and Prince Mohammed’s ambitious economic reforms and demonstrate that the Khashoggi affair had not made it more vulnerable to US pressure.

The emerging divergence of US-Saudi interests in part reflects a wider debate within America’s foreign policy community about what values the United States and US diplomats should be promoting.

With some of Mr. Trump’s ambassadorial political appointees expressing support for populist, nationalist and authoritarian leaders and political groups, the fact that some of the president’s closest Congressional allies back the anti-Saudi resolution illustrates that there are red lines that a significant number of the president’s supporters are not willing to cross.

All told, recent developments in the Middle East put a spotlight on the changing nature of a key US relationship in the Middle East that could have far-reaching consequences over the middle and long-term. It is a change that is part of a larger, global shift in US priorities and alliances that is likely to outlive Mr. Trump’s term(s) in office.

As if the discovery of sophisticated Hezbollah tunnels penetrating into Israel and violating the UN truce terms was not enough of an embarrassment to the Lebanese government, the political situation is deadlocked as well.  Hezbollah is also at the centre of that débacle.

Lebanon went to the polls on 6 May, 2018. Seven months later, the political parties are at deadlock over forming a new government.

Nine long years had passed since the previous parliamentary elections which, according to the constitution, were supposed to be held every four years. But there were no elections in 2014, and ever since ministers and politicians have voted again and again to postpone elections and extend the current parliament, citing security concerns, political crises and disputes over the election law.

When the new poll was finally held, the political landscape within Lebanon and in the region had changed dramatically. The intervening period had seen both the rise and the battlefield defeat of Islamic State in neighbouring Iraq and Syria, a dramatic extension of Iranian power in both countries, the direct involvement of Hezbollah military forces – composed, be it remembered, of young Lebanese fighters – in the civil conflict in Syria, acting under direct Iranian command, and a huge build-up of sophisticated Iranian weaponry in Lebanon itself, together with the development of arms manufacturing facilities on a massive scale.

Moreover, the previous pro-Western, Saudi-backed political alliance led by prime minister Saad Hariri, was crumbling. Over the nine years from 2009 Hariri’s government had included members of the increasingly confident, Iran-backed Hezbollah – one obvious sign of Iran extending its power base into Lebanon by way of its subsidiary. This was a dangerous development that Saudi Arabia, leader of the Sunni world, was determined to nip in the bud.

In November 2017, urged on, it is surmised, by Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, Hariri travelled to Riyadh, and from the Saudi capital he resigned as Lebanon’s prime minister, incorporating a resounding denunciation of Hezbollah and Iran in his announcement.

The resultant political storm could not be contained. He stayed abroad for two weeks, then travelled back to Lebanon where he withdrew his resignation, and resumed his office. But all was far from well. Hariri could never be reconciled to the increasingly dominant position that Hezbollah was assuming within the Lebanese body politic. Regardless of his political objections, his personal reasons are overwhelming.

On February 14, 2005, his father, Rafik Hariri, one-time prime minister and a powerful opponent of Syrian and Hezbollah dominance in Lebanon, was assassinated. The subsequent judicial proceedings, which are still ongoing after 13 years, have pretty well established that the murder was ordered by Bashar al Assad, Syria’s president, and carried out by Hezbollah operatives. So Saad Hariri had business left unfinished by his father to complete. There is no doubt that Rafik would have been appalled by the extent to which Iran has gained control over Lebanon’s military power, and is using the country as a manufacturing base from which to arm the Shi’ite crescent that it is consolidating. For Iran is building and equipping a Shi’ite empire extending from Yemen, via Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Syria and through to Lebanon.

There are well-founded reports that Iran has established facilities, managed and operated by Hezbollah, for manufacturing missiles and other weapons in Lebanon. The weaponry includes surface-to-surface and surface-to-sea missiles, torpedoes, spy drones, anti-tank missiles, and fast armoured boats. There are reports of at least two underground facilities constructed in Lebanon for manufacturing missiles and other weaponry including the Fateh 110, a medium-range missile with a range of approximately 300 kilometers − enough to cover most of Israel − and capable of carrying a half-ton warhead.

The May parliamentary elections, which employed a proportional representation system for the first time, saw the collapse of Hariri’s Future Movement (FM) and the continued growth of Hezbollah. The FM lost 13 seats while Hezbollah gained three. But the biggest winner was the Free Patriotic Movement and its allies, led by Gebran Bassil, which emerged as the largest bloc with 29 members.

Bassil, the son-in-law of Lebanon’s president Michel Aoun, was criticized by many Lebanese politicians for a media interview in December 2017 in which he stated that Lebanon does not have an ideological problem with Israel, and that he was not against Israel “living in security.”

Seven months after the elections, however, talks about the formation of a new government in Lebanon remain at an impasse. The complex sectarian rules governing Lebanon’s constitution mean that Hariri remains prime minister designate, because that office is reserved for a Sunni Muslim and Bassil, a Maronite Christian, is debarred from filling it. But at the heart of the disagreement between the various political factions is how much power Hezbollah should exercise.

Hezbollah is, of course, a Shia Muslim organization, but in the complex Lebanese political world it actually supports some smaller Sunni political groups. A particular bone of contention in the discussions is whether these Sunni bodies should be included along with Hezbollah in the formation of the new government. In particular Hezbollah has been demanding that one of its Sunni allies be awarded a ministerial seat in the Cabinet. If granted, this would come out of the prime minister’s share of Sunni seats, and Hariri rejects the proposal outright.

This is the so-called “Sunni tangle”. If past experience is anything to go by, unravelling it could take not months, but years.

In his speech of November 6, 2018, King Mohammed VI extended a hand for peace and goodwill to the Algerian government, with the hope to start a new chapter of good relations. Nevertheless, the Algerian government did not respond to this initiative of friendship, so far. And a no answer posture is in many ways equivalent to saying unofficially: no way.

Sand War (September 25, 1963 – February 20, 1964)

During the long spell of French colonial presence in Algeria that lasted 130 years, France considered this country as a French department: Algérie française. When the independence war started (November 1, 1954 – March 19, 1962,) realizing that it is going to, ultimately, leave Algeria, the French authorities turned to the Moroccans asking them to sit down to negotiate the restitution of territories that they have cut off from Morocco during the long colonial spell. King Mohammed VI, in the name of the pan-Arab brotherhood utopia, of the time, turned down the French initiative saying that undertaking something in this vein and at that time in history is equivalent to stabbing a sister country in the back and that after independence Algeria will, unilaterally, restitute the territories in question. However, after independence in 1963, Algeria flatly refused to do such a thing on the grounds that the territories in question are fully Algerian.

The abrupt refusal escalated the tension between the two countries and a war known as the « Sand War » ensued in September 1963 leading to the defeat of Algeria. Rather than hold on the territory grabbed during the brief war by the Moroccan army to undertake the necessary land swap later on , Hassan II in, an unexpected move, instructed the army to return home to avoid a long term conflict with Algeria, but the harm was done and animosity towards Morocco was born in the Algerian official circles.

Sahara Conflict

During the era of President Houari Boumedienne (1932-1978), in the official narrative, Morocco was seen as the enemy because it tried to cut Algeria in its teens. The official policy among political leadership and army strategists stated clearly, in private, that Morocco is a great danger to the unity and survival of Algeria and, as such, must be challenged in all areas and at all times.

One first such challenge was the Sahara issue. While Boumedienne in 1974 accepted the takeover of the territory by both Morocco and Mauritania, yet he adopted the Polisario Front, in 1975, that was calling for full independence of the Spanish-colonized territory of the Sahara.

The tripartite agreement between Spain, the colonial power, Morocco and Mauritania, known as Madrid Accords of November 15, 1975, ceded the territory to these two latter countries.

To mar the Moroccan-Mauritanian takeover, Algeria armed the Polisario which launched attacks on both Morocco and Mauretania, the latter unable to bear the brunt of such military onslaught left the territory and ceded its part to Morocco in 1978. During the 70s, 80s and 90s of the last century Algeria not only armed the Polisario but, also and most importantly, bought external support for it in the Organization of African Unity -OAU- and in the UN, thanks to the petrodollars it got from its oil revenues.

Morocco countered Polisario’s militarily efforts by building a defensive wall (The Moroccan Western Sahara Wall is an approximately 2,700 km (1,700 miles) long structure, mostly a sand wall running through Western Sahara and the southwestern portion of Morocco) that stopped the latter’s encroachments in the territory under Moroccan control. On the other hand, Morocco put forth an autonomy plan for the territory (The Western Sahara Autonomy Proposal,) an initiative, proposed in 2006 as a possible solution to the Western Sahara conflict. This plan has been since receiving a lot of support from many nations of the world and is considered as a viable political solution to the conflict, for the time being.

Closing Borders

Besides the Sahara conflict the official Algerian enmity is expressed through the actual closing of territorial borders and the cessation of all possible economic activity. In 1994, Marrakech and most precisely Hotel Asni witnessed one of the first terrorist attacks in the country. The attack that left two people dead was carried out by three Algerian-French nationals. Morocco back, then, accused the Algerian intelligence services of planning the deadly shooting, a claim that worsened the diplomatic relations between the two neighboring countries.

Morocco, consequently, closed off its borders briefly but Algeria used such a decision as an excuse to impose a permanent closure on the borders to stop Algerians visiting Morocco, in millions, and spending lots of money that would benefit and strengthen Moroccan economy. It is, also, an excuse to prevent the Algerian people from witnessing the tremendous development realized by Morocco in various sectors of the economy in spite of the fact that the country does not have any oil.

The Algerian animosity toward Morocco is exclusively the work of the Algerian military that control the country through docile political parties and an incapacitated president. Other than that, the Algerian people feel close to the Moroccan people because of shared religion, language and culture and they express this closeness every time they are given the opportunity.

What Will Alter This Belligerent Attitude?

The hate of Morocco and what it represents is ingrained in the Algerian military psyche, and only two possible developments can, ultimately, put an end to it.

Development 1:

Algeria goes bankrupt economically and allows in the IMF and the World Bank to clean its financial mess and this will open economic borders and allow Moroccan companies to do businesses in this country.

Development 2:

The future possible cutting of subsidies will bring the population to the streets and a revolution ensues that puts an end to military control and brings democracy to the country.

Barring these two developments Algeria will continue holding a grudge against Morocco and the Maghreb Union will be just a wishful thinking if not a political joke, to say the least.

By S. Chandrasekharan

In a meeting with Suu Kyi, the Chairman of the China Development and Reforms Commission (NDRC), Ning Jizhe, tried to hustle Myanmar to workout an ‘implementation Plan’ for the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) under the Belt Road Initiative. Suu Kyi stood her ground and made a very significant response that said – “the CMEC Projects (are) needed to be implemented in line with the Myanmar’s sustainable Development Plan and should support the long-term interest of both peoples. Th message was that it should not be in the interest of China alone but that of Myanmar also.

She also stressed that China needed to negotiate the projects systematically and in accordance with domestic rules and regulations.( thus avoid going to BRI Courts in Xian in China later)

This timely reminder to China is not only for Myanmar itself but for other countries who are negotiating various projects in this region under the BRI.

This reminds me of a well thought out remarks by an analyst of Sri Lankan origin Gajalakshmi Paramasivam, in connection with the projects in Sri Lanka. She pointed out that “Borrowing without the ability to repay results in slavery. One who is a slave does not have the capacity to work sovereign powers anytime, anywhere!”

It looks that countries in South and South East Asian region have begun to understand the sinister intentions of China in going ahead in a big way with mega projects in countries that do not have the ability to repay. The case of Hambantota port being swallowed up by China is a case in point.

The Mega project at Kyaukphyu on Myanmar’s east coast in Myanmar in Rakhine Province is another case in point.

After two years of intense behind the scenes negotiation, the CITIC Conglomerate of China and the Myanmar Government signed a deal on 8th November. It is not a coincidence that China took a major initiative at the same time to get the KIA the second most powerful insurgent unit to talk to the Myanmar Peace Commission to find ways to de-escalate the intense fighting going on between Myanmar Army (Tatmadaw) and the KIA.

The Chinese efforts to bring the warring parties to talk is not to be seen as a benign effort to bring peace to the region for its own sake, but to help the infra structure projects under the BRI and China Myanmar Economic Corridor that would necessarily need peace and stability in the region.

While signing the agreement, the Chairman of the CITIC Chang Zhenming said that the project is meant to be only the beginning for further steps! He admitted that the project comes under the BRI meant to connect Myanmar with Western China as well as an ‘economic corridor’ joining other ASEAN economies.

Knowing the resentment of the local people (Myitsone dam), U Set Aung, Chairman of the Kyaukphyu SEZ management Committee and Deputy Minister of Planning and Finance, bravely said that the project will not amount to a debt burden for Myanmar though it is too early to make such a statement. The Minister must also be aware that the same CITIC Group is negotiating to develop an industrial park with an investment of 2.7 billion US $ with 51 to 49 percent stake between the Chinese firm and Myanmar respectively. Two weeks earlier on- October 22nd to be precise, the Myanmar railways and the China Railway Group signed an MoU to build a railway line between Mandalay and Muisse on the Chinese border. This is part of an ambitious road/rail project to connect Yunnan with Mandalay to Yangon and on to the deep-water port at Kyaukphyu.

The project in the first phase involves the construction of two deep water berths ( brought down from 6) and an industrial Special Economic Zone Park.

The NLD Government knowing fully well the debt trap that would follow, has brought the projected investment from 7.3 Billion to 1.3 billion dollars and also brought down the stakes from 85-15 originally agreed to 70-30 ratio. Myanmar expects to give half of its stake to private companies.

What is missing in the whole dealing is transparency, a complaint that is being heard from Pakistan too.

Tall claims are now being made that 90 percent of managerial posts in the SEZ will be filled by Myanmar workers and a total of 100,000 locals are supposed to be benefitted!

The fact is that the Kyaukphyu port and the infra structure road and rail projects are part of the desperate efforts of the Chinese to find an alternative route to the Indian Ocean and thus avoiding the Malacca Straits. By diversifying the sea trade route, China would save about 5000 Kms of sailing distance.

One cannot but conclude that the chief beneficiary of the Kyaukphyu Port is China.

It is hoped that the smaller countries in South and South Eastern region do not fall a prey to the allurements of “generous offers” of loans by China only to be enslaved eventually. The tactics are familiar. First get the country to be strategically dependent and then go for economic strangulation. Pakistan knows it!

The countries that are enthusiastically getting involved in the BRI which is actually Belt and Road Invasion should again be reminded of the dictum “Borrowing without the ability to repay results in slavery”

A representative of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, denounced the normalization talks between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel as a stab in the back of the Palestinian nation.

Speaking at a meeting on “US Violation of Human Rights in West Asia”, held in Tehran on Monday, Hamas representative in Iran Khaled Qadoumi voiced his movement’s strong opposition to the negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Zionist regime of Israel that are aimed at normalizing relations.

“The talks on normalization of relations with the Zionist regime, which are under way, are in fact a stab in the back of the Palestinian people and must end as soon as possible,” Qadoumi said.

He also took a swipe at the Israeli regime and its main ally, the US, for violating human rights across Palestine in various forms.

Qadoumi said one of the most brazen violations of human rights by Israel has been obvious during the massive wave of protests known as the Great March of Return, bashing the Zionist regime’s military forces for shooting directly at defenseless demonstrators.

The Great March of Return, organized by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, started on March 30, the commemoration of Land Day, which marks the events of March 30, 1976, when Israeli police shot and killed six Palestinian citizens as they protested against the Zionist regime’s expropriation of land.

The Great March of Return protests call for recognition of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right enshrined in international law, and the end of the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt for over a decade, which has caused suffering to the Palestinians living there.

A commander of Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi (popular forces) revealed that the US forces have established 8 military bases in Western Iraq, near the border with Syria, warning of Washington’s plots to gain control over the strategic and oil-rich region.

The Arabic-language Baghdad al-Youm news website quoted Qassem Mosleh as saying on Monday that recently the US forces have set up bases in al-Qa’em, the international road, area between al-Rotba and region 160, the area between al-Walid and al-Rotba and 4 bases in al-Rotba in al-Anbar province in Western Iraq.

He added that the Americans will take control of Western and Southern al-Rotba, which has not yet been cleansed, once it is through with setting up these bases.

He accused the US military of cooperating with the ISIL, saying that the terrorists will move more and more easily in the region if the US forces stand in control of the region.

Mosleh also disclosed that the US plans to gain control over the strategic region which is rich with oil and hosts important trade routes.

A senior commander of Hashd al-Shaabi had also said last Tuesday that the ISIL commanders were hiding at US bases at Iraq’s border with Syria and warned that Washington sought to use the terrorists as a leverage against Baghdad and Damascus.

The Arabic-language al-Ma’aloumeh news website quoted Hashem al-Moussavi as saying that a number of ISIL leaders were sheltered at Iraq’s border with Syria to survive current attacks by the Iraqi security forces and Hashd al-Shaabi.

He added that Syria’s al-Tanf base is the main stronghold of the terrorists and supplies the ISIL remnants with weapons, military equipment and intelligence, noting that Washington aims to use the ISIL commanders as a leverage to pressure Baghdad and Damascus.

Al-Moussavi said that the Iraqi security forces and Hashd al-Shaabi are at present trying to cleanse Wadi Houran region in al-Anbar (at the borders between Iraq and Syria) from terrorists, adding that the US fighter jets often provide a cover to the ISIL moves between Iraq and Syria.

The US-led coalition has long been suspected of colluding with the ISIL terrorist group in Eastern Syria for quite a few years now. Experts believe the US needs to keep a contained group of ISIL terrorists operating in the region in a bid to justify its buildup in Eastern Syria.

Washington is once again gripped by the specter of a government shutdown, as Congress and President Trump negotiate an end-of-year spending deal. A main issue of contention is funding for President Trump’s border wall. Sadly, but not surprisingly, neither Congress nor the administration is fighting to cut, or at least not increase, spending.

Federal spending has increased from 3.6 trillion dollars to 4.4 trillion dollars since Republicans gained control over both chambers of Congress in 2014. Some may try to defend congressional Republicans by pointing out that for two years the Republican Congress had to negotiate spending deals with President Obama. But federal spending has increased by 7.5 percent, or over 300 billion dollars, since Donald Trump become President.

A big beneficiary of the Republican spending spree is the military-industrial complex. Republicans have increased the “defense” budget by eight percent in the past two years. President Trump and congressional Republicans claim the increases are necessary because sequestration “decimated” the military. But Congress, with the Obama administration’s full cooperation and support, suspended sequestration every year but one, so the planned cuts never went into full effect. Congress and Obama also “supplemented” the official military budget with generous appropriations for the Pentagon’s off-budget Overseas Contingency Operations fund. Spending on militarism increased by as much as 600 billion dollars over the amounts allowed for under sequestration.

President Trump has proposed reducing the projected military budget for fiscal year 2020 to 700 billion dollars. This would be a mere two percent cut, yet the usual voices are already crying that this tiny reduction would endanger our security. If history is any guide, the military-industrial complex’s congressional allies and high-priced lobbyists will be able to defeat the president’s proposed reductions and convince President Trump to further increase the military budget.

This huge military budget has little or nothing to do with America’s legitimate security needs. In fact, as candidate Trump recognized, America’s military interventions in the Middle East have endangered our security by empowering terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

While the warfare state has been a big beneficiary of the Republican spending spree, the GOP has hardly neglected the welfare state. Domestic spending has increased seven percent since 2016. Except for a half-hearted attempt to repeal Obamacare and some food stamp reforms that were included in and then dropped from this year’s farm bill, Republicans have not made any effort to roll back or even reform the welfare state.

The farm bill, which Congress is expected to pass this week, will spend as much as 900 billion dollars over the next ten years. Much of that spending will be on taxpayer subsidies for wealthy farmers and even “farmers in name only.”

Trump’s budget deals have been supported by the majority of Democrats. Even those who have called for the president’s impeachment are more than happy to vote with him when it comes to increasing spending and debt. These Democrats are the mirror image of 1990s Republicans who made a big spending deal with President Clinton while simultaneously trying to impeach him.

We suffer from too much bipartisanship when it comes to the welfare-warfare state. This bipartisanship has resulted in a national debt that is rapidly approaching 30 trillion dollars. This will inevitably lead to a major economic crisis. The way to avoid this crisis is to replace the bipartisan welfare-warfare consensus with a new consensus in favor of limited government, peace, free markets in all areas including currency, and auditing then ending the Fed.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Chris Doyle

Fancy playing Brexit bingo? Pundits, political sages and seasoned observers are all guessing blindly in the dark as to the next chapter of the Brexit tragicomedy. Put on a blindfold and make a stab at it.  Even as the government on Monday pulled back from an imminent vote on the withdrawal agreement, the multiple scenarios littering the gameboard are: Parliament agreeing to Theresa May’s potentially reshaped withdrawal agreement; seeking a significantly amended deal — either a Norway-plus or a Canada-plus-plus deal perhaps — a Brexit delay; the fall of the May government and a new prime minister; a general election; a second referendum; or a no-deal exit. The British government is barely capable of governing. Westminster has effectively ground to a noisy halt.

In just a single hour last week, three votes led to the British government suffering three Parliamentary defeats. For the first time in British history, a sitting government was found to be in contempt of Parliament after it had refused to publish in full the legal advice it had received, which MPs had determined it must. Inevitably the government had to concede. Has there ever been a weaker, arguably more shambolic, British government?

The bleeding of political power away from the executive was capped when MPs passed an amendment that gave Parliament a say as to what happens if May’s plan is voted down. Parliament has shown its teeth as the theoretical representative of the people’s will.

Nobody in Britain or the EU could charge the British prime minister with anything less than maximum effort to sell her deal. However, people are just not buying. At the fringes, Brexit diehards try to see the equally implausible option that somehow the EU will renegotiate and within weeks give Britain a much better deal. How and why is not explained. The reality surely is that the EU will simply hold fast to the deal as agreed.

The Conservative Party can also ill afford to change leader now. Six or seven candidates are primed and raring to go, but whoever is chosen will not be able to lead. The party is not one capable of being led. Shift the government position to a harder Brexit and it loses support in the center and vice versa.

Brexit is a constitutional crisis, a crisis in democracy and, in a no-deal scenario, a security and economic crisis. The constitutional crisis revolves around the futures of both Northern Ireland and Scotland. The latest opinion polls indicate that the majority of Scots still prefer independence to Brexit. The democratic crisis is that no majority in Parliament exists for any plan that might be perceived as implementing the expressed will of the British people as expressed in the 2016 referendum. Elected representatives cannot agree to a deal to implement the popular vote.

MPs face the unpalatable choice of voting for a deal that might deliver on the referendum but unquestionably leaves Britain with less control, and economically worse off. If, when all other options are exhausted, a second referendum looms, many voters will ask why they need to be consulted again when an answer had already been given. A general election in all likelihood will not settle any of the Brexit questions and could even just exacerbate existing divisions. Most MPs would not be able to fight an election on the manifestos their parties would put forward because they could not agree with their party’s position on Brexit.

The European Court of Justice also ruled on Monday that Britain could unilaterally cancel Article 50, ending Brexit. It makes a second referendum more likely than a no-deal scenario, as the UK does not need the EU’s permission to remain. Under UK law, it would just need a new act of Parliament to stay in the EU.

Choose any path and it comes jam-packed with division and rancor in a patriot versus traitor hate-fest. Civil discord is a serious possibility. Britain will remain a divided country, with no option capable of commanding even a begrudging consensus. Chatting to MPs from all parties last week, the striking feature was that no two could agree. Clarity may be a distant dream for months to come.

Increasingly, the only exit from this pickle is a second referendum, which has been repeatedly ruled out by the government. A general election does not guarantee a specific outcome. The challenge about returning the ball to the voters is that they are fed up with playing the game. If the government is in contempt of Parliament, the general public is increasingly in contempt with the entire political system.

• Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). Twitter: @Doylech