By Doug French*

Referring to someone as a sociopath is strong language. After all, just between 3 and 5 percent of Americans are really sociopaths , people who initially seem charming, but, due to bad neurological wiring, lack a conscience and are unable to feel remorse. They are exceptional liars and cheats, and have no capacity to feel guilt.

But according to author and multi-millionaire tech hedge fund manager, Bruce Cannon Gibney, anyone born between 1946 and 1964 (baby boomers) that are still living are sociopaths.

“There is something wrong with the Boomers and there has been for a long time,” writes Gibney in the forward to A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America and the author’s beatings continue for 400-plus pages.

He doesn’t let any of us Boomers off the hook, but really focuses on “generational representatives like Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Donald Trump, and Dennis Hastert–a stew of philanderers, draft dodgers, tax avoiders, incompetents, hypocrites, holders of high office censured for ethics violations, a sociopathic sundae whose squalid cherry was provided in 2016 by Hastert’s admission of child molestation, itself a grotesque metaphor for Boomer policies.”

Gibney’s point being us Boomers are molesting younger generations because Social Security and Medicare might remain solvent just long enough for Boomers, but no one else, to collect. And, the author preaches from the environmentalist good book every chance he gets. Any skepticism about climate change is viewed as having “negative feelings about reality and science” because, for Boomers, sacrifices for the environment are, “incompatible with sociopathic desires.”

Boomers didn’t have a chance because their moms read Dr. Spock, were too easy on their kids, and parked us in front of the television. “TV’s essential characteristics make it the perfect education for sociopaths, facilitating deceit, acquisitiveness, intransigence, and validating a worldview only loosely tethered to reality,” the author opines. The current president’s obsession with TV watching is thrown in as a prime example.

Along comes chapter six, “Disco and the Roots of Neoliberalism,” and who is quoted in the chapter’s pre-matter? Ludwig von Mises. “Everybody thinks of economics whether he is aware of it or not. In joining a political party and in casting his ballot, the citizen implicitly takes a stand upon essential economic theories.”

Gibney writes that Boomer neoliberalism “is more free market à la carte.” Who knew that Boomers had the government doing “a dead minimum, limiting itself to arbitration of disputes, national defense, and the supply of a few public works like the post.”

The author would have us believe that Boomer liberalism was put in place coast-to-coast and laissez faire has ruled the day. Gibney writes of the “capitalist utopia…the omega point of the modern neoliberal revolution. This is what the various neoliberal acolytes (the saints Paul: Ryan, Rand, Ron) are excited about, smacked on the head by Atlas Shrugged on their roads to Washington.” He even contends the Mont Pelerin Society has been influential.

Mention is made of “Austrians” and the “Chicago School” that both believe government should get out of the way and let individuals take care of themselves. The author contends that “neoliberalism depends upon key and problematic assumptions: that individuals are rational, prudent, and informed, and that they therefore can be relied upon to meet their own needs.”

However, citing Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, not all humans are rational. Humans are not homo economicus, but insteadhomo sapiens, with Boomers being, in his view, homo sociopathicus.

However, Gibney’s lumping together of the Chicago School and Austrians misses the mark. In Mises’s view, economics doesn’t deal with homo economicus at all, but with homo agens: man “as he really is, often weak, stupid, inconsiderate, and badly instructed.”

In Epistemological Problems of Economics, Ludwig von Mises explains that the homo economicus would be the perfect businessman, conducting an enterprise for maximum profit: “By means of diligence and attention to business he strives to eliminate all sources of error so that the results of his action are not prejudiced by ignorance, neglectfulness, mistakes, and the like.”

However, Mises continued, “It did not escape even the classical economists that the economizing individual as a party engaged in trade does not always and cannot always remain true to the principles governing the businessman, that he is not omniscient, that he can err, and that, under certain conditions, he even prefers his comfort to a profit-making business.”

Government and its budgets, debt, and intrusiveness have done nothing but grow under Boomer leadership, despite Gibney’s chapter musing about free market philosophies.

The author rants that Boomers don’t save enough, while aborting, divorcing, and overeating too much. Boomers caused; high inflation, crime, poor educational standards, the setting of corporate tax rates, the hiring of adjunct professors, not replacing the crumbling infrastructure, and avoided doing their wartime duty.

He summarizes, “the whole idea of Boomers as Good People is absurd,” and “The Boomers deserve America’s displeasure and they ought to repay what they can.” What the author most wants is for Boomers to pay higher taxes.

Ironically, in his hedge fund days Gibney worked for Peter Thiel who, just so happens to have more than a passing interest in the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Rather than blame Boomers for all of America’s societal ills, Hoppe blames democracy and its increasing of society’s time preference in his book Democracy: The God that Failed.

Government’s taxing with impunity, violating its citizen’s property rights, “affect individual time preferences systematically differently and much more profoundly than does crime,” Hoppe writes, explaining that future property rights violations become institutionalized.

Instead of a societal falling time preference, government intrusion causes an increased time preference. Instead of savings, capital formation and increasing civilization, the process is “reversed by a tendency toward decivilization: formerly provident providers will be turned into drunks or daydreamers, adults into children, civilized men into barbarians, and producers into criminals.”

Not every government decivilizes equally, Hoppe points out. Democracy, with its constant changing of government, has a president, who doesn’t own the capital value of government resources, but “will use up as much of the government resources as quickly as possible, for what he does not consume now, he may never be able to consume,” professor Hoppe writes. “For a president, unlike for a king, moderation offers only disadvantages.”

The illusion of democracy, that the government is us, means “public resistance against government power is systematically weakened.”

So, what has caused America’s demise: Dr. Spock, TV and the Boomers, or was it democracy?

I’ll take Hoppe’s argument over Gibney’s. However, I’m just a lowly Boomer.

*About the author: Douglas French is former president of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply , and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master’s degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Source: This article was published by the MISES Institute

High-ranking officials from Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement to promote cooperation in preserving the security of common borders nearly two months after terrorists abducted a number of Iranian border guards at a military post.

According to Tasnim dispatches, following a three-day negotiation between a number of Iranian and Pakistani security and political officials in Iran’s southeastern city of Zahedan, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on border security was signed.

The two sides agreed to boost cooperation in order to preserve the security of common borders and prevent fuel smuggling as well as human trafficking.   

Preventing terrorists from crossing the common borders was another issue agreed between the two countries.

The Iranian side also called for the return of the remaining border guards, who were abducted by terrorist in October.

On November 22, five of the 14 Iranian border guards who had been abducted by terrorists returned home following consultations with Pakistani diplomatic and military officials.

The so-called Jaish-ul-Adl terrorist group infiltrated the country from the Pakistani side of the border on October 15 and took hostage 14 border guards, local Basij forces, and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) members.

The IRGC Ground Force’s Quds Base announced in October that the local Basij forces and the border regiment forces stationed at the border post in Mirjaveh region in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan and Balouchestan had been abducted after “acts of treason and collusion” involving an element or elements of the anti-Revolution groups who had infiltrated the country.

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

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

By Salem Solomon

The United States unveiled a new Africa strategy Thursday designed to prioritize American interests and challenge efforts by China and Russia to develop economic, political and security partnerships across the continent.

In prepared remarks, National Security Adviser John Bolton outlined a three-part policy that largely continues the United States’ existing approach to its military, trade and aid initiatives in Africa.

What’s new is a more explicit commitment to pursuing programs that unambiguously advance U.S. interests, and an emphatic desire to prevent Beijing and Moscow from making moves in Africa unchallenged. SEE ALSO:

Sweeping Change to US Policy for Africa Announced  

The result is a strategy that emphasizes American needs and bilateral relationships, while downplaying African concerns, Jennifer Cooke, the director of George Washington University’s Institute for African Studies, told VOA.

“This sounds like a real return to the policies of realpolitik during the Cold War, when allies were based on their opposition to communism or the Soviet Union rather than good governance, human rights, economic prosperity and so forth,” Cooke said.

“I think African countries paid a big price for that kind of geopolitical battle,” she added. “And I think the United States has more at stake than the geopolitical battle. I think [the U.S.] has more to offer than what was laid out here.”

China-focused

Bolton mentioned China at least 15 times in his speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative, Washington D.C.-based think tank. South Sudan, the most-cited African country, came up just five times. There, Bolton said, the United States plans to revisit the assistance it provides in light of ongoing conflict.

Bolton had pointed criticism for Beijing. “China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands,” he said. “Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption, and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as U.S. developmental programs.”

He cited debt concerns in Zambia and Djibouti, a new Chinese military base in Djibouti, allegations that China fired lasers at American pilots, and concerns that Djibouti might hand a strategic port over to Chinese companies.

Bolton painted Moscow in similarly negative terms, describing a government concerned only with self-interest. “Russia advances its political and economic relationships with little regard to the rule of law or accountable and transparent governance,” he said.

‘The bigger chessboard’

The Trump administration sees in its new strategy a sharpened focus that will deliver results. But framing the dynamics in Africa too narrowly could undermine both U.S. and African interests, Judd Devermont, the director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told VOA.

“When you don’t see the bigger chessboard, you actually miss opportunities to advance U.S. interests and to improve African prosperity,” Devermont said.

The new policy doesn’t acknowledge many of the global players jockeying in Africa. India, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — all of whom Bolton left out of his remarks — have made significant investments in Africa, from the Horn to Johannesburg.

A better approach for the Trump administration, Devermont said, would be to account for the many multilateral relationships unfolding in Africa. “They’re major players putting [in] lots of money and advancing their goals, and we lacked from this administration [information] on how they are going to navigate that,” he said.

‘Contra’ diplomacy

Bolton also spoke of mutual respect, African agency and self-reliance. But how the United States will navigate relationships with African countries with extensive ties to either Beijing or Moscow is not yet clear.

A policy predicated on antagonism toward China could prove tricky, though, in light of Beijing’s extensive investments in nearly every country in Africa. To date, China has made more than $142 billion in loans to African countries, often with very favorable terms.

Whether the United States will tie its aid and investment programs to recalibrated relations with Beijing remains unclear. But Bolton was firm that the U.S. should not assist nations working against its interests.

“Countries that repeatedly vote against the United States in international forums, or take actions counter to U.S. interests,” he said, “should not receive generous American foreign aid.”

Cooke worries that only investing in countries in close alignment with U.S. interests will produce short-term gains at a long-term cost.

“My sense was that the administration will be looking for partners who support the U.S. — contra other great powers,” she said. “I think that can be problematic in the long run.”

Paris is bracing for yet another round of Yellow Vest protests, with demonstrators planning to take to the streets on Saturday. More than 10,000 people have already RSVP’d on Facebook to the ‘Acte 5: Macron Démission’ march.

The demonstration is scheduled to take place in the French capital on the Champs-Élysées. 

The organizers, consisting of some 15 groups, have outlined their list of demands on Facebook, saying they will continue their action against Macron until all their demands are met.

“Our organizations support the demands of tax and social justice brought by the movement of yellow vests. They call for demonstrations Saturday, December 15, for social justice and tax, for a real democracy, for equal rights, for a true ecological transition…” the planners said in a statement, as quoted by Le Parisien. 

Similar demonstrations are also expected to take place in other cities across the country.

Security officials are gearing up for the protests, with Paris Police Chief Michel Delpuech stating that tens of thousands of cops will be deployed across France, and some 8,000 in Paris.

“We need to be prepared for worst-case scenarios,” he said.

Delpuech told RTL that authorities are aiming to be in “better control” of the situation than they were last weekend, when more than 125,000 people hit the streets of France, 10,000 of whom protested in Paris.

Those demonstrations saw clashes between protesters and police, with officers deploying tear gas and water cannon on people who threw Molotov cocktails, burned cars, and vandalized stores. Over 260 people were injured and 1,700 detained across the country.

Ahead of the demonstrations planned for Saturday, Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said it was time for the Yellow Vest protesters to scale down their demonstrations and accept that they had achieved their aims, as Macron has granted concessions as a result of the rallies.

“I’d rather have the police force doing their real job, chasing criminals and combating the terrorism threat, instead of securing roundabouts where a few thousand people keep a lot of police busy,” he said, just days after an attack at a Christmas market in Strasbourg killed four people and injured around a dozen others.

Earlier this week, Macron spoke to the nation in a televised address, saying he understood the concerns of protesters. In addition to canceling fuel tax increases that were scheduled to kick in next month, he said he would increase the minimum wage by 100 euros a month from January and reduce taxes for poorer pensioners, among other measures.

Even despite those concessions, Macron’s critics are still demanding that he resign, continuing to refer to him as “President of the Rich.”

By Jorge Valero

(EurActiv) — EU leaders concluded on Friday (14 December) a year-long discussion to bolster the eurozone by approving extra money to resolve failing banks and additional powers for the European Stability Mechanism, the EU’s rescue fund.

“A year ago, we promised concrete steps to strengthen the economic and monetary union”, European Council President Donald Tusk said after the euro summit. “Today, leaders delivered on this promise,” he added.

But some arrived unhappy to the end station, as the results were far from the original ambition to bolster the common currency.

The ‘window of opportunity’ seen by many in Brussels and in the capitals to bolster the euro concluded without the risk-sharing instruments, key to complete the monetary union.

Germany succeeded in watering down the euro summit conclusions as the country continues to oppose the completion of the banking union with a European-wide guarantee for bank depositors.

An agreement reached by finance ministers early this month set up a high-level group to come up with proposals to progress on this guarantee by June.

The ministers’ text was the basis for the summit conclusions.

The EU heads of state and government also mandated their finance ministers to work on the details of a new fund to support reforms in member states.

However, they did not contemplate any stabilisation function for this new instrument to address sudden economic shocks, seen as the first step toward a eurozone budget.

“I have the impression that we move forward, but not fast enough”, said European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

“Unsatisfied”

“We do not feel satisfied,” said Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The decisions went “in the right direction”, he said, but are “incomplete and not enough”. 

Spain, France and Portugal were among the countries pushing for more ambition to deepen the eurozone, by completing the banking union to protect depositors or setting up a eurozone budget that could protect European jobless in the future.

French President Emmanuel Macron was the biggest promoter of the eurozone budget, which would represent the first step toward a fiscal union.

Macron said it was the first time that “a clear mandate” had been given to finance ministers for creating a eurozone budget, with a target date set for June 2019.

“One year ago, many considered it impossible,” Macron remarked, saying Franco-German cooperation had made it possible “to convince our most reluctant partners”.

“France continues to consider that it is important also to have a stabilisation function, but there was no consensus today on this function,” Macron said. “However, I do not give up on the idea,” he continued.

Germany accepted part of Macron’s agenda to reform the euro area. However, a dozen countries led by The Netherlands opposed any additional fiscal transfers in Europe as they perceive that some countries need to put their house in order first.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the Franco-German proposal for a eurozone budget “has been controversial” and it was explained once again to the leaders.

“We have adopted substantial parts of what Macron has proposed, the French president was quite satisfied, we made a good contribution with the Franco-German cooperation,” she told reporters after the summit.

Details

EU leaders endorsed the creation of a ‘backstop’ to support the pot to resolve Europe’s ailing banks with around 60 billion as from 2024.

The euro summit also supported strengthening the powers of the ESM, the EU’s rescue fund, to provide precautionary credits to countries in trouble but under strict conditionality.

But this package came only after a year of hard discussions and excluded the most ambitious reforms: a European guarantee for banks’ deposits under €100k and a eurozone budget to stabilise countries suffering sudden shocks.

The European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) is the remaining pillar of Europe’s banking union and would help to avoid bank runs as depositors would feel protected by a European umbrella.

This guarantee was not even mentioned in the summit conclusions because of Berlin’s opposition. The text only refers to a letter in which finance ministers called for more technical work on this front earlier this month.

As leaders were discussing the elements of the final package, a Spanish diplomat said with a hopeless face that they were fighting, together with France and Portugal, to protect the agreement reached by the finance ministers.

In a vague reference, leaders called “to advance work on the Banking Union and for ambitious progress by spring 2019 on the Capital Markets Union, as outlined in the Eurogroup report to leaders.”

As regards the new instrument to support reforms, the leaders mandated their finance ministers to work “on the design, modalities of implementation and timing of a budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness for the euro area”. Candidates to adopt the euro could participate too.

The conclusions stated that the features should be agreed by June 2019, as it will be part of the next EU’s long-term budget (the Multi-annual Financial Framework).

The fund would regroup European Commission’s proposals to support reforms and stabilise eurozone economies, totalling €55 billion, although the leaders did not specify the size of the new fund.

“I am relatively happy about today’s discussion, although I would like a more enthusiastic response to the stabilising function we propose,” Juncker said.

Growth hormones given to children decades ago appear to have spread proteins linked to Alzheimer’s disease. The finding adds to evidence that Alzheimer’s proteins can be transmitted between people, New Scientist reports.

Between 1958 and 1985, approximately 30,000 children around the world received injections of human growth hormone extracted from dead bodies to treat genetic disorders and growth deficiencies.

Three years ago, while examining the brains of eight people who had received such injections and later died of the rare brain disorder Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (CJD), John Collinge at University College London and his colleagues noticed they all had beta-amyloid proteins in their brains.

Beta-amyloid is known to accumulate and form sticky plaques in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. These eight people didn’t have this condition, as they all died from CJD at a young age, but Collinge says that had they lived, it’s possible that they would have gone on to develop it.

“That led us to hypothesise that the reason they got this [amyloid] is because those growth hormone batches that were prepared many years ago with human tissue were contaminated with this protein,” says Collinge. Before synthetic alternatives were available, human growth hormone was extracted from the pituitary glands of cadavers.

“Another suggestion was maybe it’s the growth hormone itself that stimulates the amyloid beta pathology, and not any contaminant,” he says. To investigate, Collinge and his team used samples of the human growth hormone that were given to these eight people, which had been archived by a health body in the UK.

Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote a particularly flawed piece that appeared on the front page of the Style section in yesterday’s edition of the newspaper.

She is not happy that the conviction of Australian Cardinal George Pell on charges of sexual molestation didn’t get more news coverage. A retrial was ordered after the first trial resulted in a hung jury (10 of the 12 jurors concluded he was not guilty), though Sullivan failed to mention this. His case is almost certain to be appealed. It should be. Anyone who has studied his ordeal knows how bogus the charges are (click here for my account).

Sullivan acknowledges that the Australian courts are guilty of censoring the news about Pell’s trial, but still finds a way to drag the Catholic Church into this. “The secrecy surrounding the court case—and now the verdict—is offensive. That’s especially so because it echoes the secrecy that has always been so appalling a part of widespread sexual abuse by priests.”

Sullivan then goes on to praise the Boston Globe for its stories on the Catholic Church, applauds the victims’ group SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests), and concludes by touting journalists “whose core mission is truth-telling.”

This is hard to stomach. I just got stiffed by the truth tellers at the Boston Globe—they refused to allow me to see the raw data upon which their “study” of bishops was made. When I confined my request to reading the transcripts of the interviews they conducted, I was again stiffed.

To be sure, there are lots of good journalists who are driven by truth telling, but they sure don’t include the top editors at the Boston Globe. They are masters of secrecy.

SNAP is thoroughly corrupt—I exposed them as a monumental fraud years before they crashed (their latest incarnation is a joke). That is why it is shocking to read Sullivan quoting one of their Aussie agents. Their credibility is totally shot.

The Washington Post also has a flawed record when it comes to truth telling. Just this month, I slammed them and the New York Times for not publishing a story on the court decision overturning the conviction of Australian Archbishop Philip Wilson. Yet both newspapers ran a story on his conviction in July. This is inexcusable.

“Washington Post Makes False Claims” was the title of my November 13 news release showing how the newspaper was factually wrong in reporting on the progress made by the Catholic Church on sexual abuse. I provided the data; they offered opinion.

There are noble journalists in America. There are also plenty of frauds.

By Rawan Radwan

Formula E is one for the books. Attracting fans from all over the world, the mega event — held in the historic Saudi town of Ad Diriyah, a UNESCO World Heritage Site — is set to revolutionize motorsports by using only electric race cars. 

Officially known as the ABB FIA Formula E Championship, the race expects to draw 40,000 attendees, with access not only to the race but also to the Kingdom’s largest ever festival for music, entertainment and cultural activities.

A first for Saudi Arabia and the region, the event’s magnitude reflects the Kingdom’s goal of hosting major events and promoting them domestically and globally.

A milestone was marked as Bandar Alesayi and Ahmed bin Khanen became the first Saudi I-Pace eTrophy racers, sponsored by the General Sports Authority (GSA). 

Both drivers predict increased grassroots support in the Kingdom for youths to train in carting and race-car driving.  

At 1.76 miles long with 21 corners, the track is somewhat tricky for first-time Formula E drivers.

“The system is like Mario Bros when they get the little star and go faster,” said Formula E founder and CEO Alejandro Agag. The new electric circuit in Saudi Arabia has been hailed as one of the best Formula E tracks.

The three-day event is hosting some of the world’s top singers, including Jason Derulo, Enrique Iglesias, Amr Diab, Black Eyed Peas, David Guetta and One Republic, along with DJ EJ. 

“This is unprecedented and fabulous,” one concert-goer said. Another said: “I can’t believe I’m in Saudi Arabia.” 

Outside the venue, Al-Bujairy, one of Ad Diriyah’s historic areas, hosts high-end restaurants, cafes and local designer outlets overlooking the historic district of At-Turaif, which was once home to the Saudi royal family and has newly opened for visitors.

Another area of interest is the Family Zone, with many events and activities to entertain all age groups. Men, women and children are given different driving experiences.

In Ad Diriyah’s Formula E, only one car is allowed per driver instead of two, making pit stops more crucial in terms of timing.  

“Attack mode” gives cars a temporary power boost from 200 to 225 kilowatts, equivalent to 268-302 horsepower. Drivers need to move to a certain area on the track to activate this mode.

“Saudi Arabia is racing into the future with Formula E, as we open the Kingdom to the world in a transformation that’s being supercharged by the Vision 2030 plan, driven forward by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman,” Prince Abdul Aziz bin Turki Al-Faisal Al-Saud, vice-chair of the Saudi Arabian General Sports Authority, told Arab News.

By Ed Condon

After reports of a guilty verdict emerged in the trial of Australian Cardinal George Pell, some in Australia have questioned the integrity of a process undertaken under the veil of a media blackout.

The cardinal was convicted Dec 11. on five charges that he sexually abused two altar servers while serving as Archbishop of Melbourne in the late 1990s. The unanimous verdict followed an earlier mistrial in which, CNA has confirmed with multiple sources, a jury was deadlocked at 10-2 in favor of a “not guilty” verdict.

The guilty verdict comes ahead of a second trial, scheduled for February 2019, in which Pell will face further accusations of abuse dating back to the 1970s, during his time as a priest in Ballarat.

Reporting restrictions imposed by the County Court of Victoria mean that the progress or outcomes of the trial cannot be covered by local media or broadcast electronically into Australia. No media discussion of the accusations or Pell’s defense is permitted in the country.

Those who violate the gag order could be subject to contempt of court charges by Victoria prosecutors.

Nevertheless, CNA has spoken to several sources familiar with the Pell case, all of whom expressed disbelief at the verdict. The sources spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the legal gag order imposed by the court.

“They have convicted an innocent man,” one source directly familiar with the evidence told CNA. “What’s worse is that they know they have.”

An individual who attended the entire trial in person but is unconnected with Pell’s legal team, told CNA that Pell’s lawyers had made an “unanswerable defense.”

“It was absolutely clear to everyone in that court that the accusations were baseless. It wasn’t that Pell didn’t do what he’s accused of – he clearly couldn’t have done it.”

The allegations are understood to concern Pell assaulting the two choristers in the sacristy of Melbourne cathedral on several occasions immediately following Sunday Mass.

The defense presented a range of witnesses who testified that the cardinal was never alone in the sacristy with altar servers or members of the choir, and that in all the circumstances under which the allegations are alleged to have taken place, several people would have been present in the room.

The sacristy in Melbourne’s Cathedral has large open-plan rooms, each with open arches and halls, and multiple entrances and exits, the defense noted.

Defense attorneys also produced a range of witnesses who testified that Pell was constantly surrounded by priests, other clergy, and guests following Sunday Masses in the cathedral, and that choristers had a room entirely separate from the sacristy in which they changed as a group, before and after Mass.

Observers also questioned whether some courtroom tactics used by state prosecutors were intended to stoke anti-clerical feelings in jury members.

One priest, a Jesuit, was called as an expert witness by the defense, but was consistently referred to as a “Christian Brother” by prosecutors – a move, the court observer told CNA, that seemed calculated to invoke the religious order at the center of a widely known clerical sexual abuse scandal in the country.

“It was a blatant move, but it sums up the sort of anti-Catholic, anti-clerical drift of the whole trial,” CNA’s courtroom source said. “The jury were being winked at.”

Full discussion of the charges and the evidence laid against Pell remains impossible because of the media blackout. The gag order was imposed at the request of prosecutors in June, who argued that media attention could bias the case.

“It’s absurd,” another source directly familiar with the trial told CNA. “Any Catholic in Victoria can tell you that our media has been steeped in anti-Catholic, anti-clerical and especially anti-Pell coverage for more than two decades. The prosecutors were perfectly happy with all of that leading up to the trial, and for it to carry on now.”

“The only thing you can’t talk about are the facts of the case,” the source said.

In a May 2015 column for The Australian, journalist Gerard Henderson said that Pell was the victim of a “modern-day witch hunt.” Henderson drew specific attention to what he called biased and inaccurate coverage of Pell by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“The lack of balance in the media’s reporting of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church reflects the fact many journalists detest Pell’s conservatism,” Henderson wrote.

Henderson also noted that as Archbishop of Melbourne, Pell brought in a new program to deal with accusations of sexual abuse and to compensate victims within months of his arrival.

“On all the available evidence, Pell was among the first Catholic bishops in the world to address the issue of child sexual abuse by clergy,” Henderson concluded.

The cardinal’s legal team is said to be scrupulously complying with the gag order as lawyers work towards filing an appeal against the guilty verdict.

While open discussion of the case remains impossible in Australia, concerns about a biased jury pool in the second trial have begun to surface indirectly.

On December 13, Victoria state Attorney-General Jill Hennessy told the Australian newspaper The Age that she had asked her department to examine the option of judge-only trials in high profile cases, where an impartial jury might be difficult to find. The state of Victoria is one of the few jurisdictions in Australia not to permit the option of a bench trial in cases like Pell’s.

Earlier this year, former Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson was tried and convicted before a magistrate’s court in the state of New South Wales, on the charge of failing to report clerical sexual abuse. His conviction was overturned on appeal. Appellate judge Roy Ellis noted that media portrayals of the Church’s sexual abuse crisis might have been a factor in the guilty verdict.

Such portrayals “may amount to perceived pressure for a court to reach a conclusion which seems to be consistent with the direction of public opinion, rather than being consistent with the rule of law that requires a court to hand down individual justice in its decision-making processes,” he said.

Victoria has faced sustained criticism for the use of suppression orders by the state’s courts. Despite an Open Courts Act passed in 2013 aimed at improving judicial transparency, Victorian courts issued more than 1500 suppression orders between 2014-2016.

One source close to Pell told CNA that the cardinal’s treatment during his trial had been “Kafka-esque.”

“Prosecutors can retry him – in secret – until they get a conviction, but there can’t be any discussion of what he’s accused of, no scrutiny of the evidence against him, and no questioning the verdict. On what planet is this justice?”

Cardinal Pell is expected to be sentenced in January. He can appeal the guilty verdict to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

By Ranvir S. Nayar*

This is gatecrashing of a different kind. Present among the 193 nations negotiating a crucial agreement on climate change and reducing carbon emissions in Katowice, southern Poland, is one country that has already decided it will not be bound by the final outcome, and so has no stake in ensuring the success of the negotiations that could make all the difference to the global climate.

The culprit is the US, and, rather unusually for a UN conference, it was called out as such by delegates from other nations. During a speech earlier this week, Vanuatu’s foreign minister accused the US of stalling progress in discussions by creating obstructions. The minister added that the countries that had been responsible for climate change were now frustrating attempts at reaching an agreement.

At the heart of the issue facing Vanuatu and practically all the small island states in the Pacific and Indian oceans is recognition of the damages and losses being incurred by them and the rest of the world due to severe climatic conditions resulting from climate change.

But in Katowice, the US and the developed world have been keen to delink the devastation caused by hurricanes and cyclones that seem to strike some part of the world every other day now. Developed countries’ desire to disassociate two parts of an obvious phenomenon stems from the fact that they are meant to pay for the damage caused by climate change. Indeed, finance is one of the most contentious issues being discussed in Katowice.

In Paris, developed economies, which incontestably have been primarily responsible for climate change, had agreed to raise an additional $100 billion per year to address climate change. The total funding needed by developing economies to manage the damage wrought upon them by nature, adopt climate-friendly technologies and cut their own emissions is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion.

This is the figure that developed economies, led by the US, are running away from. They are trying to find all kinds of loopholes and disingenuous ways to escape their responsibilities, upsetting developing economies that have been the main recipients of the disasters brought about by climate change.

The US has also earned ridicule in Katowice as it sought to present coal, by far the largest cause of carbon emissions, as a solution to climate change. This is a total reversal from its position in Paris, where the US and most developed nations promised to reduce dependence on coal and the entire gamut of fossil fuels, and move toward zero net carbon emissions.

But since the election of Donald Trump as president, the US has made a U-turn on the issue, and now rules out even cutting the use of coal. The US has been joined by Australia, one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of coal. Host nation Poland is also in the dock for not only supporting the coal industry, but also getting many coal-producing and coal-using companies as principal sponsors of the Cop24 meeting.

The developed world’s sudden love for coal could have extremely serious implications for climate change, and the scenario becomes even bleaker with the reluctance of China and India to cut back sharply on their use of coal in power generation.

Even though the two Asian giants have been adopting renewable energy at an enviable pace, their use of coal in absolute numbers still remains extremely high, and is projected to grow at least for the next few years before commencing a decline.

During its presentation in Katowice, the Trump administration also promoted other fossil fuels such as oil and gas as solutions to climate change. However, an overwhelming majority of experts say fossil fuels need to be totally phased out in order to meet climate targets and avoid catastrophic climate change.

The blacklist of US actions in Katowice seems to be getting painfully longer with each passing day of negotiations. The US and three other oil-producing countries held up the negotiations on a technicality.

The issue was a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presented to Cop24, which warned that global temperatures had already risen by 1°C since the beginning of the industrial era, and that the world is on course to reach an increase of 3°C by 2100, a catastrophic scenario and way above the target of 1.5-2°C set in Paris.

While delegates of 189 nations welcomed the IPCC report, the US and three other countries objected and wanted the meeting to only “take note” of it, thus diluting the response that would be expected by signatories of the Paris Agreement in order to ensure that the global temperature rise is kept within the deal’s objectives. The dispute over the report has already led to a significant delay in progress on other issues.

As the talks enter their final day, for most of the 20,000 people who have been camping in Katowice for nearly a fortnight, things appear to be exactly where they were on Dec. 2, when discussions began. The talks are certain to be extended by a day or more, but it remains to be seen if Katowice survives persistent US interference.

• Ranvir S. Nayar is managing editor of the Media India Group, a global platform based in Europe and India that encompasses publishing, communication and consultation services.

It’s that time of year when children look forward to a stocking full of presents – but the first international academic “Santa survey” shows many adults also wish they still believed in Father Christmas and some had felt betrayed when they discovered the truth.

The study also shows the threat of being on Santa’s naughty list doesn’t work for many children, and many youngsters continue to pretend they believe in Father Christmas even when they know he doesn’t exist.

Errors by bumbling parents are the also one of the main reasons children lose their faith in the magic of Father Christmas.

Psychologist Professor Chris Boyle, from the University of Exeter, asked people around the world to tell him how they changed their minds about Santa, and if learning that he isn’t quite as he seems had affected their trust in their parents.

Professor Boyle received 1,200 responses from all around the world to his The Exeter Santa Survey, the only international study of its kind, mainly from adults reflecting on their childhood memories.

Interim findings show:

• 34 per cent of people wished that they still believed in Santa with 50 per cent quite content that they no longer believe
• Around 34 per cent of those who took part in the survey said believing in Father Christmas had improved their behaviour as a child whilst 47 per cent found it did not
• The average age when children stopped believing in Father Christmas was 8.
• There are significant differences between England and Scotland –
  • The mean age when people stop believing in Father Christmas was 8.03 for England and 8.58 in Scotland.
  • There was a difference in attitudes between England and Scotland, as to whether it is ok to lie to children about Santa – more people in Scotland than in England said it was ok to lie to children about Santa.
• A total of 65 per cent of people had played along with the Santa myth, as children, even though they knew it wasn’t true.
• A third of respondents said they had been upset when they discovered Father Christmas wasn’t real, while 15 per cent had felt betrayed by their parents and ten per cent were angry.
• Around 56 per cent of respondents said their trust in adults hadn’t been affected by their belief in Father Christmas, while 30 per cent said it had.
• A total of 31 per cent of parents said they had denied that Santa is not true when directly asked by their child, while 40 per cent hadn’t denied it if they are asked directly.
• A total of 72 per cent of parents are quite happy telling their children about Santa and playing along with the myth, with the rest choosing not to.

Professor Boyle said: “During the last two years I have been overwhelmed by people getting in touch to say they were affected by the lack of trust involved when they discovered Santa wasn’t real.

“It has been fascinating to hear why they started to believe he is fictional. The main cause is either the accidental or deliberate actions of parents, but some children started to piece together the truth themselves as they became older.

“As much as this research has a light-hearted element, the responses do show a sense of disappointment and also amusement about having been lied to.”

One survey participant described how they had caught their parents drinking and eating what had been put out for Santa and the reindeer aged ten. An 11-year-old was woken up by their “tipsy” father dropping presents.

Many parents made basic errors which their young children picked up on immediately. One respondent recognised a present given to her sister from Santa as having been hidden in their parent’s room in the weeks before Christmas when she was seven. One participant found their letters to Santa in their parent’s room and another noticed Santa and their father had the same handwriting.

The “Mom and Dad” who signed their names in a book put in a stocking from Santa no doubt felt silly when their seven-year-old realised why the inscription was there. The parents of a child who found shop price tags on their presents from Father Christmas may have felt the same.

It wasn’t just parents who inadvertently spoiled the illusion of Santa. One respondent recognised the school caretaker playing Santa at a Christmas party when she was seven. The teacher of a seven-year-old from the USA no doubt got into trouble with parents when they asked pupils to write an essay about when they found out that Santa wasn’t real. Another teacher told their seven-year-old pupils nobody lived in the North Pole.

Other respondents learned the truth because of their growing curiosity about the world as they grew older. A clever child from the USA said at nine they had: “Learnt enough about math, physics, travel, the number of children on the planet ratio to the size of the sleigh to figure it out on my own”. A respondent from England stopped believing at eight because nobody could explain to them why Father Christmas didn’t bring food to children in “poor countries”. One nine-year-old set a trap and wrote a secret letter to Lapland which wasn’t given to their parents, nothing from that list arrived from Santa on Christmas morning.

Many children had realised Santa didn’t exist when they became aware of how goods were bought and sold, and because they realised it would be impossible for one man to deliver toys to everyone. One child had realised aged for that “It was impossible for such a fat man to fit down the chimney”. Others realised reindeer couldn’t fly, and Santa would have been hurt coming down a chimney when a fire was lit.

Some parents had been confronted by their children when they heard rumours from their friends that Father Christmas wasn’t real. One seven-year-old punched a boy at school who said Santa didn’t exist and made his nose bleed. When his mother was summoned to the school he said he attacked him because it was wrong to lie, and he ended up believing in Santa for another three years.

Some parents were forced to tell their children the truth because the idea of Santa scared them, including the mother of a five-year-old who was frightened of a strange man coming into their room.

The study is ongoing and further results will be published in 2019.

Astronomers have captured one of the most detailed views of a young star taken to date, and revealed an unexpected companion in orbit around it.

While observing the young star, astronomers led by Dr John Ilee from the University of Leeds discovered it was not in fact one star, but two.

The main object, referred to as MM 1a, is a young massive star surrounded by a rotating disc of gas and dust that was the focus of the scientists’ original investigation.

A faint object, MM 1b, was detected just beyond the disc in orbit around MM 1a. The team believe this is one of the first examples of a “fragmented” disc to be detected around a massive young star.

“Stars form within large clouds of gas and dust in interstellar space,” said Dr Ilee, from the School of Physics and Astronomy at Leeds.

“When these clouds collapse under gravity, they begin to rotate faster, forming a disc around them. In low mass stars like our Sun, it is in these discs that planets can form.”

“In this case, the star and disc we have observed is so massive that, rather than witnessing a planet forming in the disc, we are seeing another star being born.”

By measuring the amount of radiation emitted by the dust, and subtle shifts in the frequency of light emitted by the gas, the researchers were able to calculate the mass of MM 1a and MM 1b.

Their work, published today in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, found MM 1a weighs 40 times the mass of our Sun. The smaller orbiting star MM 1b was calculated to weigh less than half the mass of our Sun.

“Many older massive stars are found with nearby companions,” added Dr Ilee. “But binary stars are often very equal in mass, and so likely formed together as siblings. Finding a young binary system with a mass ratio of 80:1 is very unusual, and suggests an entirely different formation process for both objects.”

The favoured formation process for MM 1b occurs in the outer regions of cold, massive discs. These “gravitationally unstable” discs are unable to hold themselves up against the pull of their own gravity, collapsing into one – or more – fragments.

Dr Duncan Forgan, a co-author from the Centre for Exoplanet Science at the University of St Andrews, added: “I’ve spent most of my career simulating this process to form giant planets around stars like our Sun. To actually see it forming something as large as a star is really exciting.”

The researchers note that newly-discovered young star MM 1b could also be surrounded by its own circumstellar disc, which may have the potential to form planets of its own – but it will need to be quick.

Dr Ilee added: “Stars as massive as MM 1a only live for around a million years before exploding as powerful supernovae, so while MM 1b may have the potential to form its own planetary system in the future, it won’t be around for long.”

The astronomers made this surprising discovery by using a unique new instrument situated high in the Chilean desert – the Atacama Large Millimetre/submillimetre Array (ALMA).

Using the 66 individual dishes of ALMA together in a process called interferometry, the astronomers were able to simulate the power of a single telescope nearly 4km across, allowing them to image the material surrounding the young stars for the first time.

The team have been granted additional observing time with ALMA to further characterise these exciting stellar systems in 2019. The upcoming observations will simulate a telescope that is 16km across – comparable to the area inside of the ring-road surrounding Leeds.

A Washington State University research team has uncovered significant and previously unknown vulnerabilities in high-performance computer chips that could lead to failures in modern electronics.

The researchers found they could damage the on-chip communications system and shorten the lifetime of the whole computer chip significantly by deliberately adding malicious workload.

Led by Partha Pande, assistant professor in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, they reported on the work during the recent 2018 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Networks-on-Chip.

Researchers have been working to understand the vulnerabilities of computer chips as a way to prevent malicious attacks on the electronics that make up everyday life. Some consumer electronics vendors, such as Apple and Samsung, have been accused of exploiting vulnerabilities in their own electronics and sending software updates that intentionally slow down earlier phone models to encourage consumers to purchase new products.

Previous researchers have studied computer chip components, such as the processors, computer memory and circuits for security vulnerabilities, but the WSU research team found significant vulnerabilities in the sophisticated communications backbone of high-performance computer chips.

“The communications system is the glue that holds everything together,” said Pande. “When it starts to malfunction, the whole system is going to crumble.”

High-performance computers use a large number of processors and do parallel processing for big data applications and cloud computing, and the communications system coordinates the processors and memory. Researchers are working to increase the number of processors and incorporate high-performance capabilities into hand-held devices.

The researchers devised three “craftily constructed deleterious” attacks to test the communications system. This additional workload enhanced electromigration-induced stress and crosstalk noise. The researchers found that a limited number of crucial vertical links of the communication system were particularly vulnerable to fail. Those links connect the processors in a stack and allows them to talk with each other.

“We determined how an agent can target the communication system to start malfunctions in the chip,” said Pande. “The role of the communications and the threat had not been clear to the research community before.”

The researchers will now be working to develop ways to mitigate the problem, such as automated techniques and algorithms to detect and thwart attacks.

Federal regulators require social media personalities to alert their viewers to promotional payments for products and gadgets shown on their channels, but an analysis by Princeton University researchers shows that such disclosures are rare.

The study focused on affiliate marketing, in which companies pay a commission to social media figures for driving sales. Content creators who produce videos, photos and commentary are rewarded when their followers purchase products after clicking on affiliate marketing links included in their social media posts.

Researchers in Princeton’s Department of Computer Science extracted affiliate marketing links from randomly drawn samples of about 500,000 YouTube videos and 2.1 million Pinterest pins. They found 3,472 YouTube videos and 18,237 Pinterest pins with affiliate links from 33 marketing companies — the first publicly available list of this size. The researchers found the links by identifying characteristic patterns in the URLs that marketers use to track readers’ clicks.

The researchers then used natural language processing techniques to search for disclosures of affiliate marketing relationships within the videos’ and pins’ descriptions. Disclosures were present in around 10 percent and 7 percent of affiliate marketing content on YouTube and Pinterest, respectively. These disclosures fell into one of three categories:

• “affiliate link” disclosures, which use wording such as “Disclosure: These are affiliate links”;
• “explanation” disclosures, e.g., “I am an affiliate with Amazon, which means I get a small commission when you buy through my links”; and
• “channel support” disclosures, such as “Shop using these links to support the channel.”

The first type — “affiliate link” disclosures — were the most common, “and these are exactly the kinds of disclosures the Federal Trade Commission says people shouldn’t be using” because their meaning is not always clear to users, explained computer science graduate student Arunesh Mathur, the study’s lead author. “That was a very surprising finding.”

The researchers also conducted a user study of nearly 1,800 participants that revealed the relative effectiveness of different types of disclosures. Only half of the participants correctly interpreted the meaning of “affiliate link” disclosures on Pinterest, while 65 percent understood these disclosures when paired with YouTube videos. When presented with “explanation” disclosures, nearly 95 percent of users on both platforms were able to explain that the content creator would be paid when a product was purchased through an affiliate link. “Channel support” disclosures, which only appeared on YouTube, were correctly interpreted by 85 percent of participants.

While the FTC has issued warnings about marketing disclosures to some top social media influencers, the researchers said it has not fully exercised its authority to prosecute violations. The researchers propose that regulators take broader legal action against affiliate marketing companies for failures to disclose, and recommend that social media platforms make it easier for content creators to disclose marketing relationships in a standardized way.

Mathur and his colleagues are also developing a web browser extension that would automatically flag some types of paid content. In addition, they are working on computational methods to detect other types of hidden advertising on social media, including sponsored content and product giveaways, which are less straightforward to identify than affiliate marketing.

By Jaishree Balasubramanian and Kamran Reza Chowdhury

India is hoping the Awami League will retain power in Bangladesh’s upcoming election because it sees the incumbent government in Dhaka as key to its national security interests, including regional competition with China and counter-terrorism, analysts said.

New Delhi is closely watching Bangladesh’s Dec. 30 general election – the next-door neighbor’s first competitive parliamentary polls in a decade – according to observers on both sides of the border. Indian officials, however, declined to say whether their government was backing a particular party in the race.

“The Awami League maintains very warm relations with India. Bangladesh-India relationship has been at a different height. So, India will want the Awami League to continue,” Dhaka-based defense analyst Sakhawat Hossain, a retired army brigadier general, told BenarNews.

Sreeram Chauli, an observer based in India, expressed a similar view.

“Historically, New Delhi has a bias towards Sheikh Hasina,” said Chauli, a professor of international affairs and dean at Jindal University, referring to Bangladesh’s 71-year-old prime minister who is seeking a third consecutive term through the imminent polls.

“Many agreements have been reached between India and Bangladesh under her leadership,” he told Benar.

And according to a recent report published by East Asia Forum, an online platform for analysis on political and security affairs in the Asia-Pacific region, Delhi wants the status quo of Bangladeshi government to stay intact. The forum is run out of the Crawford School of Public Policy at Australian National University in Canberra.

“India would be appalled if any party other than Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League were to rule Bangladesh,” said the April 2018 report. “The view from Delhi is very short term: the strategy is to keep the Awami League in power while trying to block growing Chinese influence.”

Indian officials declined to answer questions from BenarNews about New Delhi’s stakes in the Bangladeshi polls.

“We view the elections in Bangladesh as an internal matter of Bangladesh,” said Raveesh Kumar, spokesman of India’s Ministry of External Affairs. “I don’t think it is appropriate for the ministry … to comment on the internal affairs of our friendly neighbor country.”

Another foreign ministry official, who requested anonymity, told BenarNews that the government would prefer not to issue any comments to avoid influencing election results.

India’s stakes in Bangladesh

India shares a 4,156-km (2,582-mile) border in its northeast with Bangladesh, a neighboring country that is important to New Delhi’s geopolitical and security interests, analysts said.

Among those concerns, India is vying with regional rival China for strategic and economic influence in Bangladesh, they said.

“India and China have been competing for regional hegemony and dominance over the maritime economy. As part of their regional power game, they want to enhance their influence in Bangladesh,” Professor Ameena Mohsin, who teaches international relations at Dhaka University, told BenarNews.

“China has apparently extended its influence around India,” she said. “India does not want to see anything happen in South Asia which may threaten its regional hegemony.”

According to Hossain, the retired general, “Bangladesh is a route country of the One Belt One Road initiative of China, but India does not like it. Why? Because China has apparently encircled India.”

Hossain was referring to Beijing’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative, a trillion-dollar infrastructure strategy that strives to build a vast network of roads, railway lines and ports in South and South Asia, allowing China to trade more easily with European countries via the Indian Ocean and Central Asia.

As part of that plan, China has been investing in infrastructure projects in three countries that sit on India’s western, southern and eastern borders: Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

But while Hasina’s Awami party maintains warms ties with India, it is simultaneously cultivating close ones with Beijing, Hossain said. Traditionally, Hossain noted, China has had a warm relationship with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which is now in the opposition but has held power multiple times.

“Sheikh Hasina also maintains excellent relations with China,” he added.

After Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Dhaka in 2016, Bangladesh has transformed a formerly adversarial relationship with Beijing into an enduring strategic partnership, a development closely watched by India, analysts said.

Bangladesh had an initial bitter relationship with China when Beijing supported Pakistan during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence from Islamabad. Beijing also campaigned in the early 1970s against Dhaka’s bid to join the United Nations, historians said.

But Bangladesh and China eventually established diplomatic relations, starting 1976. A year later, military ruler Gen. Ziaur Rahman provided a major impetus to the relationship by visiting Beijing, the first trip by any Bangladeshi head of state to China.

Nowadays, China has grown into Bangladesh’s biggest trading partner, and it has also become a development ally for Bangladesh as a major financial sponsor of roads, railways, power plants and airport projects. China exported about U.S. $16 billion worth of goods to Bangladesh, although it imported only U S. $750 million in 2016-17, according to official figures.

As part of Jinping’s visit two years ago, China promised $24 billion in economic assistance to Bangladesh, mostly as lines of credit for 24 projects, burnishing its image as a friend.

India, which played a major role in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 through military intervention, has also developed closer ties with Dhaka during the past few years.

Since the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Bangladesh in 2015, India has cultivated a tighter partnership with Dhaka with unprecedented bilateral deals on trade and investments.

India, for instance, has provided duty-free access of Bangladeshi garments to the Indian market, allowing Dhaka to increase its exports to India last year from U.S. $130 million to $280 million.

Friendly and stable

Despite undertaking moves to fertilize ties with Beijing while balancing relations with India, Hasina has received praise from her admirers in New Delhi for cracking down on suspected rebels from northeastern Indian provinces, many of whom had taken shelter in Bangladesh.

“So, India will expect the Awami League to win the polls,” Hossain said, referring to the ruling party led by Hasina. “The Awami League has flushed out all anti-Indian groups fighting in the northeastern states from Bangladesh soil. So, New Delhi would expect Hasina to continue.”

Meanwhile, although rights groups have criticized what they view as Hasina’s growing authoritarianism over the years, New Delhi-based analysts say India – the world’s most populous democracy – “is caught in a bind” because the Hindu minority in Muslim-majority Bangladesh feels safer with Hasina in power.

“We want to see a free and fair election there. Sheikh Hasina has been opposed to fundamentalism, and is more secular,” Chauli, the dean at Jindal University, said.

And according to Pinak Chakravarti, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), an Indian think tank, “elections are a part of a democratic process, and we welcome it.”

But, he also told BenarNews, “New Delhi wants to see in Bangladesh a friendly government and a stable government.”

By Quintus Colombage

With Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena vowing to appoint a new Cabinet on Dec. 17, civil rights groups, writers, artists, and journalists have taken to the streets to demand democracy be respected.

The country is reeling from a seven-week constitutional crisis sparked by his attempt to replace Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on Oct. 26. The situation took a fresh turn this week as the protesters, who were dressed in black and sporting pro-democracy banners and posters, assembled at Lipton Circle in Colombo on Dec. 12. Their demonstration came one day before the Supreme Court delivered its verdict stating that Sirisena’s dissolution of parliament last month, and his attempt to hold a snap election two years ahead of schedule, was unconstitutional.

Dissolving parliament was seen as a last-ditch attempt to keep the man he nominated for prime minister, ex-president Mahinda Rajapaksa, in power. This became necessary after Rajapaka was not able to raise a majority. But on Dec. 13, a seven-judge bench ruled unanimously that the 225-member House could not be sacked until it was four-and-a-half years through its five-year term. This has put Sirisena under intense pressure.

Activists, who have called for cleaner politics, say they dread to think what his next move will be in this bizarre game of chess. Some who spoke to ucanews.com said it was the duty of the president and elected representatives, the legislature, and the executive to listen to the same public that voted them into power.

“We have been forced to voice our concerns on the streets, as the president and some parliamentarians have violated the charter,” said Brito Fernando, president of the Families of the Disappeared Organization. “Not even the president is above the constitution,” he said, surrounded by activists shouting pro-democracy slogans.

Wickremesinghe has always maintained his dismissal was in breach of the charter and refused to accept it. Like Rajapaksa, he said he would not surrender the post. Now concern is growing about the ramifications of Sirisena’s “illegal” power play on the economy, not to mention the damage being done to ethnic and religious harmony.

The United States has already suspended a US$400-million deal for infrastructure projects while international credit agencies have lowered their ratings for the country due to the political instability.

“Sirisena acted like a dictator by unilaterally dissolving parliament and nominating Rajapaksa,” Fernando said.

The president is not satisfied with the Supreme Court’s verdict on Rajapaksa’s appeal, Nishantha Muthuhettigamage, the deputy minister for ports and shipping, told dailymirror.lk.

“President Sirisena has confirmed he would be seeking a second opinion after the Supreme Court ruling with regard to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s appeal against the interim order given by the Court of Appeal barring him and the Cabinet from functioning,” Muthuhettigamage said.

He also said he would allow whichever party gains a majority in the House to govern the country, Muthuhettigamage added.

The legislature has passed at least two no-confidence motions against Rajapaksa, who served as a controversial but popular president at the end of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war. On the same day that the protesters marched in Colombo, parliament passed a vote of confidence in Wickremesinghe as prime minister.

“Whatever the Supreme Court says, we still have to campaign and fight for our rights,” Fernando said before the verdict was announced. He described politics in Sri Lanka as “big business.”

“We have to struggle to build a more positive political culture where people’s voices are actually heard,” he noted.

The United Nations has called on the government to respect democratic values and constitutional provisions and process, uphold the rule of law, and ensure the safety and security of all Sri Lankans.

Religious leaders have also united in their calls to end the political crisis, while Jayathilaka Kammallaweera, one of Sri Lanka’s leading short story writers, said the country’s sovereignty must be safeguarded. “We also oppose all media outlets that give ‘generous’ coverage to religious extremists. We stand for democracy,” Kammallaweera said.

By Commodore (Retd) C Uday Bhaskar*

The six kilometre Kartarpur corridor that will connect the Indian state of Punjab with the holy Sikh shrine in Pakistan—the much revered Kartarpur Sahib—the final resting place of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, was inaugurated formally through foundation—stone laying ceremonies in both countries.

Indian Vice President Venkiah Naidu did the honours on the Indian side on 26 November and declared: “The corridor will become a symbol of love and peace between both countries.” At the ceremony, Naidu was accompanied by the Chief Minister of Punjab, Captain Amarinder Singh, who introduced a discordant note about Pakistan and the support to terrorism but the overall mood was positive.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Khan, held a more expansive event on 28 November and was eloquent in asking: “If France and Germany who fought several wars can live in peace, why can’t India and Pakistan?” Earlier, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, praised the Kartarpur initiative and went to the extent of comparing it with the fall of the Berlin Wall, which added to the optimism that was triggered.

When New Delhi and Islamabad made swift back—to—back announcements about the opening of the Kartarpur corridor to mark the 550thbirth anniversary of Guru Nanak (April 2019), it was assumed that some back—channel negotiation was ongoing and that religious diplomacy would facilitate some kind of political breakthrough to the long stalled bilateral dialogue.

However, the choice of the date for the Indian ground—breaking ceremony in the Gurdaspur district—26 November—coincided with the tenth anniversary of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai (26/11) and the symbolism was intriguing. Why did New Delhi decide on this date? Was there any review and change to India’s stated policy that support to terror and talks cannot go together? Speculation began that maybe India would attend the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit scheduled to be held in Pakistan and the optimism was growing.

However, within hours, there was a reality check and a number of contradictory developments and statements emerged. First, India’s External Affairs Minister. Sushma Swaraj, confirmed that she would not attend the ceremonies in Pakistan and Punjab’s Chief Minister Singh who had also been invited, declined to attend too. In his remarks, Singh drew attention to the terrorism and separatism being supported by Pakistan’s Inter—Services Intelligence (ISI) and publicly cautioned Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, not to provoke India. Soon after Swaraj also confirmed that there were no plans for India to attend the SAARC summit and asserted that‘terror and talks’ cannot go together.

Yet, to respect the Sikh sentiment, the Modi government chose to send two central ministers–Harsimrat Kaur Badal and Hardeep Singh Puri–to Pakistan with a message that Kartarpur was a stand—alone religious initiative and not to be linked with any other aspect of the uneasy bilateral relationship. Concurrently there was internal dissonance within the Congress party in the Punjab government, for junior minister and cricketer—turned politician Navjot Singh Sidhu (formerly with the Bharatiya Janata Party and who had first brought Kartarpur into the public domain in August 2018 when he attended Khan’s swearing—in ceremony to the office of Pakistan’s prime minister) became the Indian face at Kartarpur. It was evident that Amarinder Singh was not enthused with this participation by Sidhu but this is indicative of the current political dynamic in the state over Kartarpur.

If India represented a divided (and confused?) constituency, the event in Pakistan was marred by the presence of the pro—Khalistan leader Gopal Chawla, and his photograph with Sidhu generated controversy in India. The Khan’s reference to Kashmir in his remarks was criticised by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and in short, the sudden hope that was generated in the early stages of the Kartarpur announcement was short—lived.

In a subsequent interaction with visiting Indian journalists, Khan exhorted India to make a fresh start to revive the stalled bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. He responded to questions about terrorism, 26/11 and Hafiz Saeed but presented a contradictory posture on the ‘core’ issue of state support to terrorism.

While maintaining what Islamabad always says in public—that Pakistan does not support terrorism or allows its soil to be used to export terror(a claim that is rejected by both Afghanistan and India)—Khan tried to downplay the Hafiz Saeed issue by claiming that the 26/11 case is sub judice in Pakistan and that his government had clamped down on Saeed and his group.

Khan’s contradictory positions on terrorism was visible even when his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was in power in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province after the 2013 election and Peshawar was rocked by terror attacks. At the time, instead of taking a firm stand against the terror groups, as the leader of the PTI, Khan urged talks with the Taliban.

In his first 100 days as prime minister, Khan also rejected US President Trump’s admonition about Islamabad supporting terror groups. Ironically, on 26 November 2018–the 10th anniversary of 26/11–Imran Khan also addressed a gathering in North Waziristan where he noted: “We have fought an imposed war inside our country as our war at a very heavy cost of sweat and blood and lose to our socio—economic fibre. We shall not fight any such war again inside Pakistan.”

Believing that Pakistan is a victim of an ‘imposed war’ and living in denial about the eco—system that Rawalpindi has nurtured for decades to support terror groups selectively is the strongly held internal narrative that Imran Khan has to discard for any meaningful movement in the bilateral dialogue with India. Until then, Kartarpur is likely to remain a standalone initiative in the run—up to the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak.

The Berlin Wall moment is clearly far away.

The Hindi version of this article was originally published in Dainik Jagran on 1 December 2018, and its English translation has been published here with the author’s consent. 

By Brandon Friedman*

(FPRI) — The media has too often cast the House of Saud as an effete body of idle princes. The image is a distortion. The family has its full share of able, energetic men, both in the older and younger generations. It has far more resiliency than some critics choose to believe.[1]  – Hermann Frederick Eilts – 1980

For much of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s modern history, its foreign policy has been oriented towards preserving regional stability and upholding the status quo of the post-World War I state system. Unlike Egypt or Iraq, Saudi Arabia did not actively seek a dominant leadership role in the Arab state system.[2] If its coalitions fluctuated in foreign affairs, it was because the Saudis usually demonstrated pragmatic flexibility in maneuvering to maintain a regional balance of power. Since the 1980s, Saudi diplomacy and statecraft were characterized by caution, and in practice conducted discreetly, often behind the scenes.[3] The Saudis were known as active regional mediators and were successful in using their oil wealth to advance their security interests.[4]

This pattern of foreign policy behavior changed following King Salman’s accession to the throne in 2015, and the change became sharper and more visible after Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince in 2016. To be sure, this change could be seen as a reasonable response to challenging circumstances. The crown prince believed the weakness of the Arab world in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and the twin threats of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian expansion demanded that Saudi Arabia emerge from behind the scenes to play a more forceful leadership role. Mohammed bin Salman’s rapport with Jared Kushner (the two are said to regularly exchange text messages on WhatsApp),[5] U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, and his ability to convince the Trump administration to put Saudi Arabia at the center of U.S. Middle East policy, elevated his standing in the international community and bolstered his power at home, legitimizing the bold new approach to Saudi foreign affairs.[6]

However, the Jamal Khashoggi affair was the culmination of a series of missteps over the past year that has cast serious doubt on the both the crown prince personally and the reliability of the Saudis more generally. As a result, the journalist’s murder may alter the trajectory of regional politics and will have a significant impact on Saudi domestic politics, despite continuing signs of strong support for the crown prince in the Kingdom.

The Khashoggi crisis has unfolded along two parallel tracks. On one track, the U.S. media and Members of Congress have brought enormous pressure to bear on the Trump administration to hold those involved in Khashoggi’s murder fully accountable. On the other track, Turkey has attempted to use the audio recording of the killing to diminish the crown prince and reset Turkey’s relations with the U.S. at the Saudis’ expense. While the Trump administration has demonstrated its intention to shield the Saudis and Mohammed bin Salman from a full accounting for the time being, it is not clear whether the Saudis will possess enough political capital and goodwill in the aftermath of this affair to serve as the West’s leading partner in regional politics, as envisioned by the ambitious crown prince.

Public Outcry in the West

On October 2, Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to finalize a divorce in order to marry his Turkish fiancé, who was waiting for him outside. He was killed by a team of Saudi officials, who had apparently travelled from Saudi Arabia to Turkey for the purpose of confronting Khashoggi in the consulate. Details leaked from parallel Turkish and Saudi investigations have revealed conflicting information about the specific circumstances that led to Khashoggi’s murder, and it is still not entirely clear whether it was premeditated murder or a botched kidnapping/rendition. If it was a premeditated, who authorized it? And what was the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in it?[7]

The silencing of Khashoggi’s voice of dissent provoked an initial wave of public outrage in the West. The details of Khashoggi’s brutal murder have been slowly leaked by Turkey’s security services to the international media, lending the entire episode the suspenseful quality of a noir thriller. The grisly news has captured the public’s imagination, raising questions about the nature of the West’s close ties to a crown prince, who was portrayed as reckless (and perhaps ruthless), after a series of missteps over the year leading up to this incident. Moreover, Khashoggi was well-liked and well-connected, and his position at the Washington Post meant that an attack on him was perceived as an attack on freedom of the press, a sacrosanct part of democratic political culture in the West. The Washington Post has remained doggedly fixed on the story for more than two months, despite efforts to steer the news cycle away from the Khashoggi issue.

In the United States, Congress, the media, and the business community responded to the news of Khashoggi’s murder in a way that fed the public backlash, turning the issue into a slow-motion diplomatic crisis.[8] A bipartisan group of 22 U.S. senators signed a letter invoking the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act calling on the U.S. president to impose sanctions on anyone found accountable for Khashoggi’s murder.[9] Virgin Group’s billionaire owner Richard Branson announced he was suspending plans to partner with the Saudis on his latest ventures into space, and several prominent and potentially significant U.S. investors backed out of the crown prince’s major Future Investment Initiative (“FII”), which was billed as “the Davos in the Desert” and held in late October.[10]

As details of Khashoggi’s murder slowly emerged in mid-October, Europe also applied public pressure. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany issued a joint statement defending freedom of expression and protection for journalists and calling for a “credible investigation.”[11] Germany announced it would halt all new arms exports to Saudi Arabia until the circumstances of Khashoggi’s murder were clarified.[12] In late October, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for a European-wide arms embargo on Saudi Arabia.[13] Denmark and Finland later announced they would halt all future arms sales export licenses to Saudi Arabia.[14] Yet, this was not a big sacrifice. Their arms sales to the Kingdom are not a major engine for their economies.

In Germany, for example, Saudi arms sales amounted to approximately three percent of its total. In the case of other European countries, arms deals with Saudi Arabia remain a significant source of revenues for their economies. France, Spain, and the United Kingdom have all indicated that they intend to honor their defense contracts with Saudi Arabia, despite the crisis, and have not indicated if the crisis would alter future deals.[15] France, in particular, despite selling Saudi Arabia $12.6 billion in arms between 2008 and 2017,[16] has a multidimensional relationship with Saudi Arabia that simply can’t be evaluated in terms of its arms sales to the Kingdom.[17]

In mid-November, the Trump administration and the Saudi government took concrete steps to defuse the crisis by announcing their intentions to punish those involved in Khashoggi’s murder. The Saudi investigation found that Khashoggi had died by lethal injection and his body was then dismembered and disposed of in Turkey. The Saudis announced that they would arrest 18 individuals involved in the incident, and seek the death penalty for five of the eighteen.[18] The U.S. government, for its part, designated 17 Saudis involved in the operation for sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, which would freeze their assets in the U.S. and prohibit U.S. entities from dealing with them.

Mohammed bin Salman was not implicated in either the Saudi investigation or the U.S. sanctions,[19] which prompted a new bipartisan group of six U.S. senators to propose an array of sanctions that targets not just the individuals involved in the killing but also the Saudi regime, arguing that the U.S. had not gone far enough to hold the Saudi government accountable.[20]

The Senators’ proposal for broader sanctions emerged with a leaked Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assessment that concluded, with “high confidence,” that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of Khashoggi.[21] On Saturday, November 17, Vice President Mike Pence referred to Khashoggi’s death as an “atrocity,” and reiterated that “the United States is determined to hold all of those accountable who are responsible for that murder.”[22]

Nevertheless, on November 20, the U.S. president issued a statement that reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed, downplaying the CIA assessment implicating bin Salman.[23] President Trump justified his defense of the crown prince in terms of U.S. strategic and national interests, arguing that the Saudis were a profligate customer for U.S. defense manufacturers, an important source of oil production for a global market, and a valuable partner in the U.S. effort to contain Iranian expansion in the Middle East.[24] While Trump claims the Saudi defense deals will inject $450 billion into the U.S. economy, only $14.5 billion for a missile system has materialized in concrete terms to date.[25]

And while the Saudis are a critical swing producer for the oil market, the U.S. is far less dependent on Saudi production than it has been since the 1970s.[26] In the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi’s killing, the Saudis delivered on a $110 million pledge to support the U.S. military mission in Syria, and there have been rumors that there are a small number of Saudi troops on the ground there.[27] Whatever the merits of Trump’s claims, the White House’s staunch support for the Saudis and the administration’s effort to shield the crown prince from further damage has played a critical role in helping Crown Prince Mohammed weather the storm of this crisis.[28]

In late November, the White House prevented CIA Director Gina Haspel—who traveled to Turkey to hear the audio recording of Khashoggi’s killing—from testifying at a U.S. Senate foreign relations committee hearing on the civil war in Yemen on Wednesday, November 28.[29] Observers described the hearing as an important litmus test for whether Congress will push for more sanctions on Saudi Arabia. There is renewed support for the bipartisan “Saudi Accountability and Yemen Act,” which would limit arms sales to Saudi Arabia; end U.S. refueling of Saudi aircraft involved in the Yemen war; demand a new report on human rights in Saudi Arabia; and mandate sanctions on individuals implicated in Khashoggi’s murder.[30] However, it is doubtful that any such new legislation could pass until the newly elected House begins work in 2019.[31]

Turkey’s Gambit

Turkey, for its part, tried to take advantage of the affair by leaking evidence to extract concessions from the Trump administration, which has tried to bury the crisis. The Turkish leaks fed the media coverage, suggesting there was more damning evidence against the Saudis that had not been disclosed. The subtext of this process had been that unless Turkey’s demands were met, it would publicly release the most damaging information it possesses and discredit the Saudi crown prince and the U.S. efforts to insulate the crown prince from the affair. In this carefully calibrated game of diplomatic extortion, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is trying to both reset his relations with the U.S. and supplant the Saudis as the putative leader of the Sunni world in the Middle East without openly rupturing ties with the Saudi kingdom.

In an early November Washington Post op-ed, Erdoğan took pains to emphasize that the Khashoggi “slaying” was not a “problem” between two countries [Saudi Arabia and Turkey], and while he did not believe “for a second” that King Salman had ordered “the hit on Khashoggi,” Turkey “must reveal the identities of the puppetmasters behind Khashoggi’s killing and discover those in whom Saudi officials — still trying to cover up the murder — have placed their trust.”[32]

When the Khashoggi crisis erupted, Erdoğan’s relations with the United States were unraveling. The Turkish lira had loss 40 percent of its value, inflation was at a 15-year high, and the economy was ailing, in part, due to an ongoing confrontation between Turkey and the U.S. over the American pastor, Andrew Brunson, who was being held by Turkey on espionage charges.[33] As the Khashoggi crisis unfolded, a Turkish court abruptly released Brunson from two years of detention, creating a new atmosphere for engagement between the U.S. and Turkey.[34] Turkey hoped this reset would allow it to offer its support to the Trump administration on Khashoggi affair as part of a broader exchange for concessions from the U.S. on other more vital Turkish interests.

Turkey is seeking greater U.S. cooperation on four key bilateral issues. First, Erdoğan wants the U.S. to extradite Islamist leader Fetullah Gülen, whom Turkey accuses of orchestrating the July 2016 attempt coup. Second, Turkey would like the U.S. to end the federal investigation into Halkbank, which is accused of helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions. Third, Turkey is seeking a permanent exemption from the U.S. for importing Iranian oil. And, fourth, Turkey wants to see the U.S. end its support for the Kurds in northeastern Syria.[35]

The U.S. has its own outstanding claims on Turkey, which include the release of three U.S. citizens who worked for the U.S. consulate, and who are being held on terrorist charges that U.S. officials characterized as “baseless”; an end to Turkish targeting of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) in northeast Syria; and the cancellation of Turkey’s commitment to purchase the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system. Thus far, the Trump administration appears unwilling to participate in this kind of quid pro quo with Turkey,[36] which has led to Turkey’s renewed calls for an UN investigation into the Khashoggi affair.[37]

Beyond its attempt at diplomatic horse-trading, Turkey’s broader strategy has been to use the crisis to diminish Crown Prince Mohammed. This would provide Turkey with three important gains. First, it would undermine the Saudi-Egypt-UAE tripartite front against the Muslim Brotherhood in the region.[38] This grouping has placed itself in opposition to Turkey and Qatar, which, in different ways, have represented Muslim Brotherhood interests in the region since the fall of the Mohamed Morsi government in Egypt in 2013. Second, Turkey hoped to demonstrate that it was more reliable than the Saudis as an American ally in the region.[39] Third, and most importantly, a more timid Saudi Arabia would allow Erdoğan to continue his effort to establish Turkey as the dominant regional power in the Sunni world.[40]

Turkey’s possession of an audio-recording of the Khashoggi killing continues to provide it with significant political leverage over the Saudis, who do not want it publicly released. Turkey would also prefer not to leak the full recording and risk rupturing ties with the Saudis, who still control access to the Hajj and provide considerable economic opportunities to the Turkish private sector, which is reeling from its currency free-fall. However, it is also clear that Erdoğan would like to see the crown prince sidelined as a consequence of the Khashoggi affair. Therefore, despite the Trump administration’s effort to shield the Saudi crown prince, we may see additional developments in the Khashoggi affair that reflect the fundamental differences between Erdoğan’s and Mohammed bin Salman’s vision for the future of the region.

Icarus Syndrome?

Crown Prince Mohammed has been trying to fight on all fronts at the same time: at home, he has challenged the jihadists, the Islamist activists, even the Wahhabi religious establishment, while at the same time shaking down senior Saudi princes accused of corruption; abroad, he has led the charge to counter Iranian regional expansion, while also trying to stamp out the sources of Muslim Brotherhood influence across the region. All of this was in addition to pursuing the Kingdom’s most ambitious attempt at socio-economic reform in more than 50 years.

While there is much to commend about the crown prince’s efforts to urgently address the legitimate challenges facing the Kingdom, some believe he has been recklessly tilting at windmills simply in order to accumulate power.[41] A series of bad decisions leading up to the Khashoggi affair have undermined his credibility abroad, which also affects his legitimacy at home, despite his popularity with young people in the Kingdom. The blockade of Qatar, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the coerced resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and the sharp break with Canada, among others all have called into question the crown prince’s judgment. Among the latest revelations, from David Ignatius, that the crown prince’s court was running a foreign rendition program that unsuccessfully targeted hostile members of the Saudi royal family and their entourages raises further questions about the crown prince’s competence and judgment.

While some have argued the West’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is not based on shared values and is therefore inherently unstable and expendable, the Trump administration has made the case for the relationship with Saudi Arabia in terms of “vital” U.S. security interests. However, looking beyond the moral or realist dimensions of the debate, which are as old as the Saudi-U.S. partnership, the Khashoggi affair has raised the question of whether a third generation of Saudis is capable of delivering on the full measure of its considerable ambitions. It is this aspect of the relationship that will ultimately determine whether the Saudi partnership becomes an asset or liability to the West.

*About the author: Brandon Friedman, a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, is a Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle East and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Source: This article was published by FPRI

Notes:

[1] Herman F. Eilts, “Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf,” International Security 5:2 (1980), 79-113, here 96.

[2] Jacob Goldberg, Saudi Foreign Folicy: The Formative Years, 1902-1918 (Harvard University Press, 1986); Elie Podeh, The Quest for Hegemony in the Arab World: The Struggle Over the Baghdad Pact (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Mordechai Abir, Saudi Arabia: Government, Society, and the Gulf Crisis (New York: Routledge, 1993).

[3] William Quandt, Saudi Arabia in the 1980s: Foreign Policy, Security, and Oil (Brookings Institution Press, 1981); F. Gregory Gause III, Oil Monarchies: Domestic and Security Challenges in the Arab Gulf States (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1994); Gerd Nonnemon, “Determinants and Patterns of Saudi Foreign Policy: ‘Omnibalancing’ and ‘Relative Autonomy in multiple environments,” in Saudi Arabia in the Balance: Political Economy, Society, Foreign Affairs (London: Hurst Ltd., 2005) edited by P. Aarts and G. Nonneman: 315–51.

[4] Mehran Kamrava, “Mediation and Saudi Foreign Policy,” Orbis 57:1 (Winter 2013), 152-170.

[5] David D. Kirkpatrick, Mark Landler, Ben Hubbard, and Mark Mazetti, “The Wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis Got a Friend in the White House,” The New York Times, December 8, 2018.

[6] F. Gregory Gause III, “Fresh Prince: The Schemes and Dreams of Saudi Arabia’s Next King,” Foreign Affairs 97:3 (May/June 2018), 75-86; Dexter Filkins, “A Saudi Prince’s Quest to Remake the Middle East,” The New Yorker, April 9, 2018.

[7] Martin Chulov, Jamal Khashoggi: murder in the consulate,” The Guardian, October 21, 2018; Adam Taylor, “One month after Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, these questions remain unanswered,” Washington Post, November 2, 2018.

[8] “The backlash to Khashoggi’s alleged murder is growing – except in the White House,” The Washington Post, October 12, 2018.

[9] Jordan Tama, “What is the Global Magnitsky Act, and why are U.S. Senators invoking this on Saudi Arabia?,” The Washington Post, October 12, 2018.

[10] These include the top executives of Blackstone, Blackrock, Google, and JP Morgan & Chase; see: Zainab Fattab and Annie Massa, Saudi “Davos in the Desert” Attendees Dropping Out,” Bloomberg, October 11, 2018; Michelle Davis, Erik Schatzker, and Matthew Martin, “Schwarzman and Fink Said to Shun Saudi Investment Conference,” Bloomberg, October 15, 2018; Zachary Basu, “The companies that have backed away from Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi,” Axios, October 23, 2018.

[11] “Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi: joint statement by the foreign ministers from UK, France, and Germany,” Press Release, October 14, 2018.

[12] Rick Noack, “Germany halts arms deals with Saudi Arabia, encourages allies to do the same,” The Washington Post, October 22, 2018.

[13] Quentin Aries and James McAuley, “European Parliament passes resolution urging arms embargo on Saudi Arabia,” The Washington Post, October 25, 2018.

[14] “Denmark suspends Saudi weapon export approvals over Khashoggi, Yemen concerns,” Reuters, November 22, 2018; Rick Noack, “Finland and Denmark join Germany in halting arms sales to Saudi Arabia,” The Washington Post, November 22, 2018.

[15] “UK, France and Spain to maintain arms sales to Saudi Arabia,” The Middle East Eye, October 24, 2018.

[16] “France’s Macron evades questions on halting Saudi arms sales,” France24.com, October 24, 2018.

[17] Robin Emmott, John Irish, Andrea Shalal, “Calls for Saudi arms embargo pit EU values against interests,” Reuters, October 26, 2018.

[18] “Public Prosecution: Investigation Results Briefing,” Saudi Press Agency, November 15, 2018; Kevin Sullivan, Loveday Morris, and Tamer El-Gobashy, “Saudi Arabia fires 5 top officials, arrests 18 Saudis, saying Khashoggi was killed in a fight at the consulate,” The Washington Post, October 19, 2018.

[19] Karen DeYoung and Kareem Faheem, “U.S., Saudi steps in Khashoggi case don’t go far enough, lawmakers say,” The Washington Post, November 15, 2018.

[20] Steven T. Dennis, “Senators Propose Saudi Sanctions Over Yemen, Khashoggi Murder,” November 16, 2018. For a detailed explanation of this dimension of the affair, see: Adam Garfinkle, “What the Khashoggi Affairs Tells Us about American, Journalism, Politics, and Policymaking in the Age of Trump,” E-Notes, Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), November 28, 2018.

[21] Shane Miller, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, “CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2018.

[22] Morgan Gstalter, “Pence: US will hold those responsible for Khashoggi’s murder accountable,” The Hill, November 17, 2018.

[23] “Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia,” The White House, November 20, 2018.; Mark Landler, “In Extraordinary Statement, Trump Stands With Saudis Despite Khashoggi Killing,” The New York Times, November 20, 2018.

[24] Daniel Politi and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Argentine Prosecutors Consider Charges Against Saudi Crown Prince Ahead of G-20,” The New York Times, November 26, 2018.

[25] “Trump Inflates Value of Saudi Arms Deals,” Associated Press, November 21, 2018.

[26] “Russia, Saudi Arabia ‘Quietly’ Agree to Lift Production,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, October 4, 2018; John Kemp, “Why Trump is pressing Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices,” Reuters, July 5, 2018.

[27] Ben Hubbard, “Saudi Arabia Delivers $100 Million Pledged as Pompeo Lands in Riyadh,” The New York Times, October 16, 2018.

[28] See: Mike Pompeo, “The U.S.-Saudi Partnership Is Vital,” The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2018.

[29] Ultimately, Haspel did brief a small group of the Senate’s leadership on December 4, see: Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Fandos, “Saudi Prince ‘Complicit’ in Khashoggi’s Murder, Senators Say after C.I.A. Briefing,” The New York Times, December 4, 2018; Julian Borger, “White House denies Haspel prevented from briefing Senate on Khashoggi murder,” The Guardian, November 27, 2018.

[30] Alexander Bolton, “Senate to get briefing on Saudi Arabia that could undermine sanctions,” The Hill.com, November 24, 2018.

[31] Gardiner Harris, Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper, Nicholas Fandos, “Senators Furious Over Khashoggi Killing, Spurn President on War in Yemen,” The New York Times, November 28, 2018; Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Fandos, Saudi Prince ‘Complicit’ in Khashoggi’s Murder, Senators Say after C.I.A. Briefing,” The New York Times, December 4, 2018;

[32] Recep Tayyip Erdogan, “Saudi Arabia still has many questions to answer about Jamal Khashoggi’s killing,” The Washington Post, November 2, 2018.

[33] Adam Goldman and Gardiner Harris, “U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Turkish Officials Over Detained American Pastor,” The New York Times, August 1, 2018; Steve Holland and Roberta Rampton, “US imposes sanctions on Turkish officials over pastor’s detention,” Reuters, August 1, 2018; Frida Ghitis “What Turkey hopes to gain from Khashoggi’s murder,” Politico.com, October 18, 2018.

[34] Ezgi Erkoyun and Emily Wither, “Freed Pastor Brunson leaves Turkey, due in U.S. on Saturday,” Reuters, October 12, 2018.

[35] Cansu Camblibel, “Ankara’s psyche: It is payback time with the United States,” Hurriyet Daily News, November 24, 2018.

[36] Semih Idiz, “Khashoggi murder: Storm clouds gather over Turkish-Saudi ties,” al-Monitor, November 24, 2018.

[37] David D. Kirkpatrick, “Turkey Calls for International Inquiry in Khashoggi Killing,” November 14, 2018.

[38] Martin Chulov, “Khashoggi case has put Saudi prince right where Erdoğan wants him,” The Guardian, October 22, 2018.

[39] Carlotta Gall, “Erdogan Didn’t Get All He Hoped For in Khashoggi Case, but His Stature Rises,” The New York Times, November 21, 2018.

[40] Mustafa Aykol, “Khashoggi’s Death Is Highlighting the Ottoman-Saudi Islamic Rift,” ForeignPolicy.com, October 17, 2018.

[41] David Ignatius, “The Khashoggi killing had roots in a cutthroat family feud,” Washington Post, November 27, 2018.

By Anand Kumar*

One of the most notorious terrorist organizations in the world, the Boko Haram, has intensified its terror activities in northeastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad region. Since July 2018, there have been at least 17 attacks on military bases in Nigeria, almost all of them in the region around Lake Chad. The Islamic State (IS) claimed its militants had killed 118 people in five operations in Nigeria and Chad between November 15 and 21. On November 18, in a daring attack, the IS-allied Boko Haram jihadists killed at least 43 soldiers when they overran a base in Metele village near the border with Niger. The survivors however put the death toll at more than a hundred. The Boko Haram has reportedly taken over two towns in this area, with the Nigerian military suffering huge damages.

The resurgence of the Boko Haram is especially glaring as Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari declared the terrorist organization as ‘technically defeated’, after assuming power in 2015. Even in January 2018, Buhari insisted that Boko Haram has been defeated. With the Boko Haram intensifying its activities by attacking villages and military bases in the Lake Chad region, it has become clear that the terrorist organization has not been weakened. On the contrary, it appears to have only gathered strength. Now questions are being asked as to how a virtually defeated terrorist organization is able to cause so much damage to the Nigerian security forces and its people.

Boko Haram was founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002. Yusuf was captured by the Nigerian police following the July 2009 Boko Haram uprising. He was summarily executed in public view outside the police headquarters in Maiduguri. Police officials had initially claimed that Yusuf was shot while trying to escape. The group has been led by Abu bakar Shekau since 2009, and the terrorist organization has been active since then in northeastern Nigeria. The influence of Boko Haram has gradually spread to neighbouring Cameroon, Chad and Niger. In Nigeria alone, more than 27,000 people have been killed over the past nine years, and the violence has forced out some 1.8 million people from their homes. One of the most notorious acts of the Boko Haram was the abduction of Chibok girls in April 2014. The group advocates Sharia law and rejects Western education.

The insurgency led by the Boko Haram is especially strong in the area known as the Lake Chad region. This is a strategic area where the borders of four countries – Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger, converge. Since 2015, these four countries have been collaborating militarily as part of the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF). After the recent upsurge in Boko Harm violence, leaders of all four countries met in the Chadian capital on 29 November 2018 to devise a joint response.

Boko Haram split in August 2016, when IS supported a group of militants who wanted to part ways with Shekau. They crowned Abu Musab al-Barnawi as the new governor of Islamic State-West Africa (IS-WA). Shekau has not accepted this change and continues to command militants loyal to him under the group’s previous name, Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (JAS). The Shekau faction of Boko Haram is notorious for using suicide bombers to attack military and civilian targets.

When President Buhari came to power in 2015, there was lot of hope that he would improve the economy and deal effectively with the extremism. Hope on both these fronts seems to be vanishing as Nigeria prepares for elections in February 2019. The economy of Nigeria largely dependent on export of oil was in turmoil after the international oil prices fell in 2016.

The upsurge in the Boko Haram violence has forced the Nigerian government to improve security forces deployment. There are now about 7000 personnel deployed in the destabilized Borno State. There have also been frequent changes in commanders of the force handling insurgency. In the latest change, the Federal Government of Nigeria ordered Chief of Army staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, to return to the northeast to oversee the fight against Boko Haram. He is expected to stay there until Boko Haram insurgents are crushed. The federal government has also instructed Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Abayomi Olonisakin, and Gen. Buratai, to overhaul the conduct of major operations in the country. These include Operation Lafiya Dole in the northeast, Operation Delta in the Niger Delta, Operation Sharan Daji in Zamfara and Katsina states, and Operation Awatse in the Southwest. President Buhari has also ordered the immediate procurement of critical equipment for the armed forces.

While Buhari has been criticised for having termed Boko Haram as a ‘ technically defeated’ outfit, he is also accused of providing poor training and inappropriate weapons to the army resulting in massive casualties. Some are even accusing the President of purposely doing this so that military could be discredited, to prevent any possible coup d’etat. In the 55 years of Nigeria ’s post-colonial history, the country has been ruled by army generals for 40 years.

Boko Haram has proved to be much more resilient than Nigerian authorities had anticipated. Its resurgence might affect the holding of credible polls in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe in February 2019. These areas are too volatile and vulnerable to the Boko Haram banditry. Nigeria needs a long term strategy to defeat Boko Haram as the latest round of violence indicates that the terrorist organization is expected to survive beyond the February 2019 elections. In the near term, if the Nigerian state is able to check Boko Haram’s present activities by the increased deployment of its security forces and holds credible elections in the troubled areas, that itself would be a big achievement.

*About the author: Dr Anand Kumar is currently Visiting Professor and Chair (India Studies) at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

Source: This article was published by IDSA

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

The residents of some countries have been seeing the consequences of having a national leader who relies on television outlets that play back to him exactly what he wants to hear rather than on alternative sources of information.  Now, it appears, Russians may have a similar and equally disturbing experience with Vladimir Putin.

At a meeting with members of the Presidential Human Rights Council, Irina Petrovskaya of Novaya gazeta says,Vladimir Putin said he had no knowledge of some things they were telling him because no one had told him and there was no other way for him to learn what was happening (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/12/13/78925-tv-vrat-ne-budet).

At the same time, the Kremlin leader acknowledged that he “regularly watches television” from which he said he could expect to learn about the most important of these affairs.  But as anyone who watches state-controlled television knows, its channels aren’t going to report on dissidents very often and so those who rely on it for information simply won’t know.

As the Novaya gazeta commentator says, “there is no such information on television. Or almost none. Or there is but it turns things upside down and introduces delusions not only for the president but also for trusting television viewers.” Indeed, what Moscow TV normally says about human rights activists and human rights violations is anything but accurate.

In some countries, a leader who wants to rely on television for his understanding of the world has to choose one of only a few channels that promotes what he wants to hear. In Russia, in contrast, Putin has lots of choice: he only has to avoid the few remaining channels that his propagandists don’t control.