Under the suffocating shadow of economic austerity, homelessness in Britain is increasing, poverty and inequality deepening. Since the Conservative party came to power via a coalition government in 2010, then as a minority government in 2015, homelessness has risen exponentially.

Whilst it is impossible to collect precise statistics on homelessness, these widely available figures, which exclude the ‘hidden homeless’, paint a stark picture of the growing crisis: In 2010 1,768 people were recorded as sleeping rough, whilst 48,000 households were living in temporary accommodation. By December 2017, according to A Public Accounts Committee report, there were almost 9,000 rough sleepers, and, The Guardian states, “nearly 76,000 households were living in emergency temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfasts, of which 60,000 were families with children or pregnant mothers” – an increase of 58% on the 2010 figures.

Whilst someone rough sleeping in a doorway is a loud and painful declaration of homelessness, a person is also regarded as homeless if they are staying with family or friends or ‘sofa surfing’ (the ‘hidden homeless’), as well those living in temporary accommodation provided by a local authority. Councils have a legal duty to house certain people – such as pregnant women, parents with dependent children and people considered vulnerable (single people rarely qualify). If, after investigating a case, the council concludes they do not have a legal duty to provide housing, nothing permanent is offered and the temporary accommodation is withdrawn. The only option then is to find somewhere in the private sector, which is becoming increasingly difficult in many parts of the country, including rural towns as well as London and other major cities. Rents (and deposits) are high and landlords are more and more demanding, refusing to rent to people on state benefits, often asking for a guarantor and only offering Assured Shorthold Tenancies (AST).

The Thatcher government introduced AST’s as part of the Housing Act of 1988, prior to which fair rents (as opposed to market rents) and protected tenancies existed, providing a high level of security of tenure. The Thatcher legislation changed all that; AST’s (usually six months) provide virtually no security to the tenant and, in line with the maxim of the market, set no limit on the level of the rent. Consequentially most landlords charge as much as they can get, many do not properly maintain the property, and are within their rights to raise rents and take possession of the property whenever they feel like it. The ending of an AST is now one of the most common causes of homelessness.

Austerity and Homelessness

Those in receipt of state benefits or on a low income can claim housing benefit (HB), which is paid by local authorities to help with rent payments. In 2010, shocked by the national HB bill, the coalition government initiated reforms to the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) for tenants in ‘the deregulated private rented sector’ – the key word here is deregulated. Within broader public spending cuts the policy changes set a cap on the level of housing benefit that can be paid. LHA levels are fixed well below market rents, which results in shortfalls in rent payments leading to arrears, subsequent evictions and homelessness; according to the homeless charity Crisis, “all available evidence points to Local Housing Allowance reforms as a major driver of [the] association between loss of private tenancies and homelessness”

Instead of taking measures to regulate the private housing market and deal with the extortionate rents charged by greedy landlords, the policy penalized the tenant and set in motion a system which, coupled with benefit freezes and the dire lack of social housing, has caused homelessness to grow at an alarming rate; Another example of government incompetence or social hardship by design? If the HB freeze remains in place until 2020 as planned by the government, the charity, Shelter says that “more than a million households, including 375,000 with at least one person in work, could be forced out of their homes.”

The cap on HB is one aspect of the government’s austere economic programme. Through the implementation of economic austerity the Conservative government is waging a violent assault on the poorest members of British society and ripping the heart out of the community. The justification for such brutality is the need to ‘balance the books’, however, the national debt is greater now that is was in 2010, The Office for National Statistics states that “UK government gross debt as of December 2017 was £1.7 trillion – equivalent to 87.7% of gross domestic product (GDP),” – compared to 60% of GDP in 2010. Austerity is an ideological choice not an economic necessity. Financial cuts have been applied in the most severe manner; budgets to local authorities, schools, the NHS (National Health Service), the Police and to the benefit system, among other areas. The consequences are homelessness and widespread economic hardship.

Nationwide food-banks run by the Trussell Trust provided 1.3 million food parcels last year, up 13% on 2016 – before the financial crash in 2008/9 the concept of “food banks” was virtually unknown in Britain. Shelter estimates that more than 130,000 homeless children will be living in temporary accommodation over Christmas, almost 10,000 of who will be in hostels or hotels “where in many cases their family will have been put up in a single room, sharing bathrooms and kitchens with other residents. Overall, 50,000 more children in England, Wales and Scotland are homeless compared with five years ago, a rise of 59%.” The government is doing nothing to alleviate the homeless crisis, on the contrary their policies are fuelling it; Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, says the government’s approach to tackling the problem of homelessness has been an “abject failure”.

The right to a home

Homelessness is one of the most destabilizing and painful experiences anyone can go through. It fuels psychological and physiological insecurity, places a person in situations of physical danger, erodes any positive sense of self and causes physical and mental health illness; Crisis records that 46% of homeless people suffer from a mental health illness compared to 25% of the general public; and while this figure is itself extremely high, when asked, a staggering 86% of people who are homeless report suffering from one or other mental health illness. Perhaps unsurprisingly, research shows “that as a person’s housing becomes more stable the rate of serious mental illness decreases.”

Rough sleepers and people begging for money are routinely ignored and treated with disdain, police are instructed to move beggars on and so erase images of social hardship from the gentrified streets – it’s bad for the cities image – and hostile architecture makes even rough sleeping difficult. Shelter relate that the three main reasons for becoming homeless are: “parents, friends or relatives unwilling or unable to continue to accommodate them; relationship breakdown, including domestic violence and loss of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.” These are causes that anyone could be the victim of, they should not result in homelessness, indeed within a healthy, compassionately organized socio-economic order, homelessness would not exist at all.

Housing, like education and health care, should be safeguarded from the Madness of the Market; limits should be placed on the rents that private landlords can charge, and a nationwide building program of social housing initiated under the stewardship of local councils, not housing associations. At the same time tenancies need to be lengthened, tenants’ rights strengthened, and fair rents re-introduced.

A house or flat is a home, and a home is a basic human right – enshrined as such within that triumph of humanity, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: it is not and should not be regarded as a financial investment. At the root of the ‘housing crisis’ in Britain and elsewhere is the poison of commodification; whether it be a house or a forest, a school playground, library building or a public park, all are regarded in monetary terms, how much is it ‘worth’ – meaning how much is anyone willing to pay for it. The result is the commercialization of all areas of life including housing, and the promotion of an ugly way of life rooted in material greed and financial profit, no matter the impact on people or the natural environment.

This ideologically rooted approach to life is at the heart of many if not all of our problems, including the most pressing issue of the time, the environmental catastrophe. Government policies consistently add fuel to the fires, politicians lack vision and imagination, but it is the socio-economic ideology that underlies and fashions policy that is the problem; the system and the values it promotes need to be fundamentally changed, and a new order introduced that cultivates social justice, cooperation and tolerance.

Within ten months of his appointment as UN Special Envoy for Yemen, British born Martin Griffiths has succeeded in what has for years been regarded as the near-impossible – bringing the two main protagonists in the Yemen conflict to the negotiating table.

Griffiths is supremely well-qualified for his unenviable task. Born in 1951, he is a qualified barrister and also holds a master’s degree from London University’s SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies). He came to the post with extensive experience of conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation and humanitarian affairs from a long career in international humanitarian organizations. Having also worked in the UK’s foreign service, it is perhaps that British diplomatic touch that has served him so well.

The talks, held in Rimbo, Sweden, were a question of “second time lucky” for Griffiths. An attempt to sponsor negotiations in Geneva in September 2018 had foundered when the Houthis sought to trade their attendance against safe passage for some of their wounded soldiers. With such issues set aside, delegations from the internationally recognized government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and from the Iran-supported Houthi rebels actually sat down on 6 December 2018, facing each other across tables arranged in an open square.

The atmosphere was far from hostile. Both sides appreciated the humanitarian disaster that had overtaken Yemen’s civilian population as a result of the conflict, and seemed willing to compromise on at least some of the key issues.

Griffiths described Hodeida – the port through which most of Yemen’s food supplies and aid were shipped – as the center of gravity for the war. He proposed that the port, as opposed to the city, should be brought under UN supervision, with the Houthis and the Yemen government cooperating with the arrangement. He also pressed for agreement on a package of measures, including an end to the Saudi air blockade of Sanaa airport, a mass prisoner release programme, and economic reforms designed to shore up the Yemeni currency.

Of the main issues on the table, the prisoner exchange programme seems nearest to success. Word from within the talks indicated that as many as 6,000 prisoners could be exchanged in the coming months. The Houthis were expected to release several high-ranking commanders within the Yemeni army, including the former minister of defence, General Mahmoud Al Subaihi, and relatives of President Hadi. 

Mohammed Askar, Yemen’s minister for human rights, is reported as saying: “the agreement included all detainees who were captured by the Houthis since the war erupted.” Mohammed al-Amiri, an adviser to the president, said the sides were discussing “operational mechanisms that would determine the date and place of the release.”

While the opposing sides appeared to be edging closer to securing a deal on prisoners, the fate of Sanaa international airport and Hodeida port remained for resolution. The Houthis said they were prepared to hand over the port to the UN, but only if the Saudi-UAE coalition stops its air strikes. In the breakthrough agreement, reached on 13 December, both sides agreed to a ceasefire both in Hodeida and in the wider province, to be backed by UN troops.   

Hamza al-Kamali, a member of the Yemeni government delegation, said that talks were also focusing on easing the siege in Taiz. More than 200,000 civilians have been caught up by fighting in Taiz, a city some 200 km south of the capital, Sanaa, that has become one of the major front lines in the battle for control of Yemen.          

“If we’re able to achieve something positive,” said Kamali, “we will also be looking at when to hold the next round of negotiations.”   

In the event a “mutual understanding” was also struck on Taiz. And indeed Griffiths is planning to hold a further round of talks in the new year aimed at making progress on a long-term political settlement to end the four-year-long civil war.

The basis must be UN Resolution 2216, which aims to establish democracy in a federally united Yemen. This new effort will have to be backed by a UN peace-keeping force. Through whatever means would be most effective – new sanctions if necessary – Iran must be prevented from assisting the Houthis and supplying them with military hardware. Humanitarian aid must be given unfettered access to all parts of Yemen. A lasting political deal would of course involve the end of the Saudi-led military operation, and probably a major financial commitment by Saudi Arabia to fund the rebuilding of the country.

Finally the Houthis must be given the opportunity to choose. Do they wish to remain an outlawed militia permanently, or would they prefer to become a legitimate political party, able to contest parliamentary and presidential elections and participate in government? The price would be serious engagement in negotiations aimed at a peaceful transition to a political solution for a united Yemen.

On 11 December, the fifth day of the talks, Griffiths held a press conference reporting progress on a number of issues and promising that tangible agreements will be announced by the end of the round. The exact date and venue of the next round of consultations, he said, are being discussed with the two parties but will probably take place early next year .

“Hope is the currency of the mediator;” he declared. “If you do not provide a sense of optimism and hope for the parties, you will not encourage people to walk the extra mile.”

Griffiths certainly seems to be making progress.

Six Gulf nations met in the Saudi capital of Riyadh to discuss cooperation on a wide range of issues from the economy to security. The summit comes at a significant time because the future of the Gulf Cooperation Council may be at stake for the first time since its founding in 1981. The blockade of Qatar, the War in Yemen, and the diplomatic crisis behind the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi are only the few major issues that have overshadowed the summit in Riyadh, but now, many experts and analysts are wondering if the GCC can survive.

One notable absentee in Saudi Arabia was the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamid bin Hamad Al Thani. This is due to a few reasons. One reason is the ongoing blockade from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain on Qatar for two years.

But because the summit took place in Riyadh and not in a venue like Oman or Kuwait, it was not very likely that Qatar could have sent high ranking officials to the meeting. And secondly, the Qatari leadership was not very comfortable in sending its heads of states to Riyadh because they don’t want to see another fiasco like the kidnapping of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Before the GCC crisis, the land border between Qatar and Saudi Arabia was an incredibly busy traffic lane where people would be moving from one place to the other.

But now, the only land border Qatar has is now blockaded by three GCC states who have met in Riyadh. The GCC has been facing tremendous difficulties since the blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and just recently, Qatar’s withdrawal from OPEC as well. Qatar’s decision was mainly because it wanted to export more gas and move away from an economic model that was too dependent on oil. The blockading countries inside the GCC still believe that the current diplomatic crisis with Qatar will not affect the future of the organization, but this still remains to be seen.

Given the tensions between the different members of the GCC, the organization may not have any relevance left. Many people in the region are now questioning the future of the GCC and this may be the most serious crisis facing the six-nation organization since its establishment in 1981. The member countries are vying for different interests and face different threat perceptions.

In 1981, the GCC was established as a political organization that focused on creating a security umbrella to defend the member countries from Iran and its attempts to export the revolution at the time. But today, members like Qatar are facing existential threats from other members within the same bloc.

In terms of the ongoing crisis, there are three different groups. One group is Qatar and Oman, the other is Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and we have Kuwait trying to mediate between the two.

The summit in Riyadh this weekend was merely a ceremonial meeting because nobody wanted to pronounce that the GCC was a dead organization but want to keep it alive without having any important role for the time being.

The GCC was designed to counter Iranian influence in the Middle East after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. From the Iranian perspective, the GCC was a product for the United States to become more involved in the region. In fact, during the 1980’s, the United States along with its Arab partners supported Saddam Hussein against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War that killed thousands of Iranians and Iranian children were on the frontlines fighting the Iraqis.

Over the last few decades, the United States Israel, and Saudi Arabia have used geopolitical capabilities against Iran to weaken its economy and halt Iran’s growth as a regional power, nor can these countries accept Iran as a regional power that is going to have to be a part of the solution to the cancerous issues in the Middle East.

The hawkish policies coming out of Riyadh over the past few years, especially from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) have irritated many members in the GCC from the kidnapping of Prime Minister Saad Hariri, to the Khashoggi case, the blockade on Qatar, and the war in Yemen. Looking at these specific issues, it is obvious that Saudi Arabia’s policies in the region have totally backfired, and the Saudi leaders are discrediting themselves for only fueling the chaos in the region.

The last Gulf crisis in 2014 came to an end because the GCC states needed to show unity against the Islamic State, which, at the time had taken over huge sways of territory in their own backyard. The United States of course, wants to see a unified GCC to act as a counter to Iran in the region, but the current Gulf crisis seems to have no end in sight.

Since the ascendance of Mohammad bin Salman, the Saudis have backfired on every front. The Saudis want to counter Iran, but they have divided the GCC by constantly getting involved in areas like Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

In fact, Saudi misadventures in the Middle East have led to an increased Iranian influence in the region and forcing Qatar to move closer to Iran is a good example of this. Riyadh needs to rethink its foreign policy and how it is perceived in the region and the GCC itself has failed to bring different member states together on a unified front. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates already have an economic and military partnership, but Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar could form their own grouping which could perhaps bring in Iran and Turkey too.

A core reason for the success of the GCC has been its provision of the free movement of people and goods between member states, but with the current crisis between the blockading countries of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain against Qatar there are many who question the future of the organization.

We cannot necessarily say that the GCC is confidently dead, but it is probably more realistic to say that the GCC is ensuring very difficult circumstances in a constantly changing region of different geopolitical calculations. The GCC could return to being a relevant regional organization in the Middle East down the road, but it remains to be irrelevant right now given the current state of the current crisis with Qatar. Very little will change as a result of the Riyadh Summit, but the inspirations of a single currency, a defense force, and railway connections between member states remain to be distant ambitions right now.

The U.S. has sharply altered its strategy in Africa in response to growing foreign influence on the continent, restricting aid for countries which “take action counter to U.S. interests”. Announcing the new policy, national security advisor John Bolton particularly called out Russia’s efforts to “increase its influence in the region through corrupt economic dealings”.

Historically, China has been the main global power ramping up its clout and investment in Africa. Now, however, Yevgeny Prigozhin, one of Putin’s closest allies who has helped the Russian president pursue his covert operations around the world, including in Ukraine and Syria— and who was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his interference in U.S. elections—is spearheading what appears to be a focused attempt to extend Moscow’s geopolitical reach in Africa.

Russia’s historic Cold War alliances with African countries are providing a fertile platform for Moscow’s new diplomatic incursions, as Prigozhin shores up strongman presidents and wages a weaponry-for-assets campaign in regimes that are dissatisfied with the West, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Libya and the Central African Republic.

The multifaceted push to gain influence in Africa comes as Putin prepares to host dozens of the continent’s leaders next year at the first Russia-Africa summit. Prigozhin’s strategy to unleash his mercenaries and spin doctors on Africa is likely to butt heads with China’s own crusade for leverage on the continent— particularly in the tension-fraught Horn of Africa, site of China’s only overseas military base.

The battle for Africa’s assets

Africa has moved steadily up Putin’s list of priorities as he’s endeavored to shore up Russia’s superpower status and stabilize his country’s economy. Today, the continent offers fresh possibilities not only for pressing Moscow’s political suit in strategic locations but also for opening up vast and profitable new markets for oil, gas and mining collaborations. Local media in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), for example, report that Russia is actively involved in installing autocratic leader Joseph Kabila’s chosen successor with an eye on the DRC’s enormous mineral deposits.

In addition to pursuing mineral wealth, Russia is gaining clout through energy partnerships: Moscow is negotiating nuclear cooperation agreements with at least 16 African countries. While some of these collaborations– like those in Angola and Ethiopia – are still in their infancy, Nigeria and Sudan have progressed towards detailed agreements, while Egypt has finalized a deal for the construction of a suite of reactors at El Dabaa.

Russia is challenging China’s dominance in Africa

Despite these initiatives, Russia has a long way to go to catch up with the empire of influence which China has built in Africa. China’s already-substantial $40 billion worth of investments in Africa is set to be dwarfed by Beijing’s pledge of a further $175 billion over the next ten years, primarily in the form of loans for infrastructure development. Much of the funding is intended to drive Beijing’s fabled Belt and Road initiative, including a bold new proposal in Tanzania to transform the country’s Bagamoyo coastline into the largest port in Africa.

While many Africans have welcomed Beijing’s investment as a route to strengthening the continent’s economy, analysts fear that a number of African countries are becoming excessively indebted to China: an eye-watering 72 percent of Kenya’s $50 billion in debt, for example, is owed to creditors in Beijing.

As Russia ramps up its African interests in parallel with China, tensions between Moscow and Beijing will inevitably escalate. The battle for influence is likely to be particularly acute in the Horn of Africa, after Russia’s decision to place a so-called ‘logistics facility’ in Eritrea, which occupies a highly strategic location in a hotly contested region.

The Horn of Africa: a particular flashpoint

Russia had initially intended to open the installation in neighboring Djibouti, which has already become a noteworthy flashpoint in the struggle among great powers for influence in Africa. China has injected nearly $1.4 billion—equal to a staggering 75 percent of Djibouti’s GDP— in the country, which it is now touting as its ‘gateway to Africa’. The U.S. and China, among other nations, have set up duelling military bases in close proximity, while the tremendous amount of money Djibouti owes to Beijing has raised speculation that the country’s autocratic government intends to gift China with a key port, Doraleh, which it unlawfully seized from the Dubai-owned firm DP World.

Nowhere in the world are so many rival military installations situated in such tight quarters, but it’s China’s naval base—ironically, originally also referred to as a “logistics facility” until live-fire drills and an extraordinary four-layer security perimeter put paid to that façade— that has caused the most consternation among Western powers. Washington has been particularly concerned, warning of “serious consequences” if Doraleh fell into Chinese hands and worrying that a China-controlled port might restrict the U.S. military’s access to its only African base.

Tensions set to rise

In an electric region where the slightest diplomatic vibration could set off a political avalanche, any shift in the balance of power in the Horn of Africa could see the fur fly. Earlier this year political temperatures spiked as the U.S. military laid the blame for an incident in which two pilots on an American cargo plane were injured by exposure to a laser beam squarely at the door of the Chinese military. The Horn of Africa, with its foreign powers jostling for influence, is already a powder keg; Russia joining the fray could provide a dangerous spark.

It’s doubtful that the new U.S. strategy to punish African countries who draw too close to Beijing or Moscow’s orbit will do much to pour water on the fire. As Russia and China continue to build parallel influence networks in Africa—Russia with its mercenaries and Moscow-friendly strongmen, China with its railways and ports—it’s highly likely that more hotspots like the Horn of Africa will pop up.

America has always been great and generous towards the rest of the world. It unselfishly, helped Europeans, during the WWI a centenary ago. Without its help Germany would not have been defeated and brought to its senses.

American Generosity

Yet, again, without its massive intervention during WWII, with men, armor and funds, Germany would have conquered Europe. American generosity and humanity put forward the Marshall Plan in 1948 (Foreign Assistance Act of 1948) and without it Europe would not be what it is today, a power to reckoned with.

When the billionaire businessman Donald Trump went on the presidential elections campaign trail, he invoked the idea of making America great again, but it was already great with its political ideals, its technological advances, and human solidarity. For Trump “making America great” again was only a pretext for his “making America first”, whereby “first” , here, rhymes with “selfish” — and if one is selfish, he can, in no way, be a role model for the rest of the world.

A leader by definition is a tolerant, generous, loving and brave individual. Someone who thinks about the others more than he does about himself. This was America, until Trump came to power through the democratic process, of course.

America Inc. Or America Great?

Trump, a successful businessman, wants to turn America into America Inc. A country that makes money left and right and shuns anything that does not bring green bucks. He wants to turn his country into a big company, but what if this company does not make money will it go bust and disappear?
A country is a land, people, languages, culture, feeling, ideals that are not money-making concepts, but a supreme philosophy.

American Melting Pot

He does not want immigration because as the good WASP that he is, he is scared, to death, that the white race loses its supremacy in the near future, but America was always multi-colored and that is what highlights its strength and greatness.

At the entrance of the New York harbor there is a proud lady holding a torch of American greatness, welcoming migrants, wayfarers of all colors creeds and idioms, but since Trump arrived to the White House she is wondering what, on earth, is she doing there?

When the white Europeans came to America in the 15th century, the Native Americans did not chase them; on the contrary, they gave them food and welcomed them. But, as more whites came in and moved west, they grabbed the territories of the Indians and pushed them into reserves when they did not massacre them or made them addicted to alcohol, on purpose.

Trump wants to build a massive wall to keep Mexicans from migrating into America, but the strong American economy needs the cheap Mexican labor and the Mexicans need the little money they make in the US to feed their families back home.

No Free-Riders

Trump in his business drive does not like free-riders. Indeed, right after his election he traveled to the Gulf States and made them pay for American protection billions of dollars. He, also, made a very undiplomatic move, recently, when he said publicly that the Al-Saud household, in power in Saudi Arabia, will not last two weeks without American protection. Did he say that to put pressure on the Saudis to increase their oil output on the eve of the American oil sanctions on Iran, or to show American power?

He, also, wants Europeans to pay for the American nuclear umbrella and when, recently, Macron and Merkel spoke of creating a European army he did not like the idea, in the least. So, in many ways Trump seems to want his cake and to eat, too, as the saying goes.

Destroying America’s greatness

Is Trump’s erratic diplomacy destroying the greatness of America just to make a buck?

This question seems to have been answered by a big YES during the midterm elections. Indeed, the American people gave the House of Representatives to the Democrats to counterbalance the massive power of Trump.

This result leads the American public, at large, to two possible options:

Option 1: This is a prelude to booting out Trump out of office in the next presidential elections in 2020.

Option 2: This is a stern message to Trump to review and change his politics and course, to stay in power.

Will America remain always great?

What will be the results of the next presidential elections? “America is first” does not, in anyway, come first before “America is great”, for the following reasons:

• America is the leader of the free world;
• America is the beacon of democracy and human rights;
• America is the country of democratic institutions; and
• America is the country of checks and balances.

America is a country where anyone can come to power by democratic means, but will, also, be reminded by democratic means that he has gone too far.

You can follow Professor Mohamed CHTATOU on Twitter: @Ayurinu

By Mark Hendrickson*

The New York Times obituary opened with a simple recitation of facts: “Zhores A. Medvedev, the Soviet biologist, writer and dissident who was declared insane, confined to a mental institution and stripped of his citizenship in the 1970s after attacking a Stalinist pseudoscience, died … in London.”

Zhores Medvedev, his twin brother Roy (still alive at 93), the physicist Andrei Sakharov, and the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were leading dissidents. They courageously put their lives on the line to smuggle manuscripts out of the Soviet Union. They wanted the wider world to learn the truth about the “the workers’ paradise” that so many Western intellectuals (some deluded, others having gone over to the dark side) praised.

A generation of Americans has been born since the Soviet Union, the USSR that President Ronald Reagan boldly labeled “the evil empire,” ceased to exist. They have little to no concept of how ferociously the USSR’s communist tyranny suppressed dissent. As the Times obit of Dr. Medvedev illustrates, one Soviet technique of oppression was to declare that political dissidents were insane. They were then incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals where they were tormented and tortured. Some were used as human guinea pigs for dangerous experiments. (Shades of Hitler’s buddy, Dr. Mengele.) Some even succumbed to the not-so-tender ministrations of those “hospitals.”

I recall one particular example of the disgusting abuse of human beings in Soviet psychiatric hospitals. Vladimir Bukovsky, who will turn 76 later this month, spent a dozen years being shuffled between Soviet jails, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals. One of the “therapies” administered in a psychiatric hospital was putting a cord into Bukovsky’s mouth, then threading it from his throat up through his nasal passages, and then drawing it out through one of his nostrils. (Maybe the cord went in the opposite direction; I’ve never been interested in memorizing torture techniques.) Alas, this communist “treatment” did not “cure” Bukovsky of his rational (NOT irrational) abhorrence of tyranny and brutality.

The warped thought process that led to the perversion and weaponization of psychiatry in the Soviet Union can be traced back to communist icon and thought leader Karl Marx. Marx propounded a spurious doctrine known as “polylogism” to justify stifling dissent. According to Marx, different classes of people had different structures in their minds. Thus, Marx declared the bourgeoisie to be mentally defective because they were inherently unable to comprehend Marx’s (allegedly) revelatory and progressive theories. Since they were, in a sense, insane, there was no valid reason for communists to “waste time” arguing with them. On the contrary, communists were justified in not only ignoring or suppressing bourgeois ideas, but in liquidating the entire bourgeois class.

The practice of categorizing one’s enemies as “insane” became a ready tool of suppression in the Soviet state founded by Lenin and developed under Stalin. The USSR’s infamous secret police energetically wielded quack psychiatry as a club with which to destroy political dissidents. If you want more information about how the Soviets kidnapped and misused psychiatry, here is a link to a document that describes what American agents of the USSR were taught about psycho-political techniques in the late 1930s. (The provenance of the booklet is murky, and Soviet apologists have long tried to discredit it, but in light of numerous psychiatric abuses known to have been committed with the approval of the USSR’s rulers, the content of the book is highly plausible.)

The incarceration of Zhores Medvedev in psychiatric hospitals in the 1970s was a monstrous injustice. His “crime” was having exposed the bizarre pseudoscience of Lysenkoism that Stalin had embraced in the 1950s. Lysenko’s quack theories led to deadly crop failures and widespread starvation. Nevertheless, Stalin backed him by executing scientists who dared to disagree with Lysenko. Millions of innocents lost their lives because “truth” in the Soviet Union wasn’t scientific, but political.

Another vivid example of the destructive consequences of politicizing truth is related in Solzhenitsyn’s exposé of Soviet labor camps, The Gulag Archipelago. Certain Soviet officials decided to increase the steel shipped to a certain area. When the planners issued orders for trains to carry double the steel to the designated destination, conscientious engineers informed them that it couldn’t be done. They pointed out that the existing train tracks could not support such great weights. The politicians had the engineers executed as “saboteurs” for opposing “the plan.” What followed was predictable: The loads were doubled, the tracks gave out, and the designated area ended up getting less steel, not more.

This episode shows where the true insanity was in the USSR. The central planners believed that constructing their ideal country was simply a matter of will. Alas, reality doesn’t conform to the whims or will of any human being, but the arrogance of central planners remains stubbornly impervious to that inescapable fact of life. Instead, as the havoc wrought by Soviet central economic planners repeatedly demonstrated, the communist central planners refused to abandon their insufferable self-delusion and mystical belief in the power of their own will to alter reality. This was the true insanity, compounded by the error of persecuting competent scientists like Zhores Medvedev.

Sadly, the practice of branding political opponents as “insane” is not confined to the now-defunct Soviet state. In 1981, when I was completing my master’s thesis on Solzhenitsyn, I telephoned an American college professor of history to ask whether he recalled if Solzhenitsyn had been granted honorary U.S. citizenship. (He hadn’t. President Ford didn’t want to offend the Soviet leadership.) The reply to my question was this: “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn belongs in an insane asylum.” The virus of Marx’s polylogism is, unfortunately, alive and well in American academia.

As for Zhores Medvedev, may he now rest in peace and receive his reward for his integrity and courage.

*About the author: Mark Hendrickson is Adjunct Professor of Economics at Grove City College. 

Source: This article was published by the MISES Institute

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reiterated the country’s policy on its missile program and said the domestically made ballistic missiles are only meant for defense and can never be subject to negotiation with foreigners.

“Iran’s missiles are defensive. We need them for deterrence,” Zarif told Al Jazeera in the Qatari capital of Doha on Saturday, rejecting US claims that Iran’s missile tests are in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

“That is why we have said from the beginning that our missiles are not negotiable.”

The top diplomat also said that Iran spends far less on its military than other countries in the region.

He further emphasized that the US, itself, is the one that has violated the Resolution 2231 by withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Therefore, the US is not in a position to accuse Iran of violating the UNSC resolution, Zarif went on to say. 

Iranian officials have repeatedly underscored that the country will not hesitate to strengthen its military capabilities, including its missile power, which are entirely meant for defense, and that Iran’s defense capabilities will be never subject to negotiations.

Tensions between Iran and the US have escalated since US President Donald Trump walked away from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers in May and re-imposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

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

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

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

The second batch of US sanctions against the Islamic Republic took effect on November 4.

By Sanjay Kumar

Seven people died and dozens were wounded on Saturday when Indian security forces opened fire on civilians protesting at the death of three militants in a gun battle in Kashmir.

The fighting erupted after troops laid siege to a house in southern Pulwama where the militants were hiding. Three armed militants ran from the house into a nearby orchard, where they and one soldier were killed in a gunfight.

Amid the shooting, hundreds of villagers marched toward the orchard, shouting slogans in support of the militants and throwing stones at the troops. Six protesters were shot dead and a seventh died later in hospital from gunshot wounds.

Widespread protests broke out in Srinagar and other parts of Kashmir over the killings. Security has been tightened and troops rushed to potential hotspots.

“People in the area are very angry,” one Pulwama resident told Arab News. “These kind of civilian casualties are the spur for youngsters in the area to pick up guns. If the government thinks that by killing people they can scare them, they are living in a fool’s paradise. More and more youth are picking up guns in anger.”

BJP Kashmir spokesman Altaf Thakur blamed separatists for “misleading the youth of Kashmir.”

“Any death is a tragedy,” he told Arab News, “but I would like to put responsibility on those separatist groups who incite young people to pick up guns or become stone throwers in the name of independence. They don’t know they will lose their lives as a result.

“Most people in Kashmir want to live peacefully with India. Only a small section wants to create disturbances. Such people come in the way of peace.”

US National Security Adviser John Bolton’s unveiling of President Donald Trump’s Africa strategy is a direct attempt to counter China and Russia’s expanding influence across the continent.  

Both are accused of predatory economics, from the theft of intellectual property to stealing mineral wealth and labor through debt. Bolton said America’s vision for the region was “one of independence, self-reliance, and growth — not dependency, domination, and debt.”

Chinese and Russian behavior stunts economic growth in Africa and threatens the financial independence of African nations while inhibiting opportunities for US investment.  More importantly, predatory economics can interfere with US military operations and ultimately pose a significant threat to US national security interests.

Bolton said the two nations were deepening their reach and investments in the region in the hopes of gaining a “competitive advantage” over the US. He especially criticized China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the trillion-dollar program of infrastructure development and investments across Asia, Europe, and Africa.

To be sure, both Russia and China are extraordinarily active in Africa. Russia has signed agreements to establish economic zones in Eritrea, explore opportunities in accessing minerals across southern Africa, and enhance military and technical cooperation with the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Zimbabwe, and others.  Murky Russian private military companies are operating in several African countries advising leaders and protecting economic assets. 

China has provided billions of dollars in loans, grants, and development financing to many of Africa’s 55 nations.  Beijing financed large-scale infrastructural projects such as railways in Kenya, factories in Lesotho and Namibia, and free trade zones.  China also helped Ethiopia launch its first satellite, has opened up a key military base in Djibouti and has sent peacekeepers to South Sudan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Beijing provides training and education opportunities for thousands of Africa’s leaders, bureaucrats, students, and business people.

Both Russia and China make African security more fragile from the US point of view; Washington sees the BRICS as a weak grouping unable to rally African countries to a new economic order simply because the metrics do not add up for success.  Instead, a trail of broken countries will continue.  

Specifically, the Trump administration’s approach appears to lean heavily on the idea that the US needs to advance trade and commercial ties with African nations now by exposing the predatory practices pursued by Russia and China.  With two peer competitors seemingly teaming up in Africa, the game is now about great powers and their financial and political influence.  Moscow and Beijing are targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage over the US.  With the East ascendant over the declining West, Russia and China see opportunity.

The US wants African governments to act as strategic partners and to improve governance and transparent business practices that can help those nations address security threats, including terrorism and militant violence.  Such an offer may be tough for some African countries to swallow given local politics, corruption and ineffective legal systems or hybrid courts.  For some countries, the Chinese presence has been ongoing for several decades and with a resurgent Russia in the eyes of the Middle East and Africa, Moscow is pushing assertively into several corners of the continent, reawaking old ties and developing new connections.  Together, Russia and China make a formidable team who seek an alternative path to sustainable development.

Bolton’s policy announcement followed a long-awaited plan to reduce AFRICOM’s number of US troops conducting counterterrorism missions in Africa over the next three years.  This comes despite senior US military commanders warning last year that the terror threat in many African nations was growing, particularly in West Africa.  Importantly, the planned reductions are part of a broader global effort intended to align the US military’s global posture with the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy, which focuses more on “near-peer” competitors such as Russia and China instead of counterterrorism missions.   

Overall, this shift in policy means the US will be reducing counter-terrorism efforts in order to shift to plan and train missions for confrontation with near-peer competitors in third locations.  African countries are expected to be transparent and self-sufficient and not beholden to another country in debt or servitude.  That the Trump administration is dealing so aggressively with Russia and China is likely to be read in both Moscow and Beijing as a challenge. Africa as a theater of hybrid warfare is now here, with an economic collision between the three powers while extremists continue to pop up in new corners of the continent. 

By Andrew Hammond*

The 2018 UN climate change summit, which is continuing well past its scheduled close this weekend in Katowice, Poland, has underlined the fact that the international consensus on tackling this issue is under attack again by key governments. This threatens to slow the pace of efforts to decarbonize, and it is clear that a different approach is now needed to global warming.

With a growing number of governments, including the US, Russia, Brazil and Turkey, raising concerns about the 2015 Paris agreement, the Polish event will hopefully prove to be a line in the sand. It is crystal clear that if the necessary action on global warming is to be undertaken to mitigate its worst effects, skeptics such as Donald Trump need to be faced down and their views about global warming challenged.

Trump and others have lambasted the Paris agreement, arguing that it is a grand hoax and an unwelcome distraction, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence about the risks posed by climate change. Yet even if it were to turn out that the vast majority of scientists in the world are, remarkably, wrong about global warming, what the Paris deal will help to achieve is a gradual move toward cleaner energies, making the world a less polluted and more sustainable place to live. On the other hand, the consequences of failing to act now, as climate skeptics seem to advocate, would be the growing likelihood of devastating environmental damage to the planet.

As the US itself has shown, the key to tackling climate change after Paris is increasingly becoming a “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” approach. Even within his own country Trump is losing the argument, with the US private sector and many state and city governments pushing for decarbonization. Indeed, during 2017, Trump’s first year in office, the US Environmental Protection Agency reports that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the US dropped by 2.7 percent. 

Former California Governor Jerry Brown and ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg are leading an “America’s Pledge” climate-action group, in which more than 3,000 US cities, states and businesses are attempting to deliver a 26 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 under the Paris agreement. America’s Pledge says it is within striking distance of fulfilling this commitment, which was made by the Obama administration.

This underlines the need for broader empowerment of subnational organizations across the world who can help lead the fight against climate change. While the Paris deal is not perfect, one of its key benefits is that it can cater for the flexible, “bottom-up” approach that is needed, whereby not only national governments but also regional and local players in the public and private sectors can move forward with this agenda.

While the wisdom of this might appear obvious, Paris represented a breakthrough from the more rigid “top-down” approach of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which imposed global, uniform standards. In contrast, Paris created a global architecture for tackling global warming but fully recognized that a collective effort right across the economy and society is needed, not only by national governments. Moreover, it pointed to the fact that diverse, often decentralized policies will be required in different types of economies to meet climate commitments, rather than a “one-size-fits all” solution.

That this approach makes good sense is reflected in the diversity of climate measures that countries have started to implement in response to global warming. This has been illustrated in reports by the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics, including one in 2015 that focused on 98 countries plus the EU, which together account for 93 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions.

This study revealed that more than 800 climate-change laws and policies were in place around the world, compared with 54 in 1997. About 50 countries, including the 28 members of the EU as a bloc, have economy-wide targets to reduce emissions. Together, they account for more than 75 percent of global emissions.

In addition, about 40 states have economy-wide targets in place up to 2020, and 22 have set targets beyond then. Moreover, 86 countries have specific targets for renewable energy, energy demand, transport or land-use, land-use change and forestry, while about 80 percent of countries have renewable targets. 

This underlines the fact that the best way to tackle climate change is for nations to meet their target commitments in innovative and effective ways that build on this momentum. Take the example of Morocco, a leader in renewables in the Middle East and Africa; nearly 30 percent of its energy comes from renewable sources and it aims to increase this to 50 percent by 2030.

A key part of the drive here is harnessing the ways in which renewables could push forward a remarkable new industrial revolution, becoming a key source of economic growth and sustainable development. In Morocco, the drive toward renewables relies not only on big infrastructure projects such as solar and wind-power plants, but also local, small-scale initiatives to encourage key eco-friendly projects, including agricultural, that allow more organizations and individuals across society to play a role in tackling climate change.

The Poland summit has shown the need to accelerate a grassroots-driven approach that allows more organizations and individuals to play leading roles in the fight against climate change. If countries can now leverage the flexibility of the Paris framework, it can deliver on this ambition and become a key foundation stone of future sustainable development for billions around the world in the 2020s and beyond.

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

(RFE/RL) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed concern over the rising popularity of rap music among Russian youth.

Speaking at a meeting with cultural advisers at the Kremlin on December 15, Putin said the music should not be banned but controlled.

“If it is impossible to stop, then we must lead it and direct it,” Putin was quoted by Russian media as saying at the meeting.

His comments come amid a wave of cancellations of concerts by popular artists who commentators say are channeling the political and economic frustrations of young Russians.

The crackdown has evoked Soviet-era censorship of the arts.

Putin said banning artists from performing would only feed their popularity.

Putin noted that “rap is based on three pillars: sex, drugs, and protest.” But he said he is particularly concerned with drug themes prevalent in rap, explaining “this is a path to the degradation of the nation.”

He said “drug propaganda” is worse than cursing.

By Liubov Georges

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – the oil market institution that has exerted an unyielding power over the price of crude for nearly 60 years – is now in deep crisis. The latest OPEC meeting in Vienna offered new insights into the cartel’s raging civil war that is tearing it apart and threatens to ultimately make the cartel irrelevant.

In a two-year period since the group of 15 major oil producers formed an alliance with Russia, OPEC’s smaller members have been marginalized, their voices have been diminished and Saudi Arabia seems to prioritize its partnership with Moscow above all else. An unlikely partnership between Saudi Arabia and Russia is causing dissension within OPEC, with one of the oldest members announcing it would withdraw from the organization in January just days prior to the talks. With Russia tightening its grip over OPEC’s decisions and the United States officially reaching net oil exporting status in late November for the first time in decades, even if only briefly, the new world oil order is now dependent on three energy superpowers: Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States.

OPEC has been under the barrage of external and internal forces since the day of its inception in 1960. Yet, even during the most tumultuous years of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, OPEC still met twice a year and managed to coordinate policy to support the price of crude oil. This was not the case during the pivotal OPEC meeting last week in Vienna, where geopolitics ruthlessly invaded the talks.

After the first day of negotiations OPEC members emerged without a consensus, canceled a press conference and crude prices tumbled. West Texas Intermediate had already suffered a hefty loss of 22% in November, marking the worst month for the U.S. oil benchmark since the financial crisis in 2008. In early Thursday trading, WTI shed an additional 3% in value after Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said that a “no deal” outcome is real and that Saudi Arabia would not go for a production cut alone. These comments were quickly followed by a statement from Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganesh that his country under no circumstances would curb output, citing U.S. sanctions. Zanganesh’s comments carried a clear undertone of bitterness over Saudi cooperation with U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-imposition of the sanctions that took effect in early November.

During the second day of the conference, the oil market held its breath, while waiting for the Russian Delegation to come to the negotiating table. Russia – the second largest oil producer in the world has increased its oil production to a post-Soviet high of 11.41 million bpd while Russian oil companies have been investing heavily in their upstream activities and oilfield maintenance.

Russia agreed to a larger-than-expected cut of 230,000 bpd, the lion’s share of the 400,000 bpd reduction in crude production from the non-OPEC contingent. Saudi Arabia would curb output by 250,000 bpd under OPEC’s collective cut of 800,000 bpd according to news reports, with OPEC+ offering no breakdown of country quotas.

Upon conclusion of the OPEC+ talks, WTI futures stabilized, recovering 2.2% of their value on Dec. 7 to $52.61 bbl while Brent recovered by 2.7% to $61.67 bbl. Several analysts said oil futures would have sold off absent an agreement. Russia played a crucial role in bringing Iran into the framework of an agreement while backing temporary exemptions from the cuts for Libya, Nigeria, Iran and Venezuela. After the hard-fought agreement was struck Nigerian oil minister, Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu was quoted as saying that not having Russia “around the table would be a futile exercise.”

Other OPEC members are not as enthusiastic about Russia’s growing influence over the cartel’s decisions. The nation of Qatar, which joined OPEC in 1961, served notice of withdrawal from the organization days before the meeting in Vienna. Qatar’s oil production has steadily declined and currently represents only 2% of OPEC’s total output or 609,000 bpd. Yet, news that one of the oldest OPEC members is leaving the cartel after almost 60 years is serving as a shot across the bow for the Vienna-headquartered producer group.

Two days of intense negotiations last week revealed intensifying resentment from members of OPEC who feel sidelined by the growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Russia. As several members chafed against the power shift within the organization, they were prepared to vote against an agreement that would halt the selloff in a commodity critical to their economies, ultimately rendering OPEC and their meeting useless and irrelevant.

Ever since Saudi Arabia and Russia reached an agreement on production cuts in late 2016, the Saudis have insisted that Russia participate in all meetings. The success of this unexpected partnership is a testament to the fact that even geopolitical rivals that have been on opposing sides of almost every conflict affecting the Middle East can become allies when mutually beneficial.

While some analysts predict the biggest test for the Saudi-Russian relationship is yet to come, the two countries enjoy their “marriage made in oil heaven” along with the multi-billion-dollar investment projects following King Salman’s first trip to Moscow. During the G20 International Forum in Buenos Aires, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman shared laughs and high-fives.

Fading OPEC influence has everything to do with the energy renaissance in the United States. The United States has emerged as one of the world’s top three oil producers, recently overtaking Russia to become the world’s top oil producer, a dramatic turnaround from 10 years ago that has readjusted the world order and shaken OPEC. In late November, the United States was a net oil exporter while shipping a record 3.2 million bpd of crude oil, more than double the volume from a year ago. It was the first time petroleum exports exceeded imports since 1949.

U.S. producers have added a volume equivalent to the entire output of OPEC’s Nigeria in the past twelve months, reaching record high crude production at 11.7 million bpd in November. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. crude production could reach 12.05 million bpd in April, six months sooner than forecast in October, and reaching 12.29 million bpd in December 2019. These are the worrying statistics for OPEC, as it loses control in determining world oil prices and market share to producers in the United States. And while Russia has worked with OPEC in the past, Saudi Arabia clearly eyes Russia as an essential partner to guide world oil prices through targeted production cuts.

As the Moscow-Riyadh partnership strengthens and OPEC cohesion frays, the growing power of the United States over the global oil markets was clearly a factor during the negotiations in Vienna last week. The verdict is still out on whether the OPEC+ deal to cut 1.2 million bpd during the first half of 2019 will be enough to offset surging production from the United States and bring the markets into equilibrium.

Even before last week’s meeting and the acrimony leading up to it, OPEC faced an ominous future. News reports surfaced in early November that King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, a think tank based in Riyadh, was conducting a study on what it would mean if OPEC dissolved. Kapsarc, headed by former U.S. EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski, are considering what the end of OPEC would mean to world oil markets and to Saudi Arabia’s role in those markets.

Source: This article was published at Oilprice.com

Ukraine has created an Orthodox church of its own, proclaiming “independence from Moscow.” While the majority of its hierarchs represented schismatic “churches,” Kiev authorities have hailed a supposed “unity” they have achieved.

The so-called “unity council” took place on Saturday in Kiev, with the country’s president Petro Poroshenko and other top officials in attendance. The overwhelming majority of participants represented two non-canonical entities – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the self-styled ‘Kiev Patriarchy’ and the so-called Ukrainian autocephalous Orthodox Church. The two unrecognized entities have announced voluntary dissolution ahead of the event.

Just two hierarchs from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy participated in event, metropolitan bishops Simeon and Aleksandr. The Church as a whole refused to partake in the gathering, denouncing it as schismatic.

Metropolitan bishop Simeon even ran for the post of the head of the new entity, yet lost to ‘metropolitan’ Epiphany, who had been a hierarch within the unrecognized Kiev Patriarchate.

The head of the schismatic entity –self-styled ‘patriarch’ Filaret– has received the lifetime title of ‘Honorary Patriarch’ within the new structure. The title appears to be not without clout, since it’s established in the charter of the new church, which was adopted at the gathering as well.

It was not immediately clear what exact wording the document contains, since it was reportedly being actively negotiated until the last minute. The draft variant, however, which was unveiled earlier this month, made the new church fully subordinate to the Constantinople Patriarchate, regardless of all the talk about “independence.”

Constantinople has already expressed its support for the new religious entity, confirming it will recognize it officially in early January, which likely means the adopted charter suits Patriarch Bartholomew well.

The gathering, however, was swiftly denounced by the Russian Orthodox Church, which branded its decisions to be “void.”

“The non-canonical gathering … under general the guidance of a layman and the country’s head, as well as a foreigner, who doesn’t know the local language, has picked a non-canonical ‘bishop’ to become an equally non-canonical ‘primate,’” deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Protoiereus Nikolay Balashov, said, adding that the whole event meant “nothing” to the Church.

A similar opinion was voiced by the Belarusian Orthodox Church – subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate – which ruled out any official contacts with the new Ukrainian entity, calling it “evidently schismatic.”

Several thousand demonstrators marched on Saturday evening in a new protest demanding fair and free elections in Serbia.

By Maja Zivanovic and Filip Rudic

In the second large protest against Serbian government and President Aleksandar Vucic in one week, thousands of protesters massed on the streets of Belgrade to demand for elections to be free and fair.

The rally comes after President Vucic earlier warned that he would not meet the demands of protesters.

Despite bad weather, the protest drew more people than the previous one on December 8, which was attended by 15,000 people according to the opposition.

Several opposition parties on Friday signed an agreement on commonly agreed conditions for free and fair elections.

The document was signed by the Alliance for Serbia, the Democratic Party of Serbia, the Social Democratic Party, the New Party, the Democratic Union of Vojvodina Hungarians, the Enough is Enough movement, the Movement of the Centre, the Civil Platform and the civic initiative Let’s Not Drown Belgrade.

The key demands are the effective prevention of abuse of the electoral roll and of public resources in the campaign, control of the electoral process, including in Kosovo, control of election campaigns and during election day, and criminal sanctions against those that abuse the campaign.

In his reaction to the demands, Vucic said he would not agree to them – and hinted that he might call snap elections instead.

After the protesters gathered in the centre of Belgrade, they walked close to several key institutions, including the parliament building and the building housing the Serbian public broadcaster, RTS.

This is second anti-government protest this month, after several thousand people participated in a march called “No More Bloodied Shirts” in Belgrade on December 8, which was held after a journalist was beaten up and left with a bloodied shirt.

In general, women who have had children have a lower risk of breast cancer compared to women who have never given birth. However, new research has found that moms don’t experience this breast cancer protection until many years later and may face elevated risk for more than 20 years after their last pregnancy.

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health, along with members of the international Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group, found breast cancer risk increases in the years after a birth, with the highest risk of developing the disease about five years later. The findings, which appeared online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest breast cancer protection from pregnancy may not begin until as many as 30 years after the birth of the last child.

According to senior author Dale Sandler, Ph.D., head of the Epidemiology Branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of NIH, a few prior studies reported an increase in breast cancer risk after childbirth. However, most of what researchers knew about breast cancer risk factors came from studies of women who have gone through menopause. Since breast cancer is relatively uncommon in younger women, it is more difficult to study.

Researchers combined data from approximately 890,000 women from 15 long-term studies across three continents, to understand the relationship between recent childbirth and breast cancer risk in women age 55 and younger.

“We were surprised to find that an increase in breast cancer risk lasted for an average of 24 years before childbirth became protective,” said Sandler. “Before this study, most researchers believed that any increase in risk lasted less than 10 years.”

The scientists also found that the association between recent childbirth and breast cancer risk was stronger for women who were older at first birth, had more births, or had a family history of breast cancer. Breastfeeding did not appear to have any protective effect, even though it is generally thought to reduce breast cancer risk. Many of these additional factors were not addressed in earlier studies, underscoring the statistical power of this larger project.

Sandler and first author Hazel Nichols, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, started the study when Nichols was a research fellow at NIEHS. Nichols explained that childbirth is an example of a risk factor that is different for younger women than older women.

“This difference is important because it suggests that we may need to develop tools for predicting breast cancer risk that are specific to young women,” Nichols said. “Doing so would help women talk to their health care providers about when they should start mammography screening.”

Nichols and Sandler both stressed the importance of keeping these findings in perspective. Breast cancer is uncommon in young women. An increase in the relative risk of breast cancer in women under age 55 translates to a very small number of additional cases of breast cancer per year.

The speed and distance at which planets orbit blazing stars can determine each planet’s fate–whether the planet remains a longstanding part of its solar system or evaporates into the universe’s dark graveyard more quickly.

In their quest to learn more about faraway planets beyond our own solar system, astronomers discovered that a medium-sized planet roughly the size of Neptune, GJ 3470b, is evaporating at a rate 100 times faster than a previously discovered planet of similar size, GJ 436b.

The findings, published in the journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, advance astronomers’ knowledge about how planets evolve.

“This is the smoking gun that planets can lose a significant fraction of their entire mass. GJ 3470b is losing more of its mass than any other planet we seen so far; in only a few billion years from now, half of the planet may be gone,” said David Sing, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University and an author of the study.

The study is part of the Panchromatic Comparative Exoplanet Treasury (PanCET) program, led by Sing, which aims to measure the atmospheres of 20 exoplanets in ultraviolet, optical and infrared light, as they orbit their stars. PanCET is the largest exoplanet observation program to be run with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope.

One particular issue of interest to astronomers is how planets lose their mass through evaporation. Planets such as “super” Earths and “hot” Jupiters orbit closer to their stars and are therefore hotter, causing the outermost layer of their atmospheres to be blown away by evaporation.

While these larger Jupiter-sized and smaller Earth-sized exoplanets are plentiful, medium Neptune-sized exoplanets (roughly four times larger than Earth) are rare. Researchers hypothesize that these Neptunes get stripped of their atmospheres and ultimately become smaller planets. It’s difficult, however, to actively witness them doing so because they can only be studied in UV light, which limits researchers to examining nearby stars no more than 150 light-years away from Earth, not obscured by interstellar material. GJ 3470b is 96 light-years away and circles a red dwarf star in the general direction of the constellation Cancer.

In this study, Hubble found that exoplanet GJ 3470b had lost significantly more mass and had a noticeably smaller exosphere than the first Neptune-sized exoplanet studied, GJ 436b, due to its lower density and receipt of a stronger radiation blast from its host star.

GJ 3470b’s lower density makes it unable to gravitationally hang on to the heated atmosphere, and while the star hosting GJ 436b was between 4 billion and 8 billion years old, the star hosting GJ 3470b is only 2 billion years old; a younger star is more active and powerful, and, therefore, has more radiation to heat the planet’s atmosphere.

Sing’s team estimates that GJ 3470b may have already lost up to 35 percent of its total mass and, in a few billion years, all of its gas may be stripped off, leaving behind only a rocky core.

“We’re starting to better understand how planets are shaped and what properties influence their overall makeup,” Sing said. “Our goal with this study and the overarching PanCET program is to take a broad look at these planets’ atmospheres to determine how each planet is affected by its own environment. By comparing different planets, we can start piecing together the larger picture in how they evolve.”

Looking forward, Sing and the team hope to study more exoplanets by searching for helium in infrared light, which will allow a greater search range than searching for hydrogen in UV light.

Currently, planets, which are made largely of hydrogen and helium, can only be studied through tracing hydrogen in UV light. Using Hubble, the upcoming NASA James Webb Space Telescope (which will have a greater sensitivity to helium), and a new instrument called Carmenes that Sing recently found can precisely track the trajectory of helium atoms, astronomers will be able to broaden their pursuit of distant planets.

The more objects we make “smart,” from watches to entire buildings, the greater the need for these devices to store and retrieve massive amounts of data quickly without consuming too much power.

Millions of new memory cells could be part of a computer chip and provide that speed and energy savings, thanks to the discovery of a previously unobserved functionality in a material called molybdenum ditelluride.

The two-dimensional material stacks into multiple layers to build a memory cell. Researchers at Purdue University engineered this device in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Theiss Research Inc. Their work appears in an advance online issue of Nature Materials.

Chip-maker companies have long called for better memory technologies to enable a growing network of smart devices. One of these next-generation possibilities is resistive random access memory, or RRAM for short.

In RRAM, an electrical current is typically driven through a memory cell made up of stacked materials, creating a change in resistance that records data as 0s and 1s in memory. The sequence of 0s and 1s among memory cells identifies pieces of information that a computer reads to perform a function and then store into memory again.

A material would need to be robust enough for storing and retrieving data at least trillions of times, but materials currently used have been too unreliable. So RRAM hasn’t been available yet for widescale use on computer chips.

Molybdenum ditelluride could potentially last through all those cycles.

“We haven’t yet explored system fatigue using this new material, but our hope is that it is both faster and more reliable than other approaches due to the unique switching mechanism we’ve observed,” Joerg Appenzeller, Purdue University’s Barry M. and Patricia L. Epstein Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the scientific director of nanoelectronics at the Birck Nanotechnology Center.

Molybdenum ditelluride allows a system to switch more quickly between 0 and 1, potentially increasing the rate of storing and retrieving information. This is because when an electric field is applied to the cell, atoms are displaced by a tiny distance, resulting in a state of high resistance, noted as 0, or a state of low resistance, noted as 1, which can occur much faster than switching in conventional RRAM devices.

“Because less power is needed for these resistive states to change, a battery could last longer,” Appenzeller said.

In a computer chip, each memory cell would be located at the intersection of wires, forming a memory array called cross-point RRAM.

Appenzeller’s lab wants to explore building a stacked memory cell that also incorporates the other main components of a computer chip: “logic,” which processes data, and “interconnects,” wires that transfer electrical signals, by utilizing a library of novel electronic materials fabricated at NIST.

“Logic and interconnects drain battery too, so the advantage of an entirely two-dimensional architecture is more functionality within a small space and better communication between memory and logic,” Appenzeller said.

Two U.S. patent applications have been filed for this technology through the Purdue Office of Technology Commercialization.

Serbia has harshly denounced the United States for “sponsoring” a Kosovo move to build its independent army, threatening the Balkan nation with military intervention after the parliament overwhelmingly passed the law.

President Aleksandar Vucic, who visited Serbian troops near the border with Kosovo, said on Friday that the decision has brought Belgrade “to the edge” and has left no choice for Serbia but to “defend” itself.

Kosovo’s parliament on Friday passed three draft laws to expand an existing 4,000 Kosovo Security Force and turn it into a regular, lightly armed army. Ethnic Serb lawmakers, however, boycotted the vote.

“This vote today begins a new era for our country,” said parliamentary speaker Kadri Veseli.

Kosovo’s President Hashim Thaci also hailed the vote, saying it was “the best gift for the end of the year season.”

The United States also praised the vote and promised to support “the gradual transition … to a force with a territorial defense mandate, as is Kosovo’s sovereign right,” said a US embassy statement in Pristina.

It also urged Kosovo to continue “close coordination with NATO allies and partners and to engage in outreach to minority communities.”

Though it will take years for the small Balkan country to build its own army, the move which is supported by the West, specially the United States and the United Kingdom, has infuriated Serbian president Vucic.

He called Washington as a “sponsor” for the Kosovo move, saying that the US administration aims to “quash” the Serbs, but that he won’t allow it.

An advisor to the president, Nikola Selakovic, threatened on Friday that Belgrade could send in armed forces or declare Kosovo an occupied territory.

Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic also said his country will seek an urgent session of the United Nations Security Council over the move.

Late Friday, the Security Council held closed consultations on the format of a meeting, possibly on Monday or Tuesday.

According to council diplomats, Russia — a close ally of Serbia —wants an open meeting to be addressed by Serbia’s president, but European counties demanded a closed session.

The decision, however, will be made by Ivory Coast’s UN ambassador, the current council president, according to the diplomats who spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavro immediately reacted to the decision, calling on US-lead NATO alliance to “take urgent and exhaustive measures to demilitarize and disband any armed Kosovar-Albanian formations.”

The foreign ministry also denounced some Western officials who say that the new Kosovo army would be no different from the existing Kosovo Security Force.

It further explained that “in reality, it doubles its numbers and creates reserves and most importantly substitutes the essence of the forces whose role until recently was that of civil defense.”

Muslim-majority Kosovo, which gained independence back in 2008, was a former Serbian province.

It is currently recognized by 117 countries as an independent state, including the United States and most members of the European Union. Five EU members, Serbia and Russia, however, refuse to recognize it as a sovereign nation.

The decision to create an impendent army has even prompted reaction from NATO, which has already 4,000 troops, known as Kfor, in the country.

The Western alliance’s chief, Jens Stoltenberg called the move as “ill-timed” saying; it “goes against the advice of many NATO allies and may have serious repercussions for Kosovo’s future Euro-Atlantic integration.”

“I reiterate my call on both Pristina and Belgrade to remain calm and refrain from any statements or actions which may lead to escalation,” Stoltenberg said.

The NATO chief said that the alliance remains committed “to a safe and secure environment in Kosovo and to stability in the wider Western Balkans” and that they will “re-examine the level of NATO’s engagement with the Kosovo Security Force.”

Kosovo’s authorities, however, have promised that the army would not threaten peace in the region.

“Kosovo’s army will never be used against them (Serbs),” said Prime Minister Ramus Haradinaj.

Any armed intervention by Serbia would cause a direct confrontation with thousands of NATO troops, including US soldiers, in Kosovo.

Original source

By C. Todd Lopez

Analysts at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency may spend as much as half their time poring over satellite imagery of activities they’re already familiar with, taking place in locations where everybody is already looking.

Their time could be better spent doing other things, said Susan Kalweit, director of analysis at NGA.

During an artificial intelligence-themed panel discussion on Thursday, Kalweit said human analysts could be freed up by AI to spend more time doing the cognitively difficult work of identifying and determining the significance of unfamiliar activities that take place in unfamiliar locations.

“That’s the discovery piece,” Kalweit said. “That’s where you want to anticipate where, when and how will Russia go into central Europe. That’s a key question around anticipatory intelligence. And unfortunately, because we spend so much of our time at the (other places) we have less than ten percent of our time to spend on those really key questions, the unknown/unknown, and the black swans — trying to anticipate what’s going to happen.”

Kalweit actually divvied up analyst time into four groupings, based on known or unknown locations and known or unknown activities, and offered up a Punnett square-like model as a way to visualize that.  More than 90 percent of analyst time is spent in three of those locations, she said, while less than ten percent of time is spent in the “top-right” square, analyzing the unknown/unknown — and that’s the type of work best done by human analysts.

“[That’s] where really you want the human brain to spend most of its time,” she said. “And where machines augment that is in the hypothesis analysis: the highly cognitive analysis, providing alternatives of what this activity might be, being able to put together multiple signatures and looking at trends from multiple years in multiple locations over very different sorts of scenarios and giving us hypothesis on what might happen or might be happening.”

Kalweit said her analyst workforce remains positive about machine augmentation in their work, “especially for monitoring the mundane” and “work that now takes time and is not cognitively challenging.” That might include change detection or object identification, for instance.

Friction points in the future, however, might arise if AI encroaches on work analysts value the most and see themselves as being best at.

What It Means

“Contextualization,” she said. “What does it mean? The idea that a machine would be able to spit out ‘this is what it means’ is really where that friction lies. They want help with analysis of alternatives, to expand their thinking, to provide hypothesis that they can work with other analysts and their counterparts in testing, but not for the machine to spit that out.”

Ironically, it may be the analysts themselves who will help AI systems eventually supplant them. Kalweit has top-level visibility on development of AI systems that are used by NGA and said the greatest advancement there comes when developers work side by side with those who use those systems.

“Where we have had absolute success in a very consistent way is when our industry partners are paired with our image scientists or our analysts and are doing the development in real time, together,” she said. “So the true DevOps, true paired programing, has resulted in the greatest successes that we have had in this new world.”

Charles E. Wilson, the CEO of General Motors in the middle part of the last century, reputedly once said that “what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”

The idea was that large corporations had a duty not just to their shareholders, but also to their employees, customers, and community. What was good for all of these stakeholders was inseparable from what was good for large corporations like GM.

But in the 1980’s, this shifted. The only goal of large corporations goal became maximizing profits and returns for shareholders.

Corporate profits are now a higher share of the economy than they were for most of the past century, and workers’ share of the total economy is the lowest. 

Corporations are now amassing huge control over our economy and fueling widening economic inequality. 

Workers must have more power.

Elizabeth Warren’s proposal, the Accountable Capitalism Act, is a good start at remaking the economic system so it works for all of us.

It recognizes that large corporations, with revenues of $1 billion or more, are so big and powerful they should be held to a higher standard of conduct – chartered by the federal government to serve all their stakeholders, not just their shareholders.

Under Warren’s proposal, workers would elect at least 40 percent of big corporations’ boards of directors. These corporations wouldn’t be able to make political contributions without the approval of 75 percent of their directors and shareholders. And their legal right to exist could be revoked if they engaged in repeated and egregious lawbreaking.

Effective action to hold corporations accountable needs to be federal because the states, left to their own devices, have to compete with one another for businesses to locate in their states.  This has led to a race to the bottom for corporate cash.  Two-thirds of big corporations in America are now officially headquartered in Delaware, because Delaware’s corporate laws are weakest.

This would be a huge change, bringing into better balance the voices of American workers with the overwhelming dominance of big corporations and their major investors.

It’s time to demand that the economic system work for all of us.