Human beings are contrarians. Whatever conditions they are living in, they’d like to be in others. In the wild 1990s, Russians dreamed of stability and peace; now, when things are quiet, they “have begun to dream about vandalism and mass disorders” and take vicarious pleasure in such things among others, a blogger reports.

The author of the Minsk Blog notes that after Vladimir Putin invoked what was going on in the streets of Paris to justify his arrest of human rights activist Lev Ponomaryev by saying that “you and I do not want that we should have events like those in Paris,” Russian reacted in a way other than the Kremlin leader wants them to (minskblog.livejournal.com/221991.html).

Activist Ilya Varlamov asked his followers whether they would want to be in a situation “like in Paris?”  The blogger said he expected that perhaps 15 to 20 percent of the respondents might say yes; but in the event, 89.1 percent of this self-selected sample said they very much would like to have a Paris-type situation in their cities and towns.

On the one hand, this may simply be a repetition of the famous “Man from Fifth Avenue” reaction. That involved a late Soviet-era documentary about a homeless man walking down Fifth Avenue in New York. Soviet citizens were supposed to focus on him and his plight; instead, they took note of all the stores filled with remarkable goods.

But on the other, it may indicate something else: A large share of Russians really are ready to see a situatione merge in Russia where stores and restaurants are vandalized, cars set aflame and cultural monuments defaced as a protest against the authorities for the problems of the people.

What is interesting, of course, and perhaps most instructive, the Minsk Blog says, is that the situation in the French populace is exactly the reverse.

There 85 percent of French citizens do not approve the disorders and acts of vandalism taking place in the streets of Paris.

By Seema Sirohi

US President Donald Trump is entering perhaps the most difficult phase of his presidency as his legal and political difficulties mount and his denials wear thin.

His former strategist Steve Bannon has stressed the need for a “war room” with disciplined aides giving a consistent message to tackle what’s coming but so far there is no sign of a strategy.

Trump remains his own defence strategist, issuing a barrage of tweets at every new legal development.

The Republican Party’s anxiety levels are rising in direct proportion to the new revelations, convictions and confessions related to at least six investigations into the Trump campaign and business dealings.

Republican leaders are beginning to worry if the party can withstand the hailstorm as they enter 2019. With the House of Representatives under Democratic control, there will be more pressure and more public hearings about Trump’s conduct.

The biggest question is whether Trump can stand the pressure. Is winging it as he goes along enough of a strategy in the face of increasing legal challenges?

The latest blow was Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen’s guilty plea, which essentially implicates the president for potentially violating campaign finance laws. Cohen admitted he paid hush money in 2016 to two women with whom Trump allegedly had affairs to protect his chances in the elections.

Two major strands of investigations are coming close to being completed – Special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference and Trump campaign’s alleged collaboration with Russian entities to influence the 2016 elections and New York state prosecutors’ investigation into payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep quiet about their alleged affairs with Trump.

There are four other investigations and lawsuits in progress, the latest by federal prosecutors in New York looking into whether his presidential inaugural committee misspent $107 million it had raised in donations.

As of now, Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort has been convicted, six associates, including Cohen have pleaded guilty, 26 mainly Russian officials have been charged, and more than 20 White House and government officials have been interviewed by prosecutors.

Kelly, a former marine general, failed to impose discipline in the chaotic White House while running afoul of the family.

A spreadsheet is necessary but not sufficient to keep track of the investigations, personnel changes, loss through attrition and the many administration jobs that remain unfilled.

It took almost two years for the White House to nominate an assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia – Robert Williams, a former intelligence officer, was nominated for the job on Dec. 12.

As Trump prepares to enter the third year of his presidency, he may find supporters on Capitol Hill diminishing in number, especially if Mueller’s investigation proves collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. The jury is out whether he can find a smoking gun.

Even though Trump’s base will believe him and not Mueller, the Republicans on Capitol Hill are likely to protect themselves first — siding with Trump would essentially mean siding with Russia, which could also mean political suicide given the intense anti-Russia sentiment in Washington.

Signs that Republicans are distancing themselves are already beginning to appear. This past Thursday, the Republican-controlled Senate voted unanimously to condemn Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and a US resident.

Trump has publicly sided with the Saudi leader against the assessment of his own intelligence community that the crown prince masterminded the attack inside the Saudi Consulate in Turkey.

The White House will expect the hard right to come to its rescue. There are a few key members in the House and Senate who will defend Trump on Fox News but most Republicans do not want to get caught up in the Trump-Mueller war because they see no good or useful outcome.

Trump has constantly accused the special prosecutor of conducting a “witch hunt” against him and largely managed to lull Republicans to a place where they simply ignored the details of the many court filings and various legal developments from Mueller.

But they are going to wake up in 2019 because the Democrats will weaponise the Mueller report when it comes out. And that wake up call may not be pleasant.

By Colonel (Retired) Robert E. Hamilton*

Patterns in Russian-American Relations

(FPRI) — Donald Trump is the only President of the United States since the collapse of the Soviet Union who has been unable to “reset” the U.S. relationship with Russia. While the Clinton, Bush, and Obama resets didn’t last, they provided periods of respite in the historically tense ties and allowed both sides to achieve important policy goals. Ironically, Trump’s affinity for Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, is the main reason for his inability to put the relationship on a more stable footing. Suspicious of his motivations and put off by his chaotic leadership style, Trump’s own administration and the U.S. Congress are essentially running U.S. policy on Russia themselves, with the president’s role reduced to endorsing their decisions. Despite being endowed with the bully pulpit of the presidency and an itchy Twitter finger, Trump is a loud but often inconsequential bystander to the process of managing the U.S.-Russia relationship.

Keir Giles of Chatham House has argued that Russia’s relationship with the West moves through predictable stages: euphoria, pragmatism, disillusionment, crisis, reset. This pattern had held true—with minor variations—in the post-Cold war era. That is, until recently. But the current crisis in the relationship, which dates to Russia’s early 2014 seizure of Crimea and support for armed separatists in eastern Ukraine, shows no signs of abating. With no reset in the cards and both sides nursing grievances and looking for ways to punish the other, the U.S.-Russia relationship looks set to be stuck in crisis mode for the foreseeable future.

Things weren’t always this bad, but the good times never lasted for long. The euphoria of the early 1990s years soon gave way to expectations tempered with pragmatism on both sides. Boris Yeltsin’s bloody 1993 showdown with the Russian parliament tarnished his democratic credentials in the West, and Russia’s ugly early experience with democracy and market economics eroded Russian trust in these Western ideals. Russia’s 1998 financial crisis and default brought about disillusionment on both sides, and NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo threw the relationship into crisis.

The 9/11 attacks and Putin’s offer of assistance to the U.S.—over the objections of the Duma and some in his government—marked the first reset in the post-Soviet relationship. The euphoric stage of the relationship is captured in George W. Bush’s remark that he had looked Putin in the eye and “found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Bush presumably regretted that remark later since the relationship soon began its predictable slide through pragmatism and disillusionment into crisis. After a period of pragmatic cooperation over Afghanistan, the decline began. The 2003 Iraq War, NATO’s 2004 enlargement into the post-Soviet Baltic Republics, and the “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine all caused disillusionment in Russia.

That disillusionment burst into the open with Putin’s speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, which was a broadside against what he claimed was an out-of-control America: “We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are . . . coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.” Within 18 months of Putin’s speech, the relationship was once again in crisis—this time over Russia’s August 2008 military intervention in Georgia.

Barack Obama’s election in the U.S. offered an opportunity to once again reset the relationship with Russia. The Obama administration was careful to temper expectations, essentially skipping the euphoric stage of the relationship by basing its reset on pragmatic, interest-based calculations. The Obama reset allowed the U.S. and Russia to ink a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), agree on the use of Russian territory to resupply U.S. forces in Afghanistan, strengthen the sanctions regime against Iran, and set the stage for Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Obama reset began to unravel in late 2011 when tens of thousands of Russians gathered in major cities to protest Vladimir Putin’s plan to return to the presidency and ballot rigging in parliamentary elections. After U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “serious concerns” about the fairness of the elections, Putin directly accused her of encouraging the protesters. Disagreements over U.S. plans for a European missile defense system further strained the relationship, and it descended into crisis in early 2014 with the Russian seizure of Crimea and fomenting of armed separatism in eastern Ukraine.

No Room for Reset

U.S.-Russia relations have been frozen in crisis since then. At almost five years, this marks the longest sustained downturn in relations since the end of the Cold War. In previous cycles, strong personal connections between the U.S. and Russian presidents provided a foundation that allowed for cooperation on issues of mutual importance, at least until the structural contradictions in the relationship caused the predictable erosion of trust. In the 1990s, Russia-watchers spoke of the “Bill and Boris Show” after the close personal relationship between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin. In the post-9/11 reset, Bush’s “I looked into his eyes” remark captured the early personal affinity between presidents. And the Obama reset was marked by a clear preference for Dmitrii Medvedev, seen as more liberal and pragmatic than his predecessor and successor Putin.

Despite Putin’s evident preference for Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and Trump’s affinity for Putin, the personal relationship between the men cannot serve as a foundation for a reset in the bilateral relationship due to Trump’s inability to acknowledge Russian interference in the election and his refusal to criticize Putin. These two sticking points have undermined trust in his instincts on Russia. As a result, Congress and the professional national security bureaucracy are largely managing the U.S. side of the bilateral relationship. Congress imposed sanctions on Russia and restricted Trump’s ability to lift them. The Departments of Defense and State convinced the White House to sell advanced Javelin anti-tank missiles to Georgia and Ukraine despite Trump’s reluctance to go ahead with the sale. Trump was similarly reluctant to expel Russian diplomats from the U.S. as punishment for the use of a nerve agent in the United Kingdom, but was apparently convinced to do so by senior advisors.

More recently, the president’s reaction to the Russian seizure of three Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait differed markedly from those of his top advisors. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley condemned Russia’s “outlaw actions,” adding that the incident was an “outrageous violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory” and “another reckless Russian escalation.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned the “aggressive Russian action” and—like Haley—labelled it a “dangerous escalation.” For his part, President Trump said, “We do not like what’s happening either way. We don’t like what’s happening, and hopefully it will get straightened out.” Later, Trump gave the Kerch Strait incident as the reason for cancelling his scheduled meeting with Putin at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires, although the two did meet informally during a dinner there.

The Two-Track Presidency

The current state of the U.S.-Russia relationship is unprecedented. As an anonymous senior administration official noted in a now-famous New York Times editorial, this is a two-track presidency. On one track, Trump “shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,” complains that senior staff members let him “get boxed into further confrontation with Russia,” and expresses “frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior.” On the other track, Russia is “called out for meddling and punished accordingly” and sanctioned “for its malign behavior” by Trump’s administration and Congress.

Until the Trump presidency ends, a reset will be impossible, and the personal relationship between presidents—instead of being a shock absorber in a relationship otherwise devoid of meaningful institutional or economic ties—will be mostly irrelevant. Even in normal times, Russia is a problem to be managed as often as it is a partner to be engaged. The reverse is also true: the U.S. is a problem for Russia as often as it is a partner. In these times of permanent crisis, when the U.S. president is largely a bystander in the U.S.-Russia relationship, the “steady state” the writer of the anonymous New York Times editorial claims to represent has assumed a heavy and precariously balanced burden.

*About the author: Colonel (Retired) Robert E. Hamilton, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Eurasian Studies at the U.S. Army War College and a Black Sea Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Source: This article was published by FPRI

Increasing globalisation, and pressures to reduce costs and improve efficiencies, has increased food supply chain complexity, and given rise to concerns about black swan events – high impact but low probability events, an all-island conference has heard. These conditions increase food firms’ vulnerability to adulteration of products through both fraud (for economic gain, e.g. the horsemeat scandal) and threat (for psychological or ideological reasons).

The challenge of, and potential solutions to such events have been addressed by a recent safefood funded collaborative University College Cork-Teagasc research project. The findings from this work were the topic of a one-day seminar held at the Teagasc Food Research Centre, Teagasc on Thursday, 6 December 2018. A diverse audience gathered to hear the results of an all-island industry survey, case studies of initiatives in four other OECD countries, a keynote speaker from the Food Crime Unit at Food Standards Scotland and experts in blockchain technology.

Opening the workshop Dr Seamus O’Reilly Senior Lecturer from the Cork University Business School highlighted the emergence of food supply chain resilience as a key issue in recent years and suggested “some of the more difficult challenges in this area are those posed by the type of incidents we are discussing here today”. In addressing this, discussion focused on prevention, investigation and enforcement. Sharing and exchanging information emerged as important to this, as did putting in place vulnerability assessments and related counter measures.

Dr James McIntosh from safefood said; “We wanted to understand the perspectives of the food industry on the island of Ireland with regard to these concerns and to see if we can learn from other jurisdictions. Some European countries seem to be quite advanced in this space and the US is focused on the issue from a national security perspective”.

Results from the all-island industry survey were presented by Dr Alan Sloane from UCC. He reported that companies on the island of Ireland are aware of these threats and are being proactive in addressing them:

• Three out of four respondents reported that they had systems, or processes in place to specifically deal with adulteration and/or misrepresentation.
• the primary motivation for seven out of ten respondents for doing this is to ensure consumer protection with direct costs to the business motivating a further two out of ten respondents.

Learnings from the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark and the US were reported by Professor Maeve Henchion of Teagasc. “Government agencies, commercial companies and the food industry in these countries are putting a lot of resources into this area. Building trust between legitimate food companies and the regulatory agencies is a key focus of activity”.

Food Crime costs £1.17 billion to the UK economy”, said Ron McNaughton, former senior police officer and head of the Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit at Food Standards Scotland. “To address this we have set up a crime unit with 10 staff currently dedicated to the investigation of food fraud. We are working closely with partners across UK, Europe and with industry to tackle this issue and over the last few years have taken part in Operation Opson, which is a Europol and Interpol joint operation targeting fake and substandard food and drink”.

The use of the digital technology, blockchain, provided for a lively discussion. Dr O’Reilly continued “Blockchain technology provides an opportunity to bring greater efficiency, transparency and traceability to the exchange in food supply chains and has the potential to play a key role in protecting food integrity; however, it is only part of the solution”.

According to FAO estimates, by 2025 nearly 2 billion people may not have enough drinking water to satisfy their daily needs. One of the possible solutions to this problem is desalination, namely treating seawater to make it drinkable. However, removing salt from seawater requires 10 to 1000 times more energy than traditional methods of freshwater supply, namely pumping water from rivers or wells.

Motivated by this problem, a team of engineers from the Department of Energy of Politecnico di Torino has devised a new prototype to desalinate seawater in a sustainable and low-cost way, using solar energy more efficiently. Compared to previous solutions, the developed technology is in fact able to double the amount of water produced at given solar energy, and it may be subject to further efficiency improvement in the near future. The group of young researchers who recently published these results in the prestigious journal Nature Sustainability [*] is composed of Eliodoro Chiavazzo, Matteo Morciano, Francesca Viglino, Matteo Fasano and Pietro Asinari (Multi-Scale Modeling Lab).

The working principle of the proposed technology is very simple: “Inspired by plants, which transport water from roots to leaves by capillarity and transpiration, our floating device is able to collect seawater using a low-cost porous material, thus avoiding the use of expensive and cumbersome pumps. The collected seawater is then heated up by solar energy, which sustains the separation of salt from the evaporating water. This process can be facilitated by membranes inserted between contaminated and drinking water to avoid their mixing, similarly to some plants able to survive in marine environments (for example the mangroves)”, explain Matteo Fasano and Matteo Morciano.

While conventional ‘active’ desalination technologies need costly mechanical or electrical components (such as pumps and/or control systems) and require specialized technicians for installation and maintenance, the desalination approach proposed by the team at Politecnico di Torino is based on spontaneous processes occurring without the aid of ancillary machinery and can, therefore, be referred to as ‘passive’ technology. All this makes the device inherently inexpensive and simple to install and repair. The latter features are particularly attractive in coastal regions that are suffering from a chronic shortage of drinking water and are not yet reached by centralized infrastructures and investments.

Up to now, a well-known disadvantage of ‘passive’ technologies for desalination has been the low energy efficiency as compared to ‘active’ ones. Researchers at Politecnico di Torino have faced this obstacle with creativity: “While previous studies focused on how to maximize the solar energy absorption, we have shifted the attention to a more efficient management of the absorbed solar thermal energy. In this way, we have been able to reach record values of productivity up to 20 litres per day of drinking water per square meter exposed to the Sun. The reason behind the performance increase is the ‘recycling’ of solar heat in several cascade evaporation processes, in line with the philosophy of ‘doing more, with less’. Technologies based on this process are typically called ‘multi-effect’, and here we provide the first evidence that this strategy can be very effective for ‘passive’ desalination technologies as well”.

After developing the prototype for more than two years and testing it directly in the Ligurian sea (Varazze, Italy), the Politecnico’s engineers claim that this technology could have an impact in isolated coastal locations with little drinking water but abundant solar energy, especially in developing countries. Furthermore, the technology is particularly suitable for providing safe and low-cost drinking water in emergency conditions, for example in areas hit by floods or tsunamis and left isolated for days or weeks from electricity grid and aqueduct. A further application envisioned for this technology are floating gardens for food production, an interesting option especially in overpopulated areas.

The researchers, who continue to work on this issue within the Clean Water Center at Politecnico di Torino, are now looking for possible industrial partners to make the prototype more durable, scalable and versatile. For example, engineered versions of the device could be employed in coastal areas where over-exploitation of groundwater causes the intrusion of saline water into freshwater aquifers (a particularly serious problem in some areas of Southern Italy), or could treat waters polluted by industrial or mining plants.


[*] Eliodoro Chiavazzo, Matteo Morciano, Francesca Viglino, Matteo Fasano, Pietro Asinari. Passive solar high-yield seawater desalination by modular and low-cost distillation, NATURE SUSTAINABILITY, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0186-x

In 1971, Pakistan as a nation suffered the most terrible shock in its entire history. We lost one wing of our country due to reasons that are well known but yet not very well understood. In December 1971, East-Pakistan became the independent state of Bangladesh as a result of a movement of Bengali Separatism. The movement for Bengali separatism did not develop overnight. It had its roots in the history of Pakistan.

However, the sad incident of separation of East Pakistan is a foremost foundation of deliberations or debates predominantly the excuse to initiate military act on March 25, 1971. Decades after the earth-shattering events of Fall of Dhaka that talks involving Sheikh Mujib, Yahya Khan, and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to discover a way out of standoff over Awami League’s six points failed, the verdict to start on “an operation search light” in order to restore the writ of the state established to be counter-productive that lead to the division of Pakistan on December 16, 1971.

Some of the fundamental questions about this tragedy continue to agitate the minds of the intellectuals as to whether the break-up of Pakistan was due to the failure of the political leadership, the political ambitions of the top brass of the army or an international conspiracy.

Since the start, the relationships between both parts of Pakistan were unfortunately not very welcoming. They were tricky and complex at the same time. However, if one talks about the conflicting areas among both could be narrated: “the language issue, differences regarding constitution making, and economic centralism. Immediately after independence, Pakistan’s two wings were set apart by one thousand miles of enemy territory. Both air and maritime contact could be blockaded by India at anytime. Geographical separation was the base for other differences i.e., racial identity, language, habits of life and culture. Hailing from different strata of society, the leaders and administrators from East and West Pakistan had conflicting ideas and aspirations and they could not understand properly each other’s problems.”

Post-1971 war, it was a general perception everywhere in the world, especially India viewed particularly that Pakistan caused a reduction in its size due to the 1971 war. It was also considered at that point in time that Pakistan would remain sandwiched between its two powerful neighbors’; Iran on west and India on east. It would not be able to maintain a standing armed forces to transform the equation. “The military defeat did not come up because there was some organized resistance in East Pakistan but mainly because of the Indian attack. When nine million refugees crossed over to the Indian side, the Indians thought they had a legitimate reason to attack.”

Pakistan’s acquisition of its full spectrum nuclear deterrence signaled it completely obvious and understandable that a critical war or nuclear attack against Pakistan is not at all any viable option for India however, India, driven by its foolish aspiration of hegemonic designs and others by their strategic contemplations in the region, kept on destabilizing Pakistan in more than one way.

Nevertheless, while analyzing critically, we can rightly conclude that the events that led to the separation of East Pakistan were a series of misunderstandings and mishaps which were cleverly and cunningly manipulated and exploited by a hostile neighbor. Why did it happen and what would have stopped it are the questions still whirling in the minds of the people of Pakistan. We cannot undo what has already happened in the past. However, we should learn lessons from our history and avoid committing mistakes like we did in the past. The present situation in Pakistan is not much different from that which led to the separation of East Pakistan. Ironically, sensitive matters should be dealt with prudence, tolerance, and large-heartedness to avoid another tragedy like the one we experienced in 1971.

Kosovo’s deep economic crisis and political tensions over the last two decades, and especially the circumstances of the war of 1998-1999, have contributed to the creation of social insecurity in all strata of the country.

These circumstances, also characterized by the failure of the state institutions, high rate of corruption, degradation of the public health system and the destruction of the education system, have enabled the unhindered propaganda of foreign extremist organizations in Kosovo. During this time, all Balkan countries were captured by similar social paradigms, economic and political crises and conflicts. In these circumstances, it was sufficient for a foreign extremist organization, deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Bulgaria, Montenegro or Macedonia, to expand its destructive activity in other parts of the Western Balkans and through the ethnic ties and common Islamic tradition that prevails in this compact geographic region.

Apart from social, economic and political factors, the emergence and rapid development of Islamist radicalism in Kosovo have also influenced some psycho social factors. One of the main psychosocial factors is the “feeling of exclusion”, or the creation of feelings of isolation of people from society, which has influenced the integration of hundreds of Muslim youth into certain structures of radical or Islamist extremist cells in Kosovo. [1] The complexes created by many young people due to their inability to integrate into social life or because of their moral and religious values have been used carefully by certain Islamist activists, with a view to apply mass recruitment of this category of persons in radical Islamist structures in Kosovo.

This category of people consist mainly of young generation living in rural areas of the city, having a low level of education, unemployed and as such are not involved in any useful social activity. During the recruitment process, these young people are provided with tempting ideological and material opportunities for both their integration and the behavior of their friends and relatives towards Islamist structures in Kosovo. Some of these people, previously unknown for their religious devotion or moral values, after completing their education or absolving certain religious courses, have become charismatic preachers of the Salafist ideology, and as such have influenced the recruitment of hundreds of people in various radical Islamist extremist structures in Kosovo. [2]

In particular, the creation of feelings of perceived religious discrimination has influenced the massive mobilization of radical movements in Kosovo. Ideologists of radical and extremist Islamist movements in Kosovo constantly invent fake stories and propagate about their religious discrimination in Kosovo, describing some actions of the state as an “insult to Islam” which “Islam does not endure” and so appeal to the radicalization of Muslim masses. [3]

Since the declaration of Kosovo’s independence in 2008, radical Islamist movements, under the pretext of their “religious discrimination”, have organized hundreds of demonstrations in all cities of Kosovo, making demands in the name of “freedom and religious equality “, allowing cover up for primary and secondary schools students in Kosovo, introducing the subject of” Islamic education “on all levels of public education, allowing the construction of a large mosque in the courtyard of the University of Prishtina.

In the integration of Kosovo’s youth in various radical Islamic extremist movements, has also affected the creation of wrong beliefs through religious indoctrination, as the Christian world is in fear of the Islamic religion and eventual union of Muslim people in a state, intentionally is developing a policy of fomenting conflicts and wars between them.

According to these ideologists, the different political or military interventions in Muslim countries by Christian states must cause Muslims all over the world to unite in order to “re-conquer their honor and their lands”. In this context, they spoke of “the obligation of each and every believer to protect the values and the dignity of Islam” and they called publicly for jihad in order to protect the Islamic religion, to defend the “blessed holy lands of Palestine, Iraq and Syria and to liberate Jerusalem”.

Such preachers even called for jihad in order to protect the IS, to destroy America and Israel etc., saying that the authority of Islam and the respect for this religion could solely be restored through the liberation of the Muslim lands and the conquest of all other countries on the face of the earth. [4]

In this context, the “Islamic Community of Kosovo”, through an official communiqué, offered an explanation for jihad, according to the work of the prophet and theological sources based on the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir. According to this explanation, there are two phases of the call for jihad, depending on the circumstances in which the Muslims took place. The first stage is characterized by circumstances in which Muslims cannot fight with unbelievers. At this stage they are forced to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance (Ayat 256 of Surat al-Baqara). Meanwhile, in the second phase, Muslims are able to develop the war and have enough resources to protect the Islamic community. At this stage they are called to engage in jihad (Verse 39 and 40 of Surat El Haxhxh) [5]

In keeping up with such interpretations, the ideologists of Islamist extremism in Kosovo refer to other verses and suras of the Quran, in order to deduce an obligation on the part of Muslims to engage in jihad, which claims that “the resurrection would take place on the holy and blessed land of Palestine, Syria and Iraq” where Isa was supposed to descend from heaven and to finish the concealment of the truth through the lie. [6] They state that after Isa had descended from heaven and the test of the concealment of the truth through the lie had been passed, which would be supposed to occur soon, nobody would ever be able to offend Muslims anymore in any way whatsoever. [7]

Through the development of such agitation and compelling explanations, Islamist extremists try to create wrong convictions for young Kosovar believers that the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate is foreseen in the Qur’an as the revival of the Islamic state (which was established after the death of Prophet Muhammad) and Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the true descendant of Prophet Muhammad. So in many Kosovo environments, Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is worshiped as the immortal religious and military leader not only of the Islamic State but of all Muslims in the world.

Even some indoctrinated people call al-Baghdad as Amir al-Mu’min, or “commander of Muslims,” ​​who has the mission of continuing the war against the unbelievers based a supposed Al-Qaeda strategy. According to this strategy, the struggle against disbelievers began with the attacks of September 11th, 2001, it has advanced world-wide with the Islamic State proclamation and will end in 2020, with the full victory of the “Islamic army” against the unbelievers (Christians and the Jews), where the world’s eternal rule will be established by Islam. [8]

The development of an intense propaganda machine by various Islamist activists for the “Muslims honor”, for the “Islamic State”, for “Jihad”, “Paradise”, etc., together with material aids, they are undoubtedly affecting some young people in the creation of false hopes and illusions about life.

Such an indoctrination also points to the disturbing level of the ideological degradation of a part of Muslim youth, largely due to the systematic decline in the quality of education in Kosovo, the high level of corruption, the dysfunction of the state apparatus and the extremely negative impact on Islamic propaganda, which does not provide any rational ideas or realistic concepts for the choice of various social, economic or political problems, but only promotes religious hatred and fanaticism.

Sources and references:

[1] Cf.: Guilain Denoeux and Lynn Carter ”Development Assistance and Counter Extremism: A Guide to Programming”, October 2009, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadt977.pdf
[2] Some famous preachers of Selafi ideologies in Kosovo were convicted in court after having committed crimes or they are at least suspected of criminal activity. Others had led a modern life-style or were well-known among the circles in which they moved for their numerous love affairs. One of them had even worked as a musician in a Serbian café where alcohol and pork were consumed. After they had been in touch with religious preachers, who had provided them with options to improve their social standing, they were integrated in the different radical movements and in turn, they became ardent preachers of Selafi ideologies after they had attended certain religious courses. These remarks are based on scholarly observations and information from students.
[3] Cf.: Miranda Vickers. Islam in Albania, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, England 2008, https://www.mercury.ethz.ch/…/2008_March_IslamAlb.pdf
[4] Scholarly observation of a radical sermon in Kosovo
[5] http://www.gazetaexpress.com/lajme/bik-mohon-deklarata-ku-behet-thirrje-per-xhihad-nuk-eshte-e-myftiut-145114/?archive=1
[6] http://ardhmeriaonline.com/artikull/article/statusi-i-tokes-se-bekuar-palestines-ne-islam/#.VrGy-9LhDGg
[7] http://rrugetepaqes.net/?p=3267
[8] http://www.askk-ks.com/a-ka-mundur-realisht-te-beje-kosova-me-shume-ne-parandlimin-e-ekstremizmit-te-dhunshem-dhe-radkilalizmit-qe-shpie-ne-terrorizem-2/

In the recently released Marvel comic “Uncanny X-Men (2018-) #5”, X-Man apparently destroyed sacred ancient Sree Padmanabha Swamy Hindu Temple in Thiruvananthapuram(India), as part of his efforts to “save the world”. 

“I cleansed the world of its fake houses of worship and false prophets”, X-Man declares after apparent destruction of this Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu, which reportedly found reference in Hindu Epics and Puranas. 

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) said that it was very hurtful to the Hindu community when a popular platform like Marvel labeled a sacred and highly revered Hindu temple as a fake house of worship.  

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, stated that it was highly inappropriate, and urged Marvel to immediately issue an official apology for hurting the sentiments of Hindu devotees, and publish it prominently on its website. Hinduism was the oldest and third largest religion of the world with about 1.1 billion adherents and a rich philosophical thought and it should not be taken frivolously. Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller,should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed noted. 

Besides hurting the sentiments, such misrepresentation created confusion among non-Hindus about Hinduism. Insensitive handling of faith traditions sometimes resulted in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols, Zed pointed out. 

Rajan Zed further said that Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith was something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers. Comics publishers should be more sensitive while handling faith related subjects; as these being a powerful medium; left lasting impact on the unsuspecting minds of highly impressionable children, teens and other young people, Zed added. 

There never is a time not to worry in the Balkans. The next conflict always seems to be peering around the corner with a malicious enthusiasm, eager to spring at points of demagogic advantage and personal suffering. The centrepieces of future disaster in the region tend to be Kosovo and Bosnia. The former is now intent on formalising military arrangements, thereby fashioning a spear that will be able to be driven deep through the heart of Serbian pride.

On Friday, the Assembly of Kosovo passed three draft laws with overwhelming numbers that it would form an army. (Serbian lawmakers boycotted the session.) The current Kosovo Security Force of 3,000 lightly armed personnel is to become somewhat more formidable: 5,000 active troops backed by 3,000 reservists in the next decade. This move was brazenly chest beating in nature, an assertion that security, as provided by the 4,000 NATO troops forming KFOR (the Kosovo Force), was inadequate and, more to the point, to be bypassed altogether.

It also came as a calculated assault, timed to bruise Serbians in Kosovo – numbering some 120,000 – and politicians in Belgrade, suggesting a marked change from negotiations some three months prior. Then, it seemed that a land swap offer was in the making, one that would have reflected the relevant though tense ethnic composition in the region: the Preševo Valley in southern Serbia, predominantly Albanian, would join Kosovo; Serbia would re-establish dominion over the majority ethnic-Serb area of Kosovo to the north of the River Ibar.

Things subsequently soured. Kosovo had already agreed to raise a 100 percent tariff on imports from Serbia, a move that is economically insensible but parochially clear. Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj justified the action by blaming Belgrade’s efforts to foil his bid in admitting Kosovo to Interpol. Aggression from Belgrade was cited on all fronts: from the seething Deputy Prime Minister Enver Hoxhaj; from the foreign ministry (“abusive” lobbying by Serbia was cited); and from the prime minister himself.

To have such an army will be another feather in the cap of Kosovo’s aims to consolidate its sovereign credentials and sever the umbilical cord with Belgrade. The danger here, as ever, is how the ethnic Serbs, backed by their indignant patrons, will respond. Haradinaj’s caper here is to claim that the forces will be “multi-ethnic, in service of its own citizens, in function of peace, alongside other regional armies, including the Serbian Army, in having partnership for peace.” His officials also insist on a modest role for the new army, one dedicated to “search and rescue operations, explosive ordnance disposal, fire fighting and hazardous material disposal.” Nothing, in short, to have kittens over.

The region is already suffering a form of legal schizophrenia, one designed by the legal and security arrangements more befitting an asylum than a functioning state. Countries in Europe facing their own separatist dilemmas have been steadfast in not recognising Kosovo. Unsurprisingly, Spain is foremost amongst them. In January, the Spanish foreign ministry expressed the view that Kosovo be kept out of any plans for Western Balkans enlargement. “The concept of ‘WB6’ does not fit the enlargement dynamic. Kosovo is not part of the enlargement process and has its own differentiated framework.”

In reality, the Kosovar Albanians know they can count on much support within European ranks: the appetite for protecting Serbian interests was long lost during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Lauded defenders became demonised butchers. Kosovo assumed the form of a pet project, one to be nurtured by Western European and US interests under the fictional tent of humanitarianism. Invariably, Serbia sought support from Russia and China, both of whom steadfastly rejected the 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia.

For Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić, speaking in Trstenik on Thursday, “Kosovo and Metohija is to us great torment, especially because of Pristina’s move and the announcement of the formation of an army, which is neither based on law nor on Resolution 1244.” Serbia’s foreign minister, Ivica Daičić deemed the formation of any such army “the most direct threat to peace and stability in the region.”

Such instances are open invitations to violence. The Kosovo authorities are keen to wave the red flag; Serbian authorities risk running at it with frothing intensity. There is also a fear that this move has received conventional prodding, this time from the United States. “Everything Pristina is doing,” according to Vučić, “it is obviously doing with the support of the United States. They have no right under international legal document to form armed formations; to us, that’s illegal, and we will inform the public about further steps.”

The assertion is not without foundation. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) is clear that the guarantor of security in the region be KFOR. “Hence,” goes a statement from a spokesman for the UN Secretary General, “any restriction to the discharge by KFOR of its security responsibilities would be inconsistent with that resolution.” But the bad behaviour of small entities such as Kosovo often takes place at the behest of greater powers, and US ambassador to Kosovo Philip Kosnett has openly stated that it was “only natural for Kosovo as a sovereign, independent country to have a self-defence capability.”

Lieutenant Colonel Sylejman Cakaj, who had cut his milk teeth on fighting Serbia as a commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1999, seemed to have drunk a juice heavy with political overtones. “We are all seeing a geo-strategic changes in the world, towards the creation of a somewhat new world order. I believe it is necessary that following the consolidation of its statehood, Kosovo has its army too… the one that we are entitled to as representatives of the people, to be in control of our country.” The shudder amongst ethnic Serbs at such remarks is palpable, and the fear here is whether Belgrade will catch a terrible cold.

The response from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was more one of remorse than decisive anger. “I regret that the decision to initiate a change of the Kosovo Security Force mandate was made despite concerns expressed by NATO.” The “level of NATO’s engagement with the Kosovo Security Force” would have to be re-examined.

While patriotic foolishness should never be discounted in any factor in the region, the Kosovo Albanians have been emboldened. The wait-and-see game about whether Serbian forces are deployed to protect Kosovar Serbs is afoot. As former Serbian military commander Nebojša Jović warned with thick ominousness, “What they [the Kosovo Albanians] should know from our history is that there was never a ‘small war’ in these territories. Every time there was a conflict in Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija, it turned into a war on a bigger scale and none of us here want this.”

The Fortum-Rusnano wind investment fund has taken the investment decision for a 100-megawatt (MW) wind power project in Russia. It is the third project of the total 1,823 MW awarded to the fund in the Russian wind auction in 2017 and 2018.

The wind farm is expected to start production during the first half of 2020. The previous 50-MW and 200-MW projects are expected to start production during the first half of 2019 and the first half of 2020 respectively.

The Fortum-Rusnano wind investment fund is a 50/50 owned investment partnership to invest in wind power in Russia. The investment decisions related to the renewable capacities won by Fortum and the Fortum-Rusnano wind investment fund in 2017 and 2018 will be made on a case-by-case basis. Fortum’s maximum equity commitment is RUB 15 billion. In the longer term, Fortum seeks to maintain an asset-light structure by forming potential partnerships and other forms of co-operation.

In June 2017, the Fortum-Rusnano wind investment fund won the right to build 1,000 MW of wind capacity in a CSA auction. In June 2018, the fund won the right to build a further 823 MW. The wind parks will receive a guaranteed CSA price corresponding to approximately RUB 7,000-8,000 per MWh for a period of 15 years. In June 2018, Fortum also won the right to build 110 MW of solar capacity.

The Fortum-Rusnano wind investment fund has non-binding cooperation agreements with the governments of the Rostov, Kalmykia, and Stavropol Krai regions for the building of wind power plants.

On November 15, this year,17-year-old Nadeem Ahmad, a high school student, was abducted by militants in Shopian, South Kashmir, a hotbed of militancy in the Himalayan valley. The next day, the teenager’s bullet-ridden body was found in an orchard in a village close to where he lived. Hours after the body was discovered, a video surfaced on social media showing gunmen firing a volley of bullets into the victim.Another post showed Nadeem shortly before his death, confessing that he had shared information about two insurgents with the Indian army.

A similar video showing a militant slitting the throat of another young man sent shock waves across the region. The pictures showed the blood-soaked face of the victim, identified as19-year-old Huzaif Ashraf Kuttay, also a resident of southern Kashmir. Huzaif,a baker by profession, was abducted on November, 16 by armed men, along with his two cousins. The cousins were later released but Huzaif was killed.

At his two-story home in Safangari village in Shopian, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, aged 50, is devastated. Bhat’s son Nadeem was the first whose execution was posted on social media.  In another village in the nearby district Kulgam, the family of19-year-old Huzaif Ashraf — the other victim — is in shock.  “We do not know why he was killed, we want to know the truth,” Huzaif’s uncle Muhammad Amin Ganai said. “We saw a video of my son’s dead body on the internet,” Huzaif’s father Mohammed Ashraf said, adding, “Those who killed my son, I want to ask them, why was he killed. We deserve an answer atleast.”

The incidents are undoubtedly a gross violation of human rights and barbaric in nature. Kashmir’s largest armed group, Hizbul Mujahedeen, which claimed responsibility for the murders, justified its stance shortly after the incidents took place. “From today, we’ll only be exposing videos of death. And whoever betrays our movement will face the same consequences,” Riyaz Naikoo, the outfit’s commander said in a clear warning to the so-called “informers,” adding that the group’s”do or die” squad had executed the men.

According to the police, the execution videos released by the insurgents were a new phenomenon in Kashmir’s two-decade-long insurgency and made with the aim of frightening local people.”I think this is part of a media blitzkrieg strategy to instil terror.Also, they [the militants] are trying to copy Islamic State’s strategy of beheading and other means of brutal killings.”A top police official said “These crimes are gruesome” and added that propaganda related to the same was also a criminal activity. “The cases have already been registered. There are some [social media] handles from where such content is propagating. I am sure that with the help of service providers, we will be able to nail them,” he added.

Earlier data suggests that militants  have abducted 12 people, killing four of them, including a former police officer. The rest were set free. Similar incidents occurred in August, when armed gunmen abducted several policemen, threatening to kill them if they didn’t quit their jobs.

Ajai Sahni, an expert on counterinsurgency and the executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, said that the number of such killings has increased over the past two years. “They (militants) have always targeted people sympathetic to state agencies, from the beginning of the militancy. The difference this time is that they have put the videos on social media,” he said.

“When militants come under a lot of security force pressure in narrowly targeted operations, they turn to people. The narrowly targeted operations are always intelligence based,” he added.  

“This is to spread fear in a totally chaotic situation. I think, in these cases, social media is being used negatively. During the current government’s rule in India, videos of the lynching of Muslims were being circulated on social media and that was just to create fear among the population in a similar way,” he explained.

Shopian has been riddled with tension since 2016, when Burhan Wani, a 21-year-old commander of the Hizbul Mujahedeen was killed by forces, prompting several months of civil unrest and an increase in armed combat between security forces and militant groups. According to a recent report, the number of people killed in the region in 2018 is the highest in the last nine years. The number included 144 civilians, 234 militants and 142 security personnel. Earlier, forces launched an operation ‘All out’ to kill militants to bring normalcy in the region.

“The barbaric policy of militants abducting and killing innocent civilians that has been witnessed in recent times is something to be worried about. It, undoubtedly, is being pursued on orders from across the border. The intention is to create an aura of fear among the common people who are no longer providing to militancy the kind of support that is required for its sustenance, said Jaibans Singh, a reputed defence and security expert.

“There is a need for a joint effort by the people and security forces to negate this challenge. Vigilance has to be increased and efforts to root out militancy intensified. Effort has to be made to wean the Kashmir youth away from the path of militancy,” he added

Kashmir is a pending dispute between India and Pakistan. The two countries have fought two of their three wars since independence in 1947 over the region, which they both claim in full but rule in part. Kashmir has witnessed heavy unrest since 1989, with some separatist groups demanding a sovereign nation and others calling for a merger with Pakistan. Pakistan has been training and arming the militants and sending them to Kashmir where they have spread debilitating levels of violence. The protracted unrest in the region has claimed tens of thousands of lives in the last three decades. It is time now for all stakeholders to join hands and save the innocent people, especially the youth, from being brutalised and killed.

*Farooq Wani is a Kashmir senior journalist , columnist and political commentator

The 21st century offers a world where security and threats are interacting in a complex environment. Today we are part of a system where due to rapid technological change the lethality of weapon system is increasing in an increasingly ambiguous environment. States with nuclear weapons especially choose ambiguity for enhancing their national security vis-à-vis their enemies.

In human history there is no comparison with the lethality and destructiveness which the nuclear weapons are capable of inflicting. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not only examples but lessons for the rest of the world about the power of destructiveness of nuclear weapons. Thus, these weapons must be handled with great cautions as their primary role in words of Bernard Brodie is to avert a war not fight a war. The ability of nuclear weapons to avert a war creates deterrence, which is the ability to dissuade an enemy to take any action because of the threat of massive retaliation if deterrence ever fails. Fortunately so far deterrence has not failed but to maintain it states have to ensure that they have the credible capability to use it against adversaries. To maintain deterrence credibility the states are in a continuous process of developing or changing their weaponry for instance after the development of Ballistic Missile Shields states are now developing cruise missiles which have the ability to penetrate the radars of missile shields.

In South Asia both nuclear powers India and Pakistan are developing cruise missile technology under the imperatives of their own national security and threat perceptions. Recently, India’s Defence Acquisition Committee under the Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman gave approval to procure defence equipment worth Rs. 3,000 crores which also includes BrahMos Missiles for Indian Navy ships and Battle Tanks (Arjun). BrahMos is known as world’s fastest supersonic cruise missile with the two stage propulsion system.

One stage is based on solid fuel propellant and second stage is based on liquid fuel propellant. India is capable of launching it from land, sea and air. Its fast speed and high accuracy makes it ideal medium for striking hardened military silos, installations, ships, submarines and air bases.

Thus, with its capability to carry nuclear warheads BrahMos is ideal counter force weaponry. So far, India has not officially accepted that BrahMos is tipped with nuclear warhead, when it will be used in submarines and ships which are causing ambiguity in already volatile South Asian strategic stability.

Other than BrahMos India also has subsonic cruise missile ‘Nirbhay’ which is long range and is under the process of development by Defence Research and Development Organization. It is also capable of carrying conventional and nuclear warheads. Moreover, it can be launched from multiple platforms.

In response to India’s cruise missile program Pakistan also started its cruise missile program only to maintain deterrence. In the face of emerging new technologies in the region such as Ballistic Missile Defence Shields of different types Pakistan has also developed its cruise missiles program with the capability to be launched from land and sea.

So far, Pakistan has two types of cruise missiles one is Ra’ad and second is Babur both missiles are subsonic cruise missiles. Sea variant of Babur-3 is especially made by Pakistan to extend its deterrence against threats originating from Indian Ocean due to Indian naval nuclearization.

Recently, Pakistan’s navy tested ship launched cruise missile named ‘Harbah’ from PNS Himmat. After the recent deal between Russian and India on procurement of S-400 BMD, Pakistan will also go for the supersonic cruise missiles and MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle).

Owning to unresolved disputes, border skirmishes, arms race and lack of mutual will to negotiate issues, probability of achieving strategic stability is nearly impossible. However, to avoid full scale war or limited conflict, reliance on deterrence stability is a necessity to avoid catastrophic effects of nuclear exchange in South Asia.

Moreover, current trajectories of bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan and resultant arms race show that missile technology will be further explored by both countries to achieve national security objectives. But there is a need for new CBMs which should be signed between both countries regarding exchange of information before test of cruise missiles as well. It is true that technological developments have the capacity to affect state of deterrence and cruise missile with hypersonic or supersonic speeds and ability to carry conventional and nuclear warheads are significant developments that can affect the deterrence stability.

Situation becomes more critical if states rely on ambiguity in such situation for instance BrahMos is nuclear capable and will be deployed on Indian Submarines and ships but Pakistan as adversary will not know that whether enemy ship or submarine possess strategic weapons and in case of clash, if such vessel gets attacked, under the parameters of its nuclear doctrine of 2003 India will retaliate massively.

Thus, in the light of new technological developments it is need of the hour that both states especially go for new nuclear CBMs to avoid any nuclear catastrophe and to maintain nuclear deterrence. As for South Asia, nuclear deterrence is not a myth but a reality which is keeping both nuclear powers at bay despite hitting the lows in bilateral relations because history is the witness that before establishment of deterrence both India and Pakistan have fought three full fledge wars in almost four decades.

*Ahyousha Khan, Research Associate at Islamabad based think-tank Strategic Vision Institute

The Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) adopted a law on November 26, 2018, approving a presidential decree on the introduction of martial law in Ukraine. The law is imposed in Vinnytsia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, Odesa, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson region as well as in the inland waters of Azov and Kerch waters from November 26 to December 26, 2018.

The Ukraine Government decided to introduce martial law after Russia had captured two Ukrainian artillery boats and a tugboat near the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea on November 25, 2018. Addressing the nation, President Poroshenko alleged that “Russia has been waging a hybrid war against our country for five years. But with an attack on Ukrainian military boats, it moved to a new stage of aggression. And this attack, of course, is not accidental.”1

Following the logic and statement of Poroshenko, the Martial Law should have been introduced in the year 2014 itself when the rebels seized parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and Crimea was integrated by Russia and which has cost more than a thousand lives. The common people in the street of Ukraine asked the questions that why the government did not impose martial law since then and why now when only a few days remain before the start of Presidential elections.

The general provisions of martial law in Ukraine have outlined in the law “On the legal regime of martial law” which the parliament passed the bill in 2015. In a nutshell, it states that in connection with the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, constitutional human rights and freedoms stipulated by Articles 30-34, 38, 39, 41-44, 53 of the Constitution of Ukraine may be temporarily limited, for the period of the legal regime of martial law. 

For instance, Article 1 of “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” which define the Martial Law clearly stipulate that “It also involves temporary (threat determined) restrictions of human constitutional rights and freedoms as well as the rights and legitimate interests of all legal persons with an indication of the period of effectiveness for these restrictions.”2 It is also important to clarify that in the period of martial law, the powers of the president cannot be terminated. If the term of office of the head of state expires during martial law, he continues his work until the expiration of martial law.3 This indicates that President Poroshenko has finally succeeded to controls all most all Ukrainian existing institutions including the law-enforcement agencies, the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government, and the media.

In the meanwhile, three former Ukrainian presidents have joined their hands to oppose the motion to impose martial law in the country. Former Presidents of Ukraine, namely Leonid Kravchuk, Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yushchenko, issued a joint statement expressing doubts about the need for martial law in the country. In their letter, they stated that “Martial law is, first and foremost a radical restriction of the rights of Ukrainian citizens, including the total prohibition of strikes, mass gatherings and rallies, the right to bans political parties and public organizations.

There is another unparalleled risk associated with martial law – it is a legal chaos in the state.” The former presidents said martial law would pose a threat to democracy because it will scrap the presidential vote scheduled for next year. They further asserted that “A large part of society believes that in this way democracy could be limited. These suspicions are extremely dangerous, they can lead to a social conflict, the enemy will certainly use so they have to be pacified.” 4

There have been mixed reactions among the opposition parties in Verkhovna Rada as well as in academic circles. His main opponent, Tymoshenko, was forced to support the imposition of martial law.5 While speaking on the issue at the extraordinary session of the Verkhovna Rada, Yulia Tymoshenko said that “From the first days of the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine, the Batkivshchyna faction has demanded the introduction of martial law, and we are ready to support the introduction of martial law in Ukraine today. But we are not ready to support the destruction of the rights and freedoms of Ukrainians under the guise of martial law.” 

While, voting against the imposition of martial law, Deputy Chairman of the Opposition Bloc parliamentary faction, Oleksandr Vilkul, argued that “Over the past 4.5 years, more than 10 thousand people died only according to official data, the situation was much worse but martial law was not enacted because they wanted to come to power and hold presidential and parliamentary elections.”6

In the same way, an analyst on international affairs, Georgiy Kuhaleyshvili, argued that “The situation in the Sea of Azov and in the area of the Joint Forces Operation in Donbas will not change even if the martial law is declared.” He further noted that “Poroshenko needs martial law in order to take a pause, postpone the elections, and get prepared for them. The president is trying to consolidate the electorate around Russia’s aggression, he has stepped up international actions as well.” 7Similarly, in an exclusive interview with Glavnovosti, a military expert, Vlad Mulek, explained that the martial law, introduced in ten regions of Ukraine, would allow taking funds from local budgets to finance the army.8

The civil societies, NGOs, opposition parties and many media publications alleged that this was an attempt by the president with an extremely low rating to hold on to power for some time. The popularity of Ukrainian President Poroshenko is collapsing and former Ukrainian prime minister and Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) party leader Yulia Tymoshenko continues to be the main beneficiary, according to a survey conducted by Kiev-based pollster Rating Group.9 According to polls, Poroshenko most likely to lose his presidential post if elections to take place on the time. Therefore, the intensifying the armed conflict with Russia and imposition of martial law on the country provided him “like a masterstroke”10 which may allow him to change the situation in his favour. The disappointment is exacerbated further by the public’s high expectations based on his promises made during his election campaign in 2014.

Poroshenko promised that one of his main objectives during his presidency would be to end corruption and turn Ukrainian into a functioning modern country closely associated with the European Union and assured that Ukrainians would not need visas to travel in the EU. 

Another of Poroshenko’s promises was to immediately end the military operation in Donbass. During the last four and half years of his rule, Poroshenko has yet again failed to keep his promise and has unsuccessful completely in every aspect of the life of Ukrainian people. His expectations and dependent on Western allies could not yield any positive results rather complicated the situations. Ukraine nowadays, facing a very peculiar condition, somewhat resembling the one that evolved in Russia on the 1990s. Recognising his own failure in addressing the people’s concern on various issues, President Poroshenko has imposed martial law in Ukraine which is seen as the only option to silence oppositions and postpone the upcoming elections, which is supposed be held on March 31, 2019.

There is no doubt that the United States and its European allies will continue to back Ukraine government in every platforms but unfortunately, they can’t change the situations besides condemning and imposing more sanctions on Russia. 

*About the author: Manabhanjan Meher, Research Analyst in Europe and Eurasia Centre, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi.

Notes:

1. “Statement by the President of Ukraine on the approval of the Decree on the introduction of martial law in Ukraine”, November 26, 2018, at https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/zayava-prezidenta-ukrayini-shodo-zatverdzhennya-ukazu-pro-vv-51362
2. Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” (Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada, 2015, No 28, p. 250), in Oleksandr Lytvynenko, Philipp Fluri and Valentyn Badrack (eds.) The Security Sector Legislation Of Ukraine, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces and Сenter for Аrmy, Сonversion and Disarmament Studies, Geneva – Kyiv, 2017, pp. 76, at https://www.dcaf.ch/sites/default/files/publications/documents/Security%20Sector%20Legislation%20Ukraine%202017_eng.pdf
3. “What Will Change In Ukraine If Martial Law is Imposed: A List of Restrictions and Prohibitions”, November 26, 2018, https://newsone.ua/articles/politics/chto-izmenitsja-v-ukraine-esli-vvedut-voennoe-polozhenie-spisok-ohranichenij-i-zapretov.html
4. “Three former Presidents of Ukraine address Parliament over martial law”, November 26, 2018, at https://112.international/article/three-former-presidents-of-ukraine-address-parliament-over-martial-law-34551.html
5. “Destruction of rights and freedoms under martial law is unacceptable!”, November 26, 2018, at https://www.tymoshenko.ua/en/news-en/destruction-of-rights-and-freedoms-under-martial-law-is-unacceptable
6. “Statement of the Deputy Chairman of the Opposition Bloc parliamentary faction, Oleksandr Vilkul, about trying to enact martial law”, November 26, 2018, at  http://opposition.org.ua/en/news/zayava-oleksandra-vilkula-pro-sprobu-vvedennya-voennogo-stanu.html
7. Georgiy Kuhaleyshvili (2018), “Is there any point in declaring martial law in Ukraine?”, November 27, 2018, https://112.international/opinion/is-there-any-point-in-declaring-martial-law-in-ukrain-34597.html
8. “Ukrainian Military Expert Vlad Mulyk: Martial Law will Allow Kiev to Take Away Money from Local Budgets to Finance the Army”, November 29, 2018, http://www.stalkerzone.org/ukrainian-military-expert-vlad-mulyk-martial-law-will-allow-kiev-to-take-away-money-from-local-budgets-to-finance-the-army/
9. Roman Olearchyk (2018), “Ukraine voters struggle to see change ahead of presidential poll”, September 12, 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/1de24cc4-91b4-11e8-9609-3d3b945e78cf 
10. Leonid Bershidsky (2018), “Martial Law Won’t Help Ukraine’s President”, November 27, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-27/martial-law-won-t-help-ukraine-s-petro-poroshenko-in-russia-clash

The pieces were already put in place during the Wentworth federal by-election, a hopeless, needless gambit that reduced the Coalition government’s majority whilst giving the outgoing Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull a crack at some vengeance. His successor, Scott Morrison, decided to make himself a prisoner of policy in advance. That prison cell, it transpired, was Australian policy towards Israel and the thorny issue of recognising Jerusalem as its capital. In the colloquial words of opposition leader Bill Shorten, “I’m tempted to think it was a sort of rookie mistake by an L-Plate prime minister, but it is a little more serious than that.”

History is peppered with examples of impulsive leaders who insist with a priest’s dogmatism that a policy stance must be embraced, whatever the outcome. In the case of the US effort to defeat Japan during the Second World War, the language used was that of unconditional surrender. No exceptions, nothing. That, in turn, had been conceived in the murderous charnel house of the American Civil War (1861-5), one killing hundreds of thousands on an industrial scale that shocked observers and participants alike.

The massive shedding of blood encouraged General Ulysses S. Grant to accept nothing less than total, unqualified capitulation from the Confederate forces, a sentiment he first expressed in 1862. “No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted,” came Grant’s cold message to the generals regarding the fate of 13,000 men at Fort Donelson. “I propose to move immediately upon your works.” Once out of the lamp, such words never return to it.

As Japan was facing defeat, its officials wondered in childish alarm: would the emperor be preserved in any post-war arrangements? Keeping the Mikado did, at least, provide some saving grace, an assurance that the foreign devil had not entirely conquered them. Left unanswered and unclear in US diplomatic communications, Japanese belligerence only concluded with the dropping of two atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Harry S. Truman, boxed by the mantra of unconditional surrender, felt no inclination to adjust it – nor could he, without committing electoral suicide.

Pity, then, that the straitjacket of unconditional policies must feature in one of the most contentious topics in international relations: the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Having been approved in Cabinet, and revealed to the media, the Australian prime minister had to find a means to accommodate it. The approach: split the city.

Morrison’s move was to seek an all-ways option, the buffoon convinced of a cleverness no one else sees. Israel’s claim, with most of is central legal and bureaucratic institutions already located in the west of the city, would be recognised as such. A future Palestinian capital, of whatever eviscerated homeland might be left, would be acknowledged in the eastern portion. Not only would he find himself in everybody’s good books with minimum effort, he could claim, rather disingenuously, on keeping the frail two-state solution alive.

Morrison has not given up a chance to remind us how counterfeit a character he is. Op-shop political prowess eschews reading and history; he is a masterfully ignorant practitioner who finds himself in the arms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yet still keen to press the idea that international law is being observed. The point is a generally moot one, given that Israel claims exclusive sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Whatever Australia decides on that front would be presumptuous and irrelevant: the cards remain with the powerful, leaving the Israelis “disappointed,” in the words of a senior official, “that the Australian government decided to only recognize West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital”.

In a meek nod to those observers of international law, Morrison has suggested that he would not request a physical relocation of the Australian embassy to West Jerusalem till matters had been sorted between the parties, happy, in the meantime, for a Trade and Defence Office to be established. Australia, he explained to members of the Sydney Institute, “look forward to moving our embassy to West Jerusalem when practical, in support of and after final status determination”.

What of the reaction? Nabil Shaath of the PLO advocates a firm stand against the Morrison government’s decision. “We’re asking the Arab world to include Australia in boycott measures.” He suggests hitting Australia where it hurts. “Saudi Arabia is the largest importer of live meat from Australia… I talked to the Saudis and said that ‘you should at least tell the Australians that means we are going to look for other [suppliers].”

Then comes the issue of a $16.5 billion worth trade deal with Indonesia, put on ice in the interim, but bound to be taken off it once anger dies down. (Indonesian officials are as concerned with the reaction of their own citizens as anything else.) In a generally tepid response, the Indonesian foreign ministry released a statement calling on “Australia and all member states of the UN to promptly recognise the State of Palestine and to cooperate towards the attainment of sustainable peace, and agreement between the state of Palestine and Israel based on the principle of a two-state solution.” Opposition party members in Indonesia, eyeing future elections, have been more insistent.

Such attitudes of indignation have a rich idealism that tends to flounder in political reality. Many Islamic states do not have the heart for aggressive economic measures when they see the chance for hard dollars. Their treasure troves are hardly endless. Besides, much yawning at the Palestinian issue has been taking place in recent years. Suffering, especially of others, eventually causes fatigue. Morrison’s crude formula is simple: budgets and bottom lines will hopefully count over rage and principle.

At least 42 people have been injured, including one critically, in an explosion at a restaurant in northern Japan.

The blast Sunday night at a two-story restaurant in Sapporo, the capital of Hokkaido Island, is being investigated, police said.

TV footage from Japanese public broadcaster NHK showed smoke rising from the building, which eventually collapsed.

Residents in the area said they smelled gas around the time of the explosion that shattered windows in nearby homes and partially buried cars in debris.

City officials set up shelters for area residents as fire officials warned of the possibility of secondary explosions.

Saudi Arabia said it “rejects the position expressed recently by the United States Senate,” while also affirming a commitment to further develop relations with the US.

The Senate’s position had been based on “ unsubstantiated claims and allegations, and contained blatant interferences in the Kingdom’s internal affairs, undermining the Kingdom’s regional and international role,” a Saudi Foreign Ministry statement said.

The Kingdom also expressed concern about the positions held by senators of “an esteemed legislative body of an allied and friendly government, a government that the Kingdom, under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and the Crown Prince, holds at the highest regard, and with whom the Kingdom maintains deep strategic, political, economic, and security ties ” the statement read.

Saudi Arabia also rejected “any interference in its internal affairs, any and all accusations, in any manner, that disrespect its leadership, represented by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosque and the Crown Prince, and any attempts to undermine its sovereignty or diminish its stature.”

By Faisal Mrza*

Since early December, oil prices have been moving in a narrow band with Brent crude hovering between $60 and $62 per barrel. Lower price forecasts continue from financial advisers and international organizations.

In its Short-Term Energy Outlook, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) lowered its price forecasts for WTI to $54.19 on average in 2019, down $10.66 from its last projection. It also predicts Brent will average $61 in 2019, down $10.92 from last month’s forecast.

However, the EIA’s downward adjustment is based mainly on record global output, particularly in the US — and lower-than-expected demand isn’t well justified. The EIA forecasts US oil production to average 10.88 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2018, up from 9.35 million bpd in 2017, and then climb to 12.06 million bpd in 2019.

Last Monday, Libya’s National Oil Company (NOC) declared “force majeure” on oil exports from El Sharara oilfield. Production was halted after tribesmen and state security guards seized El Sharara and El Feel oilfields. About 400,000 barrels of crude per day have been lost as a result and production at the Zawiya refinery may be suspended. This news has yet to be reflected in global oil prices.

The lack of full government control over the oil supply in Libya justifies the exemption from output cuts agreed for the country during OPEC’s 175th ordinary meeting. Iran and Venezuela received similar exemptions. Many market participants were incorrect in concluding that the exemption could give Libya latitude to increase production beyond OPEC’s oil output ceiling. Apparently, the latest frequent stoppages in Libyan oil fields should not be considered short-lived anymore, since other disruptions at ports will tend to contribute further to longer outages.

Other bullish news that failed to lift prices was the declaration by the government of Alberta, Canada, of mandatory output curbs on local crude oil production and bitumen. The action was taken to alleviate low crude prices and the cash squeeze on its energy industry. These are the first provincial government-dictated production cuts in Canada since the 1980s.

In the US, signs of strain are already visible in the oil industry. Low US gasoline refining margins have turned negative against major US and European crude slates. This is causing huge loses to US refiners who can’t lower refining capacities because they have to produce middle distillates in addition to the light distillates to produce gasoline through this process.

The strong growth in seasonal demand for middle distillates has driven increased gas oil (diesel) prices and refining margins. Therefore, low gasoline yields and high gas oil refining margins have resulted in refiners maximizing diesel output instead of gasoline production.

The EIA reported that by the end of November, high gasoline inventories helped drive US refining margins to five-year lows. This is coupled with high levels of refinery output as US refiners keep refining at high capacity. That has contributed to low gasoline refining margins globally.

US gasoline prices declined for the ninth consecutive week. The US has continued to export gasoline despite the decline in domestic gasoline stocks. For the last week of November, the US exported more crude oil and petroleum products than it imported since records were kept beginning in 1991. 

Gasoline refining margins in Europe turned negative in mid-October for the first time in nearly five years amid high inventories and weaker demand in the Atlantic basin. Since then, Europe’s refineries have reduced their gasoline output and depended more on gasoline imports from the US. European refineries are now focused mainly on the relatively strong diesel refining margins.

• Faisal Mrza is an energy and oil marketing consultant. He was formerly with OPEC and Saudi Aramco. He is the president of #Faisal_Mrza Consulting. Twitter: @faisalmrza

Malaysia on Sunday slammed Australia’s decision to recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, terming it as a “humiliation” to the Palestinians.

In a statement, Malaysian Foreign Ministry said that the announcement was “premature and a humiliation to the Palestinians and their struggle for the right to self-determination.”

The statement said Malaysia “strongly opposes” the decision by the government of Australia and supports the two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

On Saturday, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced to formally recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Morrison said his country would not move its embassy until peace is established between Israel and Palestine.

Tension has been running high in the occupied Palestinian territories since last year when U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Jerusalem remains at the heart of the decades-long Middle East conflict, with Palestinians hoping that East Jerusalem — occupied by Israel since 1967 — might one day serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.

Original source

Hundreds of Thai women were lured to the United States to work in brothels across the country, U.S. prosecutors said, as they announced that five people had been convicted of various charges for their involvement in “modern-day sex slavery.”

Prosecutors said a federal jury on Wednesday found the five people guilty of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and other charges after a six-week trial in St. Paul, Minnesota.

“The defendants … participated in a massive yet brutally efficient criminal enterprise that trafficked hundreds of vulnerable Thai women for sexual exploitation and used sophisticated money-laundering techniques,” Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski told a news conference in Washington on Thursday.

Busadee Santipitaks, spokeswoman for the Thai ministry of foreign affairs, told BenarNews on Friday that Bangkok was “looking into the matter.”

“We believe we have file of this case but we cannot comment now,” she said.

Lt. Gen. Worawat Watnakorn, commander of Thailand’s anti-human trafficking police, also declined to give a reaction.

“I have my deputy following up on this issue,” he told BenarNews.

The women, who were from impoverished backgrounds and spoke little or no English, were coerced to participate in the criminal scheme through misleading promises of a better life in the United States and the ability to provide money to their families in Thailand, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a statement.

“Once in the United States, the victims were sent to houses of prostitution where they were forced to have sex with strangers – every day – for up to 12 hours a day, at times having sex with 10 men a day,” it said.

The victims were not allowed to leave the houses of prostitution, unless accompanied by a member of the criminal organization, and were moved around the country and their families in Thailand were threatened, the statement also said.

The suspects – who were arrested as part of an international law-enforcement operation dubbed “Bangkok Dark Nights” – helped the women obtain fraudulent visas and travel documents and lied to them about the size of their debts, often more than $40,000, according to the Star Tribune newspaper, quoting prosecutors.

“This was modern-day sex slavery,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Melinda Williams told jurors Monday, according to the Star-Tribune.

The DOJ, in its statement, said the suspects used fictitious backgrounds and occupations for the victims and instructed them to enter into fraudulent marriages to increase the likelihood that the women’s visa applications would be approved.

Authorities recovered U.S. $1.5 million in cash and about $15 million in judgments through plea agreements, prosecutors said.

Michael Morris, 65, of Seal Beach, California; Pawinee Unpradit, 46, of Dallas, Texas; Saowapha Thinram, 44, of Hutto, Texas; Thoucharin Ruttanamongkongul, 35, of Chicago Illinois; and Waralee Wanless, 39, of The Colony, Texas, were convicted after being accused of running a sex trafficking operation that lasted more than a decade, prosecutors said, adding that 31 defendants had previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the sex trafficking operation.

Lawyers for the five defendants have not disputed that their clients participated in the sex trade, noting that prostitution is not a federal crime, according to the Star-Tribune. Defense attorneys told reporters they would appeal, insisting that the Thai women were willful participants.

Some of the victims testified during trial, narrating how they were forced to have sex with multiple men to pay off what they owed the traffickers, prosecutors said.

“Sex trafficking is a horrific crime that seeks to erode the human dignity of victims,” Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband told reporters.

By Kevin Jones

At a time when labor unions are weak, Catholics still have a place in the labor movement, said a priest who emphasized the Church’s historic efforts to teach the rights of labor and train workers to organize.

“On the local and state level, Catholics are a major part of the labor movement. They took to heart our Catholic social teaching, and tried to implement it in their workplace,” Father Sinclair Oubre, the spiritual moderator of the Catholic Labor Network, told CNA.

However, he said, there is sometimes a disconnect between Catholics and support for organized labor.

“Like in so many areas of our faith, the heresy of radical individualism, a lack of knowledge about why unions were formed, and a general ignorance of what options workers have, have led to many Catholics to either not realize that the Church has favored workers’ associations, or that the Church even has a teaching that has to do with the workplace.”

Union membership peaked at 28 percent of the American workforce in 1954. According to 2017 figures, about 34 percent of public sector employees are unionized, but under 7 percent of private-sector employees are, CBS Moneywatch reports.

Unions continue to enjoy strong approval in the U.S., with 62 percent of respondents telling a recent Gallup survey they support organized labor.

But union support among some Catholics has waned, in part due to labor unions’ political support for legal abortion and pro-abortion rights political candidates, among other issues.

For Fr. Oubre, this shows the need for more faithful Catholics to join a union, not withdraw.

“The fact that many of the cultural war issues have been embraced by labor unions is a concern to me,” he said. “However, the Church and Labor have been here before.”

“From the 1930s to the 1950s, there was a real effort by communists to take over the U.S. unions, and in some cases, they were successful. Instead of saying, ‘Catholics can’t join unions because they are communists,’ which was not accurate because many were not, the Church instead set up labor schools by the hundreds in parish basements.”

“The Church taught workers their rights under the law and Robert’s Rules of Order. It encouraged Catholic workers to run for union office, and bring their Catholic social teachings to bear,” the priest said. “This was very successful, and led to the purging of many communists from the union ranks.”

Catholics have historically played a major role in the U.S. labor movement, as evidenced by several prominent Catholics who have headed the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S.

Oubre said unions are a place for Christian evangelization and contribution.

“We cannot write off whole groups of people because part of their agenda is not in line with Catholic teaching,” he said. “Rather, we are called to engage these groups, be active in the organizations, and like in the past, direct these organizations in ways that respect God’s truth.”

The record of Catholic social teaching also backs labor and the right of workers to organize, Oubre said.

In the 19th century, Pope Leo XIII recognized that economic changes introduced new relationships between those who had wealth and those who did not.

“As cities grew, and manufacturing and industry developed, the relationship of responsibility that has existed in the past between the landowner and the peasant no longer existed,” Oubre explained.

“Pope Leo XIII recognized the natural right of people to associate with each other, whether these were religious associations or work guilds, he endorsed the importance of collective bargaining to promote the common good, and recognized the unequal contractual relationship between the worker and the employer.”

The labor market meant that workers were negotiating not only with an employer, but competing against all the other workers seeking the same job. Leo XIII said these pressures to accept employment at ever-lowering wages could lead workers “to agree to employment terms that did not supply the basic needs for a dignified family life.”

The labor-focused traditions of Catholic social teaching have continued especially through the work of Popes Pius XI, John XXIII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.

The Second Vatican Council’s apostolic constitution Gaudium et Spes names the right to found unions for working people as “among the basic rights of the human person.” These unions “should be able truly to represent them and to contribute to the organizing of economic life in the right way.” These rights include the freedom to take part in union activity “without risk of reprisal.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 1986 pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All” also addresses the place of labor in Catholic thought and action.

In 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME struck down a 1997 Illinois law that required non-union public employees to pay fees to public sector unions for collective bargaining.

A U.S. bishops’ conference spokesperson said the decision threatened to mandate a “Right-to-Work” environment in government employment in a way that undermines the ability of workers to organize.

Oubre said Catholic union backers object to such a legal principle “because it works against the principle of solidarity and the right of association.”

“‘Right to Work’ laws have their primary intention of weakening the organizing power of unions, and allow people to receive the benefit the union, without taking on the responsibility of being part of the union,” he said.

In Oubre’s view, a union-friendly legal environment is critical.

“One can pass laws that promote workers ability to organize together, or to discourage it,” he said.

He noted the proposals for a “card check” unionization effort, in which an employer must recognize a union if a majority of workers express a desire for a union using signed cards.

Obure said this effort now faces legal obstacles and simply “begins a long process where union avoidance experts are brought in, one-on-one meetings take place with workers, sometimes the leaders are fired, and every effort is made to dishearten the workers.”

“When the election comes around, the will of the workers has been crushed,” he said.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issues annual Labor Day statements which continue “the long tradition of support for workers’ right to organize and join unions,” Oubre said.

In 2018, the statement stressed the importance of just wages for workers, especially for those who have difficulty securing basic needs. It also discussed problems of income inequality between the wealthy and the poor, as well as between ethnic groups and between the sexes.

“This Labor Day, let us all commit ourselves to personal conversion of heart and mind and stand in solidarity with workers by advocating for just wages, and in so doing, ‘bring glad tidings to the poor’,” the bishops’ message concluded.