By Suadad Al-Salhy

Iraq’s parliament approved three new ministers Tuesday but broke up before voting on the five remaining posts amid a bitter dispute over the candidates  for the security ministries.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has now filled 17 posts in his cabinet of 22 ministers but deadlock remains over the key ministries for defense and interior.

The dispute is between the two largest parliamentary blocs that sponsored the formation of the government after May elections. It erupted as Abdul Mahdi prepared for a parliamentary vote on his ministers in October after the two factions had approved his appointment after months of tortuous wrangling.

The Reform coalition is led by the influential Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr, while the Iran-backed coalition Al-Binna’a is led by Hadi Al-Amiri, commander of Badr Organization, the most powerful Shiite armed faction.

Al-Amiri nominated national security adviser Falih Al-Fayadh for the interior ministry. Al-Fayadh is also the head of the National Security Service and leads of the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Units. 

The retired general Faisal Fener, who once commanded Saddam Hussein’s private jet fleet has been nominated by Al-Sadr’s allies. Fener faces being sanctioned from holding the position under rules against former Baath party members.

Negotiators from the two blocs agreed late on Monday to approve three candidates, not to back two of them, and postpone voting on the other three.

On Tuesday, parliament approved the nomination of three ministers for higher education, culture and planning. 

The candidates for defense, interior and justice were not presented for voting as had been agreed, negotiators told Arab News. The nominations for education and migration did not receive enough votes.

Reform MPs withdrew from the session to stop the votes taking place – a tactic deployed several times during the tortuous negotiations to form the government.

“The same problem still exists,” a negotiator for A-Sadr’s Reform told Arab News. “Abdul Mahdi has not changed his candidates for interior and defense so we have no deal over this.”

“He (Abdul Mahdi) has to come back with new names soon, otherwise his government will not be complete.

“We will continue what we are doing now until he changes the names of the candidates for interior and defense.”

Al-Sadr is a staunch opponent of Iranian interference in Iraq and considers Fayadh to be Tehran’s candidate. His nomination is the biggest obstacle to any deal between the two blocs to finalize the government.

Fayadh was an ally of the former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi, but switched his allegiance to Al-Amiri after the election. Fayadh withdrew his allied MPs from Abadi’s coalition, depriving the former prime minister of the parliamentary backing required for him to win a second term.

“Why should we vote for him (Fayadh)? To encourage others to break and join our rivals?” a Reform negotiator said.

“We know that Iran is strongly backing his nomination to reward him for what he did against Abadi, so there is no way for us to vote for him.”

By Cornelia Meyer*

A whirlwind of events has engulfed Europe over the past six months. While the effects have most been felt on its economies, these ripples were inspired by politics. In fact, if the events of 2018 show one thing, it is to what extent politics can undermine economic prosperity.

First there is Brexit, a self-inflicted saga. Prime Minister Theresa May has “pushed” the vote on the Brexit deal to January 21, hardly enough time for the European Union (EU) to get ready for it.

A hard Brexit is looking increasingly likely since May will probably not get the majority needed for a deal.

The International Monetary Fund estimates a six-percent decline in GDP if a hard Brexit prevails, a stark comparison with projections of a 1.4-percent increase were the United Kingdom to stay in the EU.

The finance, automotive and chemicals industries would likely be the hardest hit. Brexit will be a hard blow to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because they lack the financial wherewithal to hire the accountants and lawyers necessary to brace themselves for a no deal scenario. And yet, SMEs currently hire 60 percent of the national workforce, making them the most important segment of the labor market by far.

In the shorter term, exporters fared well because they were aided by the falling pound, which was thanks, of course, to Brexit.

This will come to an abrupt end if Britain comes crashing out of the EU under a no deal scenario. Both the exports and supply chain fronts will be severely affected. The FTSE 250, which is composed of more traditional British companies, is a good litmus test of what the Brexit wobbles have done to the economy. It is down roughly 13 percent on the year.

But it is not just the UK economy that is going to be hit by a hard Brexit. Supply chains are inherently integrated within the automotive and other manufacturing sectors, meaning importers will feel the pinch once the free trade agreements come grinding to a halt, especially if there is no transition period. The extent to which these chains are affected is contingent on an orderly Brexit.

As if Brexit was not enough, there is Italy. The stand-off between the European Commission and the Italian government over the budget deficit may have been somewhat quelled with Italy’s latest proposal, which brings down next year’s GDP deficit from 2.4 percent to 2.04. Yet it is still too high to enable Italy to draw down on its overall debt, which stands at 131 percent relative to GDP, well above the Eurozone’s 60 percent limit.

Only Greece beats Italy in this category. However, Italy matters much more than Greece because it is the Eurozone’s third largest economy.

The Italian debacle is yet another man-made kerfuffle. Italy’s government is composed of two populist parties, the left wing M5S and the right-wing Lega. The budget is a compromise of sorts between their two ideologies. While the former wants to guarantee minimum income and a raft of other forms of social spending, the latter wants to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. While one side spends, the other limits the fiscal income stream.

Meanwhile, in the Eurozone’s second largest economy, France, French President Emmanuel Macron had to abandon the direly needed economic reforms he initiated after violent protests paralyzed Paris and many cities over several consecutive weekends.

While the riots were sparked by fuel tax, the issues run deeper. In fact, far too many French feel economically disenfranchised and politically powerless. 

Those people cannot make ends meet. They also feel that they do not have a seat at the table. This sense of disenfranchisement is by no means limited to France. It permeates throughout Europe. The unrest led Macron to abolish fuel tax, increase minimum wages and cut taxes in some sectors, resulting in a projected budget deficit of 3.4 percent for next year. Once again, this exceeds the three-percent limit allowed under under Eurozone rules. The debt-to-GDP ratio stands at a whopping 97 percent and is set to grow further if things continue the way they are.

As though it is not enough that Europe’s second, third and fourth largest economies are basking in such struggles, the EU’s largest economy, Germany, has thrown a curve ball at the zone as well.

The German economy contracted in the third quarter of this year for the first time since 2015, bringing the overall Eurozone growth rate down from a projected 0.6 percent to 0.2 percent. Germany’s woes had a lot to do with a fear of trade wars ensuing both between the US and China and the US and Europe. Germany is the economic locomotive of the Eurozone. 

Its automotive sector is the driver behind the manufacturing juggernaut. US tariffs on imported cars would hit the economy badly, as will trade wars with China.

Germany exports a lot of machinery to China and its Volkswagen and BMW brands export a lot of their cars from their plants in the US to China. Once again, the culprit is political forces in the US.

In short, economic storm clouds are fast gathering in Europe. That is why the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to halt the $2.85 trillion stimulus program in December was a courageous move.

True, Mario Draghi, ECB president, left himself some wiggle room by reserving the right to reinvest the proceeds of previous bond purchases and leaving the interest rate unchanged. Only time will tell us whether this can provide sufficient liquidity to help the economy weather these largely self-inflicted storms.

• Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macro-economist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

There is a column in today’s New York Times by David Brooks on the demise of The Weekly Standard that demands a response. The neo-conservative magazine closed for several reasons, among them being the decision by its editor in chief, Stephen Hayes, to increase the staff by a third at a time of declining sales (the magazine lost 7,000 subscriptions, or a decline of 10 percent, in the last two years). Hayes took this risk with the blessings of the magazine’s primary benefactor, Philip Anschutz.

For Brooks, Anschutz is the problem, not his friends at the magazine who ran the shop. Whether he is right or not is not my concern. My concern is how Brooks frames his argument.

Brooks calls Anschutz “a professing Christian [who] decided to close the magazine at the height of the Christmas season, and so cause maximum pain to his former employees and their families.”

Brooks’ ability to read the heart and mind of Anschutz is quite something, but it is not nearly as astounding as his Christian-baiting remark. He could have simply slammed Anschutz for making a crass decision, but no, that was not good enough: He had to call him out for being “a professing Christian” who stuck it to employees and their families at “the height of the Christmas season.”

Brooks writes for a newspaper that smells anti-Semitism whenever George Soros is criticized.

On October 30, a front-page news story said that “The baseless claims that George Soros is financing the migrants as they trek north, which carry a strong whiff of anti-Semitism, have been one of the most consistent themes of commentary on the caravan from the right.”

On November 1, a front-page news story said that those who call Soros a “globalist” and a “left-wing radical” are guilty of employing “barely coded anti-Semitism.”

If the New York Times were as sensitive to Christian-baiting as it is anti-Semitism, it would have edited Brooks’ column. Is Brooks a bigot? No. But he crossed the line in this instance.

The ability to smell is critical for salmon. They depend on scent to avoid predators, sniff out prey and find their way home at the end of their lives when they return to the streams where they hatched to spawn and die.

New research from the University of Washington and NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center shows this powerful sense of smell might be in trouble as carbon emissions continue to be absorbed by our ocean. Ocean acidification is changing the water’s chemistry and lowering its pH. Specifically, higher levels of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the water can affect the ways in which coho salmon process and respond to smells.

“Salmon famously use their nose for so many important aspects of their life, from navigation and finding food to detecting predators and reproducing. So it was important for us to know if salmon would be impacted by future carbon dioxide conditions in the marine environment,” said lead author Chase Williams, a postdoctoral researcher in Evan Gallagher’s lab at the UW Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences.

The study, appearing online in the journal Global Change Biology, is the first to show that ocean acidification affects coho salmons’ sense of smell. The study also takes a more comprehensive approach than earlier work with marine fish by looking at where in the sensory-neural system the ability to smell erodes for fish, and how that loss of smell changes their behavior.

“Our studies and research from other groups have shown that exposure to pollutants can also interfere with sense of smell for salmon,” said Gallagher, senior co-author and a UW professor of toxicology. “Now, salmon are potentially facing a one-two punch from exposure to pollutants and the added burden of rising CO2. These have implications for the long-term survival of our salmon.”

The research team wanted to test how juvenile coho salmon that normally depend on their sense of smell to alert them to predators and other dangers display a fear response with increasing carbon dioxide. Puget Sound’s waters are expected to absorb more CO2 as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, contributing to ocean acidification.

In the NOAA Fisheries research lab in Mukilteo, the research team set up tanks of saltwater with three different pH levels: today’s current average Puget Sound pH, the predicted average 50 years from now, and the predicted average 100 years in the future. They exposed juvenile coho salmon to these three different pH levels for two weeks.

After two weeks, the team ran a series of behavioral and neural tests to see whether the fishes’ sense of smell was affected. Fish were placed in a holding tank and exposed to the smell of salmon skin extract, which indicates a predator attack and usually prompts the fish to hide or swim away. Fish that were in water with current CO2 levels responded normally to the offending odor, but the fish from tanks with higher CO2 levels didn’t seem to mind or detect the smell.

After the behavioral tests, neural activity in each fish’s nose and brain — specifically, in the olfactory bulb where information about smells is processed — was measured to see where the sense of smell was altered. Neuron signaling in the nose was normal under all CO2 conditions, meaning the fish likely could still smell the odors. But when they analyzed neuron behavior in the olfactory bulb, they saw that processing was altered — suggesting the fish couldn’t translate the smell into an appropriate behavioral response.

Finally, the researchers analyzed tissue from the noses and olfactory bulbs of fish to see if gene expression also changed. Gene expression pathways were found to be altered for fish that were exposed to higher levels of CO2, particularly in their olfactory bulbs.

“At the nose level, we think the neurons are still detecting odors, but when the signals are processed in the brain, that’s where the messages are potentially getting altered,” Williams said.

In the wild, the fish likely would become more and more indifferent to scents that signify a predator, Williams said, either by taking longer to react to the smell or by not swimming away at all. While this study looked specifically at how altered sense of smell could affect fishes’ response to danger, it’s likely that other critical behaviors that depend on smell such as navigation, reproduction and hunting for food would also take a hit if fish aren’t able to adequately process smells.

The researchers plan to look next at whether increased CO2 levels could affect other fish species in similar ways, or alter other senses in addition to smell. Given the cultural and ecological significance of salmon, the researchers hope these findings will prompt action.

“We’re hoping this will alert people to some of the potential consequences of elevated carbon emissions,” said senior co-author Andy Dittman, a research biologist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. “Salmon are so iconic in this area. Ocean acidification and climate change are abstract things until you start talking about an animal that means a lot to people.”

First ever endocast reconstruction of the nearly complete brain of the hominin known as Little Foot reveals a small brain combining ape-like and human-like features.

MicroCT scans of the Australopithecus fossil known as Little Foot shows that the brain of this ancient human relative was small and shows features that are similar to our own brain and others that are closer to our ancestor shared with living chimpanzees.

While the brain features structures similar to modern humans – such as an asymmetrical structure and pattern of middle meningeal vessels – some of its critical areas such as an expanded visual cortex and reduced parietal association cortex points to a condition that is distinct from us.

The Australopithecus fossil named Little Foot, an ancient human relative, was excavated over 14 years from the Sterkfontein Caves in South Africa, by Professor Ronald Clarke, from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Its brain endocast was virtually extracted, described and analysed by Wits researcher, Dr Amélie Beaudet, and the Sterkfontein team by using MicroCT scans of the fossil.

The scans reveal impressions left on the skull by the brain and the vessels that feed it, along with the shape of the brain. Beaudet’s research was released as the first in a series of papers planned for a special issue of this journal on the near-complete “Little Foot” skeleton in the Journal of Human Evolution.

“Our ability to reconstruct features of early hominin brains has been limited by the very fragmentary nature of the fossil record. The Little Foot endocast is exceptionally well preserved and relatively complete, allowing us to explore our own origins better than ever before,” says Beaudet.

The endocast showed that Little Foot’s brain was asymmetrical, with a distinct left occipital petalia. Brain asymmetry is essential for lateralisation of brain function. Asymmetry occurs in humans and living apes, as well as in other younger hominin endocasts. Little Foot now shows us that this brain asymmetry was present at a very early date (from 3.67 million years ago), and supports suggestions that it was probably present in the last common ancestor of hominins and other great apes.

Other brain structures, such as an expanded visual cortex, suggests that the brain of Little Foot probably had some features that are closer to the ancestor we share with living chimpanzees.

“In human evolution, when know that a reduced visual cortex, as we can see in our own brain, is related to a more expanded parietal cortex – which is a critical cerebral area responsible for several aspects of sensory processing and sensorimotor integration,” says Beaudet. “On the contrary, Little Foot has a large visual cortex, which is more similar to chimpanzees than to humans.”

Beaudet and her colleagues compared the Little Foot endocast with endocasts of 10 other South African hominins dating between three and 1.5 million years ago. Their preliminary calculation of Little Foot’s endocranial volume was found to be at the low end of the range for Australopithecus, which is in keeping with its great age and its place among other very early fossils of Australopithecus from East Africa.

The study also has shown that the vascular system in Australopithecus was more complex than previously thought, which raises new questions on the metabolism of the brain at this time. This might be consistent with a previous hypothesis suggesting that the endocranial vascular system in Australopithecus was closer to modern humans than it was in the geologically younger Paranthropus genus.

“This would mean that even if Little Foot’s brain was different from us, the vascular system that allows for blood flow (which brings oxygen) and may control temperature in the brain – both essential aspects for evolving a large and complex brain – were possibly already present at that time,” says Beaudet.

Given its geological age of over 3 million years, Little Foot’s brain suggests that younger hominins evolved greater complexity in certain brain structures over time, perhaps in response to increasing environmental pressures experienced after 2.6 million years ago with continuing reduction in closed habitats.

“Such environmental changes could also potentially have encouraged more complex social interaction, which is driven by structures in the brain,” says Beaudet.

Washington has confirmed its decision to withdraw from the INF treaty is final, Russia’s deputy foreign minister said, adding that Moscow will ‘take measures’ if American missiles that threaten its security are placed in Europe.

“Washington publicly announced its plans to withdraw from the treaty (the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) already in October. Through the high-level bilateral channels it was confirmed to us that this decision was final and wasn’t an attempt to initiate dialogue,” Sergey Ryabkov told the Kommersant newspaper.

The Deputy FM said that Moscow will respond to possible attempts to place short and intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles in Europe if the US decides to go on with this plan.

“We’ll be forced to come up with effective compensating measures. I’d like to warn against pushing the situation towards the eruption of new ‘missile crises.’ I am convinced that no sane country could be interested in something like this,” he said.

Back in October, President Donald Trump warned that Washington was planning unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty because “Russia has not adhered to the agreement.” The US leader also promised that the country would keep boosting its nuclear arsenal until Russia and China “come to their senses.”

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Washington will suspend its obligations under the treaty within 60 days if Russia does not “return to compliance.”

Signed in late 1988, the INF agreement was considered a milestone in ending the arms race between the US and the USSR.

In recent years, Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other of violating the INF deal. While the US has alleged that Russia has developed missiles prohibited by the treaty, Russia insists that the American anti-missile systems deployed in Eastern Europe can actually be used to launch intermediate-range cruise missiles. Read more

The deputy FM said that Washington “never made a secret” of the fact that its INF treaty pullout “wasn’t so much about problems between the US and Russia, but about the desire of the Americans to get rid of all restrictions that were inconvenient for them.”

The US side expressed belief that the INF deal “significantly limits the US military’s capabilities to counter states with arsenals of medium-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles,” which threaten American interests, he said. “China, Iran and North Korea” were specifically mentioned by Washington, Ryabkov added.

“I don’t think that we’re talking about a new missile crisis, but the US plans are so far absolutely unclear,” Mikhail Khodarenok, retired colonel and military expert, told RT, reminding that the Americans have avoided any type of “meaningful discussion” with Moscow in regards to its INF deal pullout.

While “there’ll be no deployment of [US missiles] in Europe any time soon,” Moscow should expect that Washington would try to void other agreement with Russia as well, Khodarenok warned.

The INF deal “just stopped being beneficial for the US. Next up are all the other arms control treaties. There’ll be no resistance from the NATO allies ,” he said.

“The neocons who run Trump’s foreign policy never have liked arms reduction treaties,” former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT. “The new START treaty which comes up for renewal also could be in jeopardy.”

“The risk of a new nuclear buildup is really quite obvious” if the US withdrawals from the INF treaty, Dan Smith, the director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, told RT.

“I think the relations between the great powers – the US and Russia as well as the US and China – are more difficult than they’ve been for a long time,” he added.

However, with Washington having indicated that it wants China to be part of the new deal, “there are still possibilities for negotiations and agreement,” according to Smith. Nonetheless, he warned that following this path will demand strong political will and tactical thinking from the leadership of all three countries.

(RFE/RL) — British Airways says it will resume flights to Pakistan next summer, a decade after suspending operations due to security fears.

The British carrier announced on December 18 that it will return in June 2019 with three weekly flights from London’s Heathrow airport to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

British Airways halted services in 2008 in the wake of a suicide truck bombing that killed more than 50 people at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel.

The carrier’s announcement was “a reflection of the great improvements in the security situation in Pakistan” in the years since, said Thomas Drew, Britain’s top diplomat in Pakistan.

The resumption of flights will “give a particular boost to our growing trade and investment links,” Drew also said.

Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari, a special assistant to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, said his country was “becoming less isolated and more connected to the world, and that’s the Pakistan we want to see.”

Pakistani military spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor said the development was a result of the struggle of the Pakistani nation and security forces to restore peace and stability in the country.

Pakistan has battled homegrown militancy for nearly 15 years, with tens of thousands of people killed.

A little-known militant group claimed responsibility for the September 2008 devastating attack in Islamabad, but authorities blamed Al-Qaeda-linked militants.

Britain is home to more than 1 million residents of Pakistani origin, making it the largest Pakistani diaspora community in Europe.

Pakistan International Airlines is currently the only carrier with direct flights between the two countries.

Claims of a ‘pause’ in observed global temperature warming are comprehensively disproved in a pair of new studies.

An international team of climate researchers reviewed existing data and studies and reanalysed them. They concluded there has never been a statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming. This conclusion holds whether considering the `pause’ as a change in the rate of warming in observations or as a mismatch in rate between observations and expectations from climate models.

Their papers are published today in Environmental Research Letters.

Dr James Risbey, from CSIRO Australia, is the lead author of one of the studies, which reassessed the data and put it into historical context.

He said: “Many studies over the past decade have claimed to find a pause or slowdown in global warming and have typically posited this as evidence that is inconsistent with our understanding of global warming.”

The study examined the literature on an alleged ‘pause’. It looked at how the ‘pause’ had been defined, the time intervals used to characterise it, and the methods used to assess it. The study then tested historical and current versions of the earth’s global mean surface temperature (GMST) datasets for pauses, both in terms of no warming trend and a substantially slower trend in GMST.

Dr Risbey said: “Our findings show there is little or no statistical evidence for a ‘pause’ in GMST rise. Neither the current data nor the historical data support it. Moreover, updates to the GMST data through the period of ‘pause’ research have made this conclusion stronger. But, there was never enough evidence to reasonably draw any other conclusion.

“Global warming did not pause, but we need to understand how and why scientists came to believe it had, to avoid future episodes like this. The climate-research community’s acceptance of a ‘pause’ in global warming caused confusion for the public and policy system about the pace and urgency of climate change.

“That confusion in turn might have contributed to reduced impetus for action to prevent greenhouse climate change. The full costs of that are unknowable, but the risks are substantial. There are lessons here for the science, and for the future.”

The group’s companion study looks at the alleged mismatch between the rate of global warming in observations and climate models.

The team carried out a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections, using historical GMST products and historical versions of model projections from the times when claims of a divergence between observations and modelling were made.

The comparisons were made with a variety of statistical techniques to correct for problems in previous work.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from the University of Bristol, is this paper’s lead author. He said: “We found the impression of a divergence – i.e. a divergence between the rate of actual global warming and the model projections – was caused by various biases in the model interpretation and in the observations. It was unsupported by robust statistics.”

Despite this, the authors point out that by the end of 2017, the ‘pause’ was the subject of more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Many of these articles do not give any reason for their choice of start year for the ‘pause’, and the range spans 1995 to 2004.

Professor Lewandowsky said: “This broad range may indicate a lack of formal or scientific procedures to establish the onset of the ‘pause’. Moreover, each instance of the presumed onset was not randomly chosen but chosen specifically because of the low subsequent warming. We describe this as selection bias.

“This bias causes a problem. If a period is chosen because of its unusually low trend, this has implications for the interpretation of conventional significance levels (“p-values”) of the trend. Selection of observations based on the same data that is then statistically tested inflates the actual p-value, giving rise to a larger proportion of statistical false positives than the researcher might expect. Very few articles on the ‘pause’ account for or even mention this effect, yet it has profound implications for the interpretation of the statistical results.

“This is important, because some of the biases that affect the datasets and projections were known, or knowable, at the time.”

When the researchers reanalysed the data, accounting for the selection bias problem, they found no evidence for a divergence between models and observations existed at any time in the last decade.

They also offer some possible explanations why some scientists believed climate warming lagged behind modelled warming.

Co-author Professor Kevin Cowtan, from the University of York, UK, said: “One cause may be a that surface temperature data providers struggle to communicate the limitations of the data to climate scientists. This is difficult because users need to focus their expertise in their own problem areas rather than on the temperature data.

“Additionally, there can be delays of several years in updating surface temperature datasets. It takes time to find a bias, find a solution, and then for a paper to be published before most providers update their datasets. This process is good for transparency, but it may leave users in the position where they download data with knowable biases and unwittingly draw incorrect conclusions from those data.

Co-author Professor Naomi Oreskes, from Harvard University, USA, added “A final point to consider is why scientists put such emphasis on the ‘pause’ when the evidence for it was so scant. An explanation lies in the constant public and political pressure from climate contrarians. This may have caused scientists to feel the need to explain what was occurring, which led them inadvertently to accept and reinforce the contrarian framework.”

University of Bristol climate scientist Dr Dann Mitchell, who was not involved with either study, said: “As climate scientists we often look back at previous bodies of evidence and wonder why certain topics were so prominent in discussion; the so-called climate hiatus being an excellent example of this. Given the fast pace of increasing climate change understanding, the conclusions of this paper will be very relevant for the inevitable future ‘apparent’ climate contradictions that emerge over time.”

By Tria Dianti

The Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) commander on Tuesday inaugurated a military unit in the Natuna islands near the South China Sea that will be tasked with warding off threats such as illegal fishing and transnational crimes.

Air Chief Marshal Hadi Tjahjanto announced the formation of the unit, currently comprising a few hundred personnel including members of army engineering corps.

“The Natuna Integrated TNI Unit is part of our strategic plans to develop our strength to provide deterrence against threats, especially at the borders,” Hadi said in a statement released by the military.

The South China Sea unit in the Riau Islands province will be equipped with a surface-to-air missile defense system, the military said. Other facilities include a port, a hangar to support military aircraft and a hospital.

The unit will become part the Regional Defense Joint Command and will eventually include army, air force and navy personnel.

Clashes

Indonesian navy patrols have clashed with Chinese fishing boats in waters off Natuna in recent years as the nation increased its crackdown on illegal fishing in region and accused the Chinese of fishing in the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

China responded by calling the waters traditional fishing grounds. Tensions between China and its neighbors have risen as the superpower has sought to assert its control of the South China Sea in the face of competing territorial claims from countries in the region.

China claims most of the sea as its own while Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have overlapping claims to territories.

Muhammad Arif, a researcher at the Jakarta-based nonprofit Habibie Center, said he sees the military unit as part of the Indonesian government’s response to threats in the area.

“Such threats need to be addressed both militarily and diplomatically and require a change in TNI’s deployment in the border area near the South China Sea,” he told BenarNews. “This shows that the TNI is serious about protecting Indonesia’s territorial borders and responding to instability in the region.”

By Joe Torres

A children’s rights group in Manila has praised this year’s winner of the Miss Universe pageant, Catriona Gray, for her work with children in slums even before she won the crown.

“We highly commend her efforts in giving the world a glimpse of the heart-wrecking condition of Filipino children,” read a statement from the group Salinlahi Alliance for Children’s Concerns.

During the pageant coronation event on Dec. 17 in Thailand, Gray, who has been working in the slums of Manila, said that a “lack of child support, not poverty” is killing the dreams of children. When asked what is the most important lesson she learned in life, and how she would apply it to her time as Miss Universe, the Filipina beauty said she would do her best to teach people to be “grateful.”

“I work a lot in the slums of Tondo, Manila, and life there is very poor and very sad. I’ve always taught myself to look for the beauty in it, to look for the beauty in the faces of the children, and to be grateful,” said Gray.

“I would bring this aspect as a Miss Universe to see situations with a silver lining, and to assess where I could give something, where I could provide something as a spokesperson,” she added. “If I could also teach people to be grateful, we could have an amazing world where negativity could not grow and foster, and children would have a smile on their faces,” said the new Miss Universe.

The non-government group Salinlahi agreed with Gray that the situation of poor Filipino children has been “further aggravated” by a “lack of child support primarily from the government.”

“We cannot but agree that despite this, there’s still a silver lining,” said Eule Rico Bonganay, secretary-general of Salinlahi.  “We see hope in the eyes of children and it gives us so much strength and courage to aspire and work for a better world where every child is respected and cared for,” he added.

Gray, was a 24-year-old Australian-born Filipino television host, singer, model, and stage actress before she was crowned Miss Universe.  She is the fourth Filipino to win the pageant. Born in Cairns, Australia to an Australian father and Filipino mother, Gray moved to the Philippines in her late teens. 

Even before she took part in the Miss Universe pageant, she had been advocating for HIV/AIDS awareness, and education, particularly for impoverished young Filipinos. In its statement, Salinlahi urged Gray to continue fighting for the rights of Filipino children.

“We believe that through a collective effort, we can turn this dream into a reality…. We believe that through our partnership we will be able to see the most genuine smiles from the Filipino children, our nation’s hope and treasure,” the group added.

Federal and state government efforts to reduce prescription opioids are inadvertently harming chronic pain patients in the United States, Human Rights Watch said in a new report. Many patients are involuntarily cut off medications that improve their lives or say they are unable to find a doctor willing to care for them.

In the last decade, hundreds of thousands of Americans died of drug overdoses. By some estimates, nearly half of these deaths have involved prescription opioids. To stem this crisis, government authorities have mounted aggressive attempts to reduce the use of these medicines. They have investigated physicians who prescribe them for no legitimate medical reason and increased monitoring of prescribing by physicians. Some state governments and Medicaid programs have imposed strict upward limits on the dosage physicians are allowed to prescribe.

The 99-page report, “Not Allowed to Be Compassionate: Chronic Pain, the Overdose Crisis, and Unintended Harms in the US” documents how some of these actions have had an unintended and harmful chilling effect, making doctors fear repercussions for prescribing even to patients with severe chronic pain who have a legitimate medical need for prescription opioids.

“There is no doubt the government has to take action to counter the overdose crisis,” said Laura Mills, a health researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But it should make sure that chronic pain patients don’t end up being collateral damage.”

The report documents the negative impact of government efforts to reduce opioid prescribing to chronic pain patients. Based on dozens of interviews with patients, medical professionals, pharmacists, public officials, and health experts, this report describes how policies intended to stem the rise in overdose deaths have also driven harmful cutbacks in opioid prescribing to people who need these medicines.

Many chronic pain patients who found relief through opioid medications are being forced off them, the report found. Their pain increases as a result, and they can no longer participate fully in work, family, or social life.

“The only time I leave my house anymore is to go to a doctor’s appointment,” said 57-year-old Maria Higginbotham from Washington State. Higginbotham, who had 12 back operations to stem the collapse of her spine, suffers from several conditions that cause severe pain. Although opioid medicines significantly reduced her pain, her doctor informed her in March 2017 that he would cut her prescription by 75 percent. Her pain has intensified so much that she can no longer do simple things like cook, go to the bathroom unassisted, or play with her grandchildren. She said that the ordeal “is not just a physical issue, it’s also an emotional [one]. Because you’re losing parts of your life.”

Many patients who had a history of being treated with high-dose opioids found it difficult to find any medical care at all: if their provider retired or moved or if their clinic was shut down, they were often abruptly terminated from care and struggled to find a new doctor. Some patients spoke of self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs, while others said they had contemplated suicide because of their unmanaged pain.

Medical professionals interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they faced intense pressure to reduce opioid prescribing, even in cases where they believed a patient was benefitting from and taking their medication appropriately. Because federal law is vague on what constitutes appropriate prescribing, providers said they had lowered patients’ doses without their consent and against their own clinical judgment.

The use of opioids for treating chronic pain is controversial, as evidence of their effectiveness is limited and often inconclusive. However, involuntarily reducing medicines for patients who benefit from them and take them appropriately is inconsistent with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In a 2016 guideline, the CDC encouraged physicians to reduce a patient’s dose only when they consent to the change. However, the report documents a harmful disconnect between the CDC Guideline and the way it has been interpreted and used by government authorities, insurers, and physicians themselves. The result is that many providers described the CDC Guideline as a key factor driving them to involuntarily cut patients off of opioid medications, even though it does not recommend doing so. 

Physicians also identified state laws and insurance policies aimed at reducing opioid prescribing as reasons for cutting back compliant patients or avoiding chronic pain patients altogether.

Forty million Americans suffer from moderate to severe chronic pain every day. Because chronic pain is complex and individual, it can be difficult and costly to treat, meaning many chronic pain patients do not receive adequate medical care. In the 1990s and early 2000s, patient advocacy as well as aggressive and deceptive pharmaceutical marketing led to a staggering rise in the use of opioids to treat chronic pain. Because insurance companies often give limited coverage for cost-intensive alternative treatments like physical therapy, massage, and acupuncture, opioids became a go-to and affordable treatment option used by many physicians. Coverage for alternative treatment is still problematic, leaving many chronic patients without other options.

Federal and state policymakers should ensure that policies to address the overdose crisis take the needs of chronic pain patients into account, and promote safer prescribing practices based on individual needs rather than blunt cutbacks. The government should collect data on the potential unintended consequences of such policies for chronic pain patients – evidence that is sorely lacking at the moment. Chronic pain patients have a legitimate – and often debilitating – medical condition and have a right to medically appropriate pain treatment.

“Physicians need to be cautious when prescribing these medications,” said Mills. “But policies that foster fear rather than appropriate prescribing needlessly force patients like Higginbotham into unnecessary pain and a diminished quality of life.”

By Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi

The European Commission decided on Tuesday to offer Switzerland six additional months to agree on a new treaty on future relations with the European Union. Last week, the Swiss Federal Council decided to carry out a national consultation with relevant groups such as political parties, cantons, parliament, and associations concerning the draft deal – under which Swiss rules would automatically adapt to be in line with EU law. In this context, the Swiss government is tasked with designing a strategy for the future of this relationship via both optimism and caution, a relationship which has its deep roots in the cosmopolitan and globalized dynamics between the 28-member bloc and Bern. Put another way, Switzerland pays into the EU budget and extends bilateral treaties to new EU member states, just like full members do, although each extension requires the approval of Swiss voters via a referendum.

In 1989, when European Commission President Jacques Delors proposed establishing a European Economic Area (EEA), he conceded that EEA countries could also participate in shaping the rules. Switzerland went into the negotiations wanting to make a deal that would give it a decision-making role. It didn’t get one. Since then, the EU has changed a great deal. But Switzerland’s position remains the same. In the wake of the 1992 vote, Brussels and Switzerland agreed to a series of agreements on trade, transport, labor, security, and asylum, creating an unwieldy system of more than 120 separate bilateral treaties over the decades.

In a referendum on 5 June 2005, Swiss voters agreed in a 55% majority to join the Schengen Area. The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union’s single market, without having to officially join as a member state. And yet beyond 2005, the scope of the EU-Swiss relationship seems to have undergone a transformation that tests the very dynamics derived from cosmopolitanism-cum-globalization.  Since the early 2000s, the concept of ‘cosmopolitan Europe’ (CE) has become popular among philosophers and sociologists as a ‘post-nationalist’ way to rethink and reform the European Union (EU) in an age of globalization.

Thus, seeking its justification in the European cosmopolitan tradition as an answer to unrestrained nationalism in Europe, CE should make the EU pursue a vigorously cosmopolitan understanding of Europe as well as the world.

At least four reasons make the EU an appropriate test case for cosmopolitan Europe. Firstly, the desired juridical integration, the combination of citizens and state representation in two different assemblies, and wide civil society involvement are all essential to the EU. This is more than a confederation and less than a federal state. Thus, all relevant features of cosmopolitan democracy exist in various ways at the EU level. Secondly, in a horizontal perspective across policy fields, political integration at the EU level is strong compared to the rather fragmented governance arrangements that exist on the global scale. The EU is the only governance arrangement beyond the nation-state which can live up to the systemic expectations of cosmopolitan democracy. Thirdly, even compared to similar institutional arrangements at the fragmented global scale, the democratic performance of the EU is undoubtedly better. Fourthly, there are not many democratic options to be discussed beyond the institutional modes probed at EU level.

Nonetheless, relations between the Swiss government and the EU are governed by an array of bilateral contracts, and the partnership turned sour after Swiss voters in 2014 approved a popular initiative calling for quotas on immigration. That result, which contravenes the EU treaty of free movement, could have resulted in the enacting the so-called ‘guillotine clause’ which would have seen all treaties between Switzerland the EU rendered null and void. Almost two-thirds of Swiss want Switzerland to hammer out a framework agreement with the European Union. Supporters of the rightwing Swiss People’s Party are the only ones who do not support the move – but not uniformly. As a recent poll shows, almost 20% of the party are dissenters.

From the Swiss perspective, the European Union has for years been pushing Switzerland to conclude a framework agreement, with pressure ratcheting up recently. Switzerland on the other hand wants to keep its usual bilateral agreement route. The framework agreement is a key topic in both domestic and foreign policy, and there is a parliamentary election coming up in October 2019.  The EU-proposed deal is aimed at giving Switzerland access to the single market. This is accompanied by a set of EU rules. As a result, Switzerland would be obliged to automatically adapt to EU law in four areas. Previously, new EU laws required fresh negotiations.

And there’s also an important truism: Both Norway and Switzerland keep out of some EU activities, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. But they bring many of their laws into line with EU rules, on the single market in particular. Norway incorporates single market rules as they’re made, while Switzerland accepts EU law from time to time in return for more market access. “Relations between Switzerland and Europe are much more than just a European issue. There is a global dimension, not only in terms of the consequences for Switzerland, but also for the economic as well as domestic and foreign policies,” said OSA director Sarah Mastantuoni.

Here one cannot help seeking guidance from the insight fostered by a German journalist Steffen Klatt who takes a sober look at the state of relations between Brussels and Bern in his new book Blind im Wandel: Ein Nationalstaat in der Sackgasse (“Blind to change: A nation state at a dead end”). Against the old backdrop, Switzerland has reached a dead end, whether the framework agreement is successful or not. Switzerland doesn’t want to belong to the EU, but it wants to take part in the European single market. It has to abide by the rules that apply, but it has no voice in shaping these rules. This problem is now 30 years old, and it doesn’t look like it will be resolved anytime soon.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect the official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any other institution.

By Caleb Mills

In July of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson was done kidding around. Fresh off the campaign trail, LBJ was basking in the glory of his recent presidential victory, having obliterated Republican Senator Barry Goldwater by a historic margin just a few months before. Sweeping both Houses of Congress, the crude Texan had finally gotten the partners in government he’d been searching for. Johnson had the momentum, and the Republicans were sadly mistaken if they thought he was going to squander it on a few mundane infrastructure maintenance projects.

Johnson was an imperialist in the most forceful sense of the word, an idealist who’s distinctly rural personality complemented the extravagance of his ideas and goals. From the outset, Johnson was determined to enact a series of reforms that he envisioned as a second New Deal. His talent had won him the number two spot on the democratic ticket in 1960, but his unabashed ambition alienated many prominent members of his party, most notably former Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Yet through shared aspirations, it also united the rising liberal coalition around his leadership. For the first time in the decades-long struggle between the conservative and liberal wings of the party, the latter held the upper hand, giving them immense power over the direction of the DNC.

Johnson, as much as he tried, could never emulate the persistent charm of his slain predecessor, a fact made all too clear to him by progressives who were reluctant to trust him. So Johnson elected to show them his strengths through more than just talk. In a matter of months after his election, he passed the most aggressive and sweeping liberal reforms in the history of the United States. A change was at hand, and it was colored dark blue.

But it’s important to not let the significance of his victory overshadow the real threats that once vowed to oppose it. Holdover Dixiecrats may have been outsiders in the party of Johnson, but they clutched to their power with renewed energy in the face of extinction, guarding it with a selfish piety. Most of them hailed below the Mason-Dixon, claiming solid holds on districts that practically operated with a one-party system, designed to consolidate power for their political overlords. But 1964 proved to be the beginning of the end for that antebellum dynasty.

Although Johnson’s electoral fortunes had energized Democrats across the country, southerners weren’t so receptive. While usually reliably Democratic country, the south had been put off in recent years by President Kennedy’s push for a Civil Rights Act. So while Democrats might have scored big in 64’ nationally, they did so while being deserted by the one group that had consistently supported them since the age of Lincoln. Democrats failed to carry a single county in Alabama or Mississippi that year, where they had trounced Republicans just four years earlier with the help of independent candidate Harry F. Byrd.

This was the peril of a southern democrat; at the time, America’s most politically endangered species. Abandoned by their counterparts, shunned by the opposition, and bordering on traitorous in the eyes of a nation. So realistically speaking, these developments weren’t the worst of Congressman Wilbur Mills’s problems, but surely, they were near the top of the list.

A Dixiecrat from Arkansas who chaired the powerful Ways and Means Committee, Mills managed to survive his re-election with the help of liberals like Johnson, but everyone in Washington knew better than to see this as proof of an improved relationship between the two. For two years now, Mills had consistently blocked dozens of Johnson’s Great Society projects from going through his committee. The election added two new liberal democrats as well as a pro-medical care Republican, effectively deciding the fate of the chamber. Now, outnumbered by liberals from his own party, Mills had no choice but to concede the inevitable. The first order of business? A little-known government insurance program that needed approval for a vote, otherwise known as Medicare.

Medicare wasn’t anything new to America, at least theoretically. Progressives had been chasing some sort of national healthcare system since Theodore Roosevelt, and while it was eventually manifested through the Affordable Care Act, the steps that were taken on the path to that day in March of 2010 can be traced back to the early 1950s; oddly enough, under a Republican President.

Dwight D. Eisenhower might have filled his cabinet with businessmen, thundered down judgment on government overreach, condemned the New Deal, and accused his predecessor of being a neo-socialist; but when it came down to it, the Kansas native was a soldier, and that always trumped his ideology no matter the circumstance. He entered the White House riding a wave of conservatism built on the ideas of small-government, privatization, and economic freedom. But that didn’t stop him from lobbying Congress to create a federally funded government welfare program aimed at providing free healthcare for U.S. veterans and their families.

While the purpose of such a program was partially to stimulate the meager ranks of the post-World War army, many small-government fiscal conservatives in both the House and Senate expressed their disinterest in pursuing such a political paradox that the program would assuredly create. Undoubtedly, the conservative medical lobbying group known as The American Hospital Association spoke for all of their Republican supporters in Congress when they ardently declared in a news communique that such a program would lead to “socialized medicine without necessity of specific legislation for it” In their mind, the limited support that veterans received was sufficiently supplemented by charitable organizations, which simply wasn’t true.

In 1952, Defense Department officials reported that out of the 200,000 expected births that would happen in military households, only about 75,000 would be covered by limited government resources. Furthermore, the Red Cross had informed the government that it could only provide about 10,000 military families in the same predicament with maternal assistance. The rest, sadly, would be fending for themselves squeezing every last penny out of very modest military salaries.

Despite the evidence, Republicans and the AMA succeeded in blocking the legislation for many years. President Eisenhower, being all too familiar with the struggle military families face in times of service, proved a persistent advocate for the program. Three separate times, the man who had liberated Normandy took to Congress to demand the bill get the attention it deserved. Finally, in early 1956, Rep. Carl Vinson, a Georgia Democrat, adhered to the President’s call for action and proposed the Dependents’ Medical Care Act.

“Today it is estimated that only about 60 percent of the dependents of our servicemen have medical care available to them in military facilities. The remaining 40 percent must shift for themselves.” Under the bill, “the medical facilities of the uniformed services would continue the present practice of providing medical care to dependents…. In addition, and this is the important new feature of the bill, provision is also made for supplementing and augmenting this program through the use of civilian medical facilities.” The senior congressman declared in the chamber.

Labeled a “very liberal bill” by the Kilday Subcommittee, it finally passed both houses of Congress with a few changes and was signed by a proud President Eisenhower in June.

Mill eventually withdrew his opposition to Johnson’s bill but quickly realized the scale that the program would amass in federal funds. With the intent of satisfying the fiscalist that lay at his core, the crafty congressman knew he couldn’t contain the damage from outside the negotiating room. His position as chairman ensured that he’d be involved somehow, and he was determined that if he couldn’t stop Medicare, he was going to limit its prowess.

Over the course of the next couple of months, conservative Democrats and Republicans alike began proposing competing versions of a Medicare-like program. Some were genuine attempts at improved, others an obvious ploy at dividing the vote. Eventually, Mills and fellow lawmaker Wilbur Cohen came to a suitable compromise that combined three of the largest competing versions.

The fact that it suited a small-government conservative politician like Mills tells you how much the congressional liberals liked it. Still, the road to history is paved with sacrifice. A Medicare proposal passed the House 313-215 on April 8th. After passing the Senate, Johnson enacted Medicare and her sister program, Medicaid, on July 30th. The historical bill signing took place in Independence Missouri, with a proud former President Harry S. Truman looking on.

Born out of compromise and ambition, America’s grand experiment with government healthcare began. Its conception was anything but pure, and its infancy anything but fair. However, the tenacity of its proponents and the irrefutable success of the program over time secured it a permanent spot on the national political stage, for better or worse. However it’s done more than just survive, it’s changed us in ways we still truly haven’t grasped.

Today, over 55 million Americans rely on Medicare to cover their medical needs, making it the biggest insurance provider in the United States. It’s been well over 50 years since the program’s inception, and it still plays a powerful role in our political system at both the local and state level. In fact, in some ways, it’s more prevalent of an issue today than it was when Lyndon Johnson sat in the Oval Office, as the ‘Medicare for All’ movement led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has clearly shown. The partisanship that to this day surrounds these staples of American government breeds inaccuracy from Washington to San Diego, in both parties and all walks of life.

Americans have a tendency to regard historical monuments of the past to be excluded as a species from another lifetime. We are perpetually blinded by the cynicism of our leaders to the history being made right in front of us.

We can debate the scope and power of these types of programs, healthy change begins with genuine self-analysis. But to look upon Medicare from a human perspective is to look upon the institutionalization of kindness in modern governance. To realize that the welfare of the people will always be more important than stuffy philosophy. That an ideology which leaves the most vulnerable helpless has no place in a government by the people. It’s to value every citizen from every walk of life; something which we all can believe in.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect the official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any other institution.

By Nadia Amirah Binte Kamsani

As Asian societies become affluent, their modern lifestyles are leading to much wastage in the food chain to satisfy the high standards of hygeine and freshness consumers demand. To combat the issue of higher food wastage in Singapore – one of the most affluent countries in the world – a student-led initiative ‘UglyFood’ has kicked its gears to raise awareness on such food wastage, by selling cold-pressed juices and ice creams made from “ugly-looking produce”.

Food wastage is a growing concern in this small Southeast Asian island state. According to the National Environmental Agency (NEA), the amount of food waste generated in Singapore has increased by about 40 per cent over the past 10 years. Last year, 676,800 tonnes of food waste was discarded, and up to 15 percent of that food is wasted due to cosmetic filtering; discarding produce because they “don’t look pretty” for the market.

UglyFood initially started as an idea of a group of students from one of the island’s newest universities, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). The company was founded in 2016 after the team visited a wet market (traditional morning fruit and vegetable markets) and realised that quality fruits would still be thrown away due to an “ugly appearance”.

“We waste a lot of food in Singapore. We (Singapore) have tonnes of supply but we are not getting it to where it really needs (to be),” says Augustine Tan, Director of Business Development of UglyFood. “There is also a lack of good networking between the suppliers and the retail side. Due to this, we tend to over-import (produce) but most of these goods get thrown away.”.

Yet, 9 out of 10 Singaporeans do not see food wastage as a problem. Tan believes that a reason for this is because people do not physically see the problem in front of them. “A lot of the time, there are other pressing issues they need to attend to. But if they go down to the wholesale level, they would see the many cartons of food that is being thrown away, and the number is scary,” he warns.

The beginnings of UglyFood was not easy. “The challenges we faced at the initial stage was the supply side – we had a lot of issues in finding where the leakage of food is and how much food is being wasted,” Tan explains, “but now, that is not a problem anymore but rather the demand – where can we sell our products?”

Primarily, UglyFood sells cold-pressed juices and ice creams in food outlets within SUTD campus, where the company started. They are also selling collected ugly produce to online buyers via their website: https://www.uglyfood.com.sg/ under the tagline ‘Eat well and do good for mother nature’.

They also have a Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/uglyfoodco/where the profile picture features their fruit juices ‘Beautiful Juices’. These juices are marketed in bottles and they encourage consumers to reuse the bottles. They have asked their customers to discuss ideas on their facebook page. According to the Facebook they also do a lot of community outreach programs – both to sell their products and raise community awareness of food waste in Singapore.

Tan believes that their cause resonates with the community they reach out to. “A good thing is when our wholesalers (suppliers) trust us to help clear their stocks,” he points out. Often, they do it to fulfil a large order and they need space to store, when the suppliers tend to over-import goods. “Then they’d ask us to try to help clear extra stock in time before they over-ripe or get thrown away,” added Tan.

“I think the idea of making new products out of produce that is not made use of by other organisations or markets is great, because it tackles the issue at its core,” argues Alice Wong, a SUTD student who frequently buys UglyFood’s juices. “These kinds of initiatives help me realise that there are issues in Singapore that aren’t as prominent yet still causes an impact on us.”

Tan believes that his consumers are more conscious of what they eat, and also more aware of the food wastage problem in Singapore because it could be seen in food outlets, within the SUTD.

“I believe regulated (tackling systematically) food wastage is possible if everybody works together, in terms of retailers, suppliers, wholesalers, importers, consumers, as well as the government side, to reach a very nice food ecosystem,” Tan says.

“A key change we need to make now is to have a centralised system of knowing how much food and stocks are available in Singapore and how much demand is needed.”

Tan has already made plans for UglyFood’s future endeavours. “I would love to organise a tour for (the) general public to see how food (supply) is like behind-the-scenes,” he says. “In the end, our two ultimate goals are to drastically decrease the food waste in Singapore, and to educate the public and make them much more aware of how our food scene is like and appreciate what goes on behind-the-scenes.”

We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global power conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations.

We will proceed to identify ‘great power’ confrontations and then proceed to discuss the stages of ‘proxy’ wars with world war consequences.

In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, and Iran; secondary objectives include Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America.

China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy; it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents.China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. China has built an alternative socio-economic model which links state banks and planning to private sector priorities. On all these counts the US has fallen behind and its future prospects are declining.

In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. President Trump has declared a tariff war on China; and multiple , separatist and propaganda war; and an aerial and maritime war of encirclement.

The first line of attack is exorbitant tariffs on China’s exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China.China has responded by increasing its military security, expanding its economic networks and raising economic tariffs on US exports.

The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China’s foremost technological company, Huawei.

The White House has moved up the ladder of aggression from sanctions to provocation, it is one step from military retaliation. The nuclear fuse has been lit.

Russia faces similar threats to its domestic economy and its overseas allies, especially China and Iran. Moreover the US has broken its compliance with the intermediate nuclear missiles. agreement

Iran faces oil sanctions, military encirclement and attacks on proxy allies namely Yemen, Syria and the Gulf region Washington relies on Saudi Arabia, Israel and their paramilitary groups to apply military and economic pressure to undermine Iran’s economy and impose a ‘regime change’.

Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China would lead to the takeover of Asia, weakening Russia isolates Europe; the overthrow of Iran enhances US power over the oil market and the Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or, at the best, a world economic breakdown.

Wars by Proxy

The US has targeted a second tier of enemies, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

In Latin America the US has waged economic warfare against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. More recently it has applied political and economic pressure on Bolivia.Washington has relied on its vassal allies, including Brazil, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay and domestic right-wing elites.

As in numerous other cases, Washington relies on military coups and corrupt legislaters and judges to rule against incumbent progressive regimes Against President Morales, Washington relies on US foundation funded NGO’s; dissident indigenous leaders and retired military officials. The US relies on local armed proxies to further US imperial goals in order to give the appearance of a ‘civil war’ rather than gross US intervention.

In fact, once the so-called ‘dissidents’ or ‘rebels’ establish a beachhead they‘invite’ US military advisers, secure military aid and serve as propaganda weapons against Russia, China and Iran – ‘first tier’ adversaries.

In recent years US proxy conflicts have been a weapon of choice in the Kosovo separatist war against Serbia; the Ukraine coup of 2014 and war against Eastern Ukraine;the Kurd take over of Northern Iraq and Syria; the US backed separatist Uighurs attack in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

The US has established 32 military bases in Africa, to coordinate activities with local warlords and plutocrats. Their proxy wars are described as local conflicts between‘legitimate’ regimes and Islamic terrorists, tribalists and tyrants.

The objectives of proxy wars are threefold. They serve as ‘feeders’ into larger territorial wars encircling China, Russia and Iran.

Secondly, proxy wars are ‘testing grounds’ to measure the vulnerability and responsive capacity of the targeted strategic adversary, i.e. Russia, China and Iran.

Thirdly, the proxy wars are ‘low cost’ and ‘low risk’ attacks on strategic enemies. The lead up to a major confrontation by stealth.

Equally important ‘proxy wars’ serve as propaganda tools, accusing strategic adversaries as ‘expansionist authoritarian’ enemies of ‘western values’.

Conclusion

US empire builders engage in multiple types of aggression directed at imposing a unipolar world. At the center are trade wars against China; regional military conflicts with Russia and economic sanctions against Iran.

These large scale, long-term strategic weapons are complemented by proxy wars,involving regional vassal states which are designed to erode the economic bases of allies of anti-imperialist powers.

Hence, the US attacks on China via tariff wars aims to sabotage its global “Belt and Road’ infrastructure projects linking China with 82 counties.

Likewise, the US attempts to isolate Russian via a proxy war in Syria as it did with Iraq, Libya and the Ukraine.

Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the ‘final assault’ – regime change by coup or nuclear war.

However, the US drive for world domination has so far failed to isolate or weaken its strategic adversaries.

China moves forward with its global infrastructure program;and the trade war has had little impact in isolating Bejing from its principal markets. Moreover, the US policy has increased China’s role as a leading advocate of ‘open trade’ against President Trump’s protectionism.

Likewise, the tactics of encircling and sanctioning Russia has deepened ties between Moscow and Beijing. The US has increased its nominal ‘proxies’ in Latin America and Africa but they all depend on trade and investments from China. This is especially true of agro-mineral exports to China.

Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes, Washington has taken moves to compensate for its failures by escalating the threats of a global war. It kidnaps Chinese economic leaders; it moves war ships off China’s coast; it allies with neo-fascist elites in the Ukraine. It threatens to bomb Iran. In other words the US political leaders have embarked on adventurous policies always on the verge of igniting one, two, many nuclear fuses.

It is easy to imagine how a failed trade war can lead to a nuclear war; a regional conflict can entail a greater war.

Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it can happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!

The history of terrorism in the Valley indicates that the social disintegration of Kashmir directly as a result of Pakistan’s nefarious activities and proxy war is not likely to end anytime soon.

By Parjanya Bhatt

Pakistan is once again recalibrating its hybrid war tactics in India’s northern-most State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). For nearly two decades, its proxy war in Kashmir was driven primarily by infiltration of trained terrorists into the Valley. With the onset of mobile-based internet apps and social media tools, it successfully scripted a new chapter on terrorist violence. Using e-Jihad to brainwash and convert the vulnerable youth, Pakistan has accelerated the dark spectre of radicalised homegrown insurgency. In a latest move, Pakistan has started to fund terror organisations by pushing narcotics and drug money into J&K and Punjab. And if recent disclosures by the Indian army and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the State’s health data are to go by, this strategy is directed not only to generate funds from within India to finance terrorism in the Valley, it is also gnawing away Kashmir’s youth from within.

In rare joint operations recently, conducted by the Army and the DRI, huge cache of drugs and arms, including an AK-56 rifle, 15 hand grenades, five pistols, 12 detonators of IEDs and 234 rounds of ammunition, were seized. The Afghan variety of drug is being pumped into Kashmir, via Pakistan, which is further pushed into Punjab via Jammu. Army intelligence sources are also said  to have established strong links between Kashmiri terrorists and drug trafficking in Punjab. The recent terror attack in Amritsar and the reported presence of Zakir Musa in the holy city is believed to be part of the same chain.

Media reports also suggest that Kashmiri farmers, especially in South Kashmir, are being forced into cultivating poppy to generate funds to finance street rage and terrorist violence. While the focus of the national media has largely been on drug abuse among the youth in Punjab, the scenario in J&K is no less frightening. According to the United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP), there are about 70,000 substance abusers present in the Valley, out of which 31 percent are women. According to addiction data published by the Government Psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar, around 90 percent drug abusers belong to the age group of 17-35.

Media reports also suggest that Kashmiri farmers, especially in South Kashmir, are being forced into cultivating poppy to generate funds to finance street rage and terrorist violence.

Given this sinister backdrop, it would be unwise to believe that this dangerous trend of drug abuse among the Kashmiri youth is only because of the socio-psychological impact of prolonged conflict, unemployment or family/social issues. There is obviously a much larger design to this growing menace that is damaging the already stressed social and moral fabric of the Valley.

It is time the political corridors in New Delhi and Srinagar, the separatists’ lobby and the Kashmiri society as a whole got serious and thought about the way forward — especially since most of the state responses to the changing face of terror in Kashmir have fallen well short of their objectives. If the count of body bags is taken as the sole indicator, counter-insurgency operations seem to be paying rich dividends in Kashmir. However, if the objective of the ‘bullet for bullet’ response of security agencies is to curb terrorism in the Valley by eliminating top commanders of militants’ groups, the strategy seems to have made not much difference. On the contrary, it has led to further alienation and created a fertile ground for ready terror recruitment. Despite eliminating nearly 240 terrorists in the current year so far, there is a constant flow of local boys being recruited to replace their fallen comrades. In 2018 alone (up to 10 November), nearly 175 local boys have been recruited. On the other hand, Pakistan-sponsored narco-terrorism seems to have changed the dimension of terrorism in the Valley and given a new lease of life to it. It is now further percolating to the border State of Punjab too. Media reports also indicate that up to 25 percent of narcotics being infiltrated into J&K is via Punjab.

It is time the political corridors in New Delhi and Srinagar, the separatists’ lobby and the Kashmiri society as a whole got serious and thought about the way forward — especially since most of the state responses to the changing face of terror in Kashmir have fallen well short of their objectives.

The J&K police, for the past couple of years, have red-flagged the growing threat of narco-terrorism. Former J&K DGP, S.P. Vaid, had reportedly remarked in July this year that the drug menace was a ‘bigger challenge’ than terrorism in the State and that contrabands were being “pumped from across the border” by people “who want our future generations to be addicted to drugs so that they can succeed in their nefarious ploys.” Last year, 70 kg of pure heroin was seized from the Valley, while over 25 kg of contraband was seized from Jammu — totally worth INR 500 crore in the international market. The State government has provided land to the police to set up a full-fledged de-addiction centre near Eidgah in Srinagar, but it is yet to adhere to the proposal to allocate land for a similar facility in Jammu. The State police have also planned to send a proposal to the Ministry of Home Affairs to allocate land for a 10-bedded de-addiction facility in all the districts of the State. While all these are sensible initial responses, they are largely reactive and defensive. The need of the hour, on the contrary, is launching a concerted and active offensive by the government to strike the problem at its roots and break the narcotics supply chain.

The history of terrorism in the Valley indicates that the social disintegration of Kashmir directly as a result of Pakistan’s nefarious activities and proxy war is not likely to end anytime soon. First, Kashmir lost its aborigines — the Hindu Pandits. Then it lost an entire generation to the gun culture. Now, Kashmir seems to be on the road to losing yet another generation to drug abuse.

Pakistan has constantly upgraded and calibrated its proxy and hybrid war strategy in Kashmir and challenged India’s internal security. The Indian government can no longer afford to be stuck on the backfoot to foil our neighbour’s evil designs.

In 1971, nearly five decades ago Pakistan, lost its eastern part after civil war; loss of that part is one of the biggest tragedies in the history of this country. Pakistan not only loss its geography but also its face that how political, economic and ethnic grievances, if not solved timely could divide a nation which was founded on the base of ideology. It brings us to the point that ideologies do play important role in bringing people together to form a nation but they cannot act as binding factor if political, lingual and cultural liberties are not respected by the all segments of the nation.

Fall of Dhaka endorsed the proverb that “you cannot always create a situation but can always exploit one”, when India took a benefit of the worsening situation in eastern border and not only send its forces but also provide finances and arms to the gorillas. Resultantly, the internal conflict took the situation of civil war in Eastern Pakistan and full fledge war between Indian and Pakistan.

In 1971, other external powers from whom intervention was expected to stop the war never intervened to stop the war as result Pakistan had to rely on itself. This act of external powers like US and China reveals that there are no permanent friends and enemies in international system but only permanent interests. So, to protect one’s own interests and sovereignty only reliable allay is one’s self. This lesson learned by Pakistan in 1971 war was duly endorsed by the India’s 1974 nuclear test, which brought Pakistan closer to the decision of nuclearization for its security vis-à-vis India.

Most important lessons from 1971 for Pakistan lies with the internal situation of country actors like only played their part in exploiting the situation but not in creating the situation. Today Pakistan has secured itself against Indian aggression and has also learned that if internal situation ever goes South it will be exploited by India.

Moreover, Pakistan knows that Indian intelligence agencies are playing their part in supporting the banned military outfits in Pakistan; its example is arrest of Kulboshen Yadev, serving officer of Indian Navy from Baluchistan. Who later on excepted that RAW is supporting and funding Baluch Liberation Army. But the question here arises why parties like BLA come into being? Its first answer could be that because there are always anti-state element within the state. But, another reason could be the grievances which are not addressed by the governments and resulting in armed movements are started to solve these grievances.

However, the need of the hour is that elected governments should work more towards the political rights of the neglected parts of country which are continuously demanding these rights. At the moment, different segments in society are demanding the separate provinces for themselves because their issues are not streamlined in larger provinces. One such example is demand of Seraiki province by the people of South Punjab, which should be readily accepted. Not only the demand of Seraiki Province but of other provinces as well.

Moreover, we should have learned from the fall of Dhaka and have taken the measures to included Gilgit-Baltistan into national streamline as this is the demand of the people of that area. So, that their issues and voice could reach into the parliament through their elected representatives.

Another alarming factor is the rise of ethnicity in the country. One cannot deny the role of ethnicity in bringing the 1971 upon Pakistan. now, after 48 years of 1971 Pakistan is still divided into ethnic conflicts and different ethnic minorities are targeted inn different part of the country. The positive aspects are that ethnicity is not supported by any government but its mere existence in state is alarming and should be controlled.

These issues which Pakistan is facing should be addressed properly and resolved as we have learned from 1971 that they have the potential to become national security threats and can even lead to the disintegration of the country. It is also the responsibility of governments to cater political and economic rights of its citizens as it promotes national integration and put county on the path of prosperity.

*Ahyousha Khan, Research Associate, Strategic Vision Institute

By Tabitha Ha*

“No child should have to die because their family cannot afford the treatment.” These words from WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, grounded and inspired participants in the ‘Second World Conference on Access to Medical products; Achieving the SDGs’ hosted last week by the Indian government alongside World Health Organisation India in New Delhi.

The convening of representatives from national and state government of India and from other countries, national and international agencies and civil society was a demonstration of India’s firm and longstanding commitment to access to medicines and innovation. It was an opportunity to celebrate India’s position as the ‘pharmacy of the world’ and as a champion in pushing for access to medicines as a key pillar to achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in India and globally.

But the conference was also a space for serious questions about the barriers to access to medicines. Panellists from the WHO, several Indian ministries including science and technology and health, as well as other experts emphasised that achieving the SDGs requires access to quality health products. Moreover, innovative health products cannot be considered successful if they are too expensive to be used by the patients who need them.

For India’s industry to sustain and further develop its strength, it needs to spur domestic health innovation and to use new models of research and development (R&D). Innovation in middle-income countries does not need to follow in the footsteps of that of advanced economies. Innovation in advanced economies depends on securing monopoly of pharmaceutical companies through intellectual property rules in order to pay for R&D – a system that result in developing medicines at increasingly very high prices.

The conference was an opportunity to understand the entire innovation ecosystem and explore new incentives for R&D that ensure access to the developed health products. For example, governments could consider new models of financing that distribute the resources, risks and rewards rather than relying on high prices to finance R&D. It was also recognised that there needs to be more streamlined regulatory frameworks to enhance medicines authorisation and increase access to quality medical products.

Governments’ investment in R&D is critical to enhancing innovation. Meantime, scaling up public financing for health care is also essential for access to medicine. The cost of medicines represents 42% of the out of pocket spending on health, which increases the financial burden on Indian households. Thus achieving universal health coverage requires an increase in investment in public healthcare schemes, which include covering the cost of medicines for patients.

India is a leading global player in the pharmaceutical industry, pioneering new regulatory platforms and globally supporting new models of innovation that prioritise public health over profit. At the international level such as UN meetings, India is renowned for adamantly pushing for progress on access to medicines. This conference is but another example of India’s commitment to advancing access to innovation. At Oxfam India, we celebrate India’s leadership and look forward to stronger investments in R&D for health products and in public health systems.

*Tabitha Ha is an Advocacy and Campaigns Officer at Oxfam International based in London. She is currently working on Access to Medicines campaign by Oxfam.

The Speaker of Sri Lanka’s Parliament Karu Jayasuriya has recognised UPFA MP Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Leader of the Opposition. Meanwhile UPFA General Secretary Mahinda Amaraweera has been accepted as the new Chief Opposition Whip.

This was announced by the Speaker following the commencement of parliamentary proceeding today (18).The parliamentary group of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) decided to nominate former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to the position of Opposition Leader.

The decision was reached during the UPFA parliamentary group meeting held Wednesday which was chaired by President Maithripala Sirisena. The UPFA had said it will not be joining the UNP-led government and would sit in the opposition.

That had made the UPFA the largest opposition party in the Parliament, meaning the Opposition Leader post previously held by Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader, R. Sampanthan, transferred to the UPFA.

The arrival of the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group in the Gulf to deter Iran from further testing ballistic missiles is likely to dampen Indian hopes that the Trump administration’s exemption of the port of Chabahar from sanctions against the Islamic republic would help it tighten economic relations with Central Asia and further regional integration.

The group’s presence in the Gulf, the first by a US aircraft carrier in eight months, came amid mounting tension between the United States and Iran following the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and the imposition of harsh sanctions against the Islamic republic. It raised the spectre of a potential military conflagration.

The deployment for a period of two months coincided with a suicide attack on a Revolutionary Guards headquarters in Chabahar that killed two people and wounded 40 others.

Saudi and Iranian media reported that Ansar al-Furqan, a shadowy Iranian Sunni jihadi group that Iran claims is supported by the kingdom as well as the United States and Israel, had claimed responsibility for the attack.

Saudi pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat asserted that the attack “reflects the anger harboured by the (city’s Baloch) minority against the government.” The paper said the Iranian government had expelled thousands of Baloch families from Chabahar and replaced them with Persians in a bid to change its demography. It asserted that Iran was granting nationality to Afghan Shiites who had fought in Syria and Iraq and was moving them to Chabahar.

The paper went on to say that “anti-regime Baloch movements have recently intensified their operations against Tehran in an attempt to deter it from carrying out its plan to expel and marginalize the Baloch from their ancestral regions.”

Saudi Arabia, a staunch supporter of the US’s confrontational approach towards Iran, has pumped large amounts of money into militant, ultraconservative Sunni Muslim anti-Shiite and anti-Iranian religious seminaries along the border between the Pakistani province of Balochistan and the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchistan that is home to Chabahar, according to militants.

The funding was designed to create the building blocks for a potential covert effort to destabilize Iran by stirring unrest among its ethnic minorities.

The deployment was, according to US officials in response to Iran’s test-firing of a ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads. The US sanctions are in part designed to force Iran to drop its development of ballistic missiles. Iranian officials insist the missiles program is defensive in nature.

 “We are accumulating risk of escalation in the region if we fail to restore deterrence,” said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The spectre of increased military tension in the Gulf with the arrival of the aircraft carrier group and of potentially Saudi and US-backed political violence in Iran, and a troubling security situation in Afghanistan threatened to diminish the impact of Washington’s granting Indian investment in Chabahar an exemption from its economic sanctions against Iran.

Indian and Iranian officials fear that the United States’ stepped up military posture and heightened tensions could undermine their efforts to turn Chabahar, which sits at the top of the Arabian Sea, into a hub for trade between India and Central Asia rendering the US waiver worthless.

The officials have their hopes pinned on efforts to engineer a peace process in Afghanistan. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad alongside representatives of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan met this week with the Taliban. The talks are intended to negotiate an end to Afghanistan’s 17-year old war.

An Afghan government delegation, in what diplomats saw as a sign of progress, hovered in the corridors but did not take part in the meeting because of the Taliban’s insistence that it will only talk to the United States. Talks with the Taliban have so far stalled because of the group’s insistence on a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan.

US officials said the aircraft carrier group, beyond seeking to deter Iran, would also support the US war effort in Afghanistan where the United States has ramped up airstrikes in an effort to press the Taliban into peace talks.

The talks were an opportunity, particularly for Saudi Arabia, whose utility as an ally is being questioned by the US Congress in the wake of the October 2 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and Pakistan, which the United States accuses of supporting the Taliban, to demonstrate their utility.

US President Donald J. Trump asked Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan in a letter earlier this month to help bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

While Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have an interest in using their close ties to the Taliban to help forge an end to the Afghan war, its not immediately clear that they want to see reduced tensions facilitate the emergence of Chabahar as an Indian-backed hub.

A Saudi think tank, the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies (AGCIS) renamed the International Institute of Iranian Studies that is believed to be backed by Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, argued in a study last year that Chabahar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate counter measures.”

Written by Mohammed Hassan Husseinbor, identified as an Iranian political researcher, the study warned that Chabahar posed a threat because it would enable Iran to increase greater market share in India for its oil exports at the expense of Saudi Arabia, raise foreign investment in the Islamic republic, increase government revenues, and allow Iran to project power in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Noting the vast expanses of Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province, Mr. Husseinbor went on to say that “it would be a formidable challenge, if not impossible, for the Iranian government to protect such long distances and secure Chabahar in the face of widespread Baluch opposition, particularly if this opposition is supported by Iran’s regional adversaries and world powers.”

Similarly, Pakistan is heavily invested in Gwadar, the Chinese-backed port in Balochistan that is a crown jewel of the US$45 billion plus China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a pillar of the People’s Republic’s Belt and Road initiative. Gwadar is a mere 70 kilometres up the coast from Chabahar.

“Pakistan sees India as an existential threat and the idea of India being in any way present on Pakistan’s western flank in Afghanistan will always raise alarm bells in Islamabad,” said South Asia scholar Michael Kugelman.

If the arrival of the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group in the Gulf heralds heightened tension, Pakistan may have less reason to worry.