In a succinct tweet on Wednesday, Donald Trump has announced a momentous policy decision that the Trump administration will soon be pulling out the US troops from Syria and Iraq.

Although the current redeployment of American troops will only be limited to northern Syria to appease the US-ally Turkey where it has been along standing demand of President Erdogan that Turkey will not tolerate the presence of the US-backed Kurdish forces west of Euphrates River, it can be expected in the coming months that Washington will withdraw American forces from eastern Syria and Iraq as well.

President Trump said in the tweet, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” Thus, Washington has finally acknowledged its humiliating defeat in a country it never formally invaded, but where it waged a devastating proxy war for the last seven years that gave birth to myriads of militant groups, including the Islamic State.

It is an irrefutable fact that the United States sponsors militants, but only for a limited period of time in order to achieve certain policy objectives. For instance: the United States nurtured the Afghan jihadists during the Cold War against the former Soviet Union from 1979 to 1988, but after the signing of the Geneva Accords and consequent withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, the United States withdrew its support from the Afghan jihadists.

Similarly,the United States lent its support to the militants during the Libyan and Syrian proxy wars, but after achieving the policy objectives of toppling the Arab nationalist Gaddafi regime in Libya and weakening the anti-Israel Assad regime in Syria, the United States relinquished its blanket support to the militants and eventually declared a war against a faction of Sunni militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, when the latter transgressed its mandate in Syria and dared to occupy Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in June 2014from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

 The only difference between the Soviet-Afghan Jihad back in the 1980s that spawned Islamic jihadists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for the first time in history and the Libyan and Syrian proxy wars 2011-onward is that the Afghan jihad was an overt jihad: back then, the Western political establishments and their mouthpiece, the mainstream media, used to openly brag that the CIA provides all those AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and stingers to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, which then distributes those deadly weapons among the Afghan so-called “freedom fighters” to combat the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

After the 9/11 tragedy, however, the Western political establishments and corporate media have become a lot more circumspect, therefore this time around they have waged covert jihads against the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi regime in Libya and the anti-Zionist Assad regime in Syria, in which Islamic jihadists (aka terrorists)have been sold as “moderate rebels” with secular and nationalist ambitions to the Western audience.

Since the regime change objective in those hapless countries went against the mainstream narrative of ostensibly fighting a war against terrorism, therefore the Western political establishments and the mainstream media are now trying to muddle the reality by offering color-coded schemes to identify myriads of militant and terrorist outfits operating in Syria: such as the red militants of the Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front, which the Western powers want to eliminate; the yellow Islamic jihadists, like Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, with whom the Western powers can collaborate under desperate circumstances; and the green militants of the Free Syria Army (FSA) and a few other inconsequential outfits which together comprise the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition.

It’s worth noting, moreover, that the Syrian militant groups are no ordinary bands of ragtag jihadist outfits. They were trained and armed to the teeth by their patrons in the security agencies of Washington, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordanin the training camps located along Syria’s border regions with Turkey and Jordan.

Along with Saddam’s and Egypt’s armies, the Syrian Baathist armed forces are one of the most capable fighting forces in the Arab world. But the onslaught of militant groups during the first three years of the proxy war was such that had it not been for the Russian intervention in September 2015, the Syrian defenses would have collapsed.

The only feature that distinguishes the Syrian militants from the rest of regional jihadist groups is not their ideology but their weapons arsenals that were bankrolled by the Gulf’s petro-dollars and provided by the CIA in collaboration with regional security agencies of Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East.

 While we areon the subject of Islamic State’s weaponry, it is generally claimed by the mainstream media that Islamic State came into possession of the state-of-the-art weapons when it overran Mosul in June 2014 and seized huge caches of weapons that were provided to Iraq’s armed forces by Washington.

Is this argument not a bit paradoxical, however, that Islamic State conquered large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq before it overran Mosul when it supposedly did not have those sophisticated weapons, and after allegedly coming into possession of those weapons, it lost ground?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this fact is that Islamic State had those weapons, or equally deadly weapons, before it overran Mosul and that those weapons were provided to all the militant groups operating in Syria, including the Islamic State, by the intelligence agencies of their regional and global patrons.

If we were to draw parallels between the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the 1980s and the Syrian proxy war of today, the Western powers used the training camps located in the Af-Pak border regions to train and arm Afghan jihadists against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

Similarly,the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan were used to provide training and weapons to Sunni Arab militants battling the Shi’a-led Syrian government with the collaboration of Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intelligence agencies.

During the Afghan jihad, it is a known historical fact that the bulk of the so-called”freedom fighters” was comprised of Pashtun Islamic jihadists, such as the factions of Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf and scores of other militant outfits, some of which later coalesced together to form the Taliban movement.

Similarly,in Syria the majority of the so-called “moderate rebels” were comprised of Sunni Arab jihadists, such as Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham, al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State and myriads of other militant groups, including a small portion of defected Syrian soldiers who go by the name of Free Syria Army (FSA).

Moreover, apart from Pashtun Islamic jihadists, various factions of the Northern Alliance of Tajiks and Uzbeks constituted the relatively “moderate” segment of the Afghan rebellion, though those “moderate” warlords, like Ahmad Shah Massoud and Abul Rashid Dostum, were more ethnic and tribal in character than secular or nationalist, as such. Similarly, the Kurds of the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” can be compared to the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan.

Recently, the Islamic State’s purported “terror franchises” in Afghanistan and Pakistan have claimed a spate of bombings against the Shi’a and Barelvi Muslims who are regarded as heretics by Takfiris. But to contend that the Islamic State is responsible for suicide blasts in Pakistan and Afghanistan is to declare that the Taliban are responsible for the sectarian war in Syria and Iraq.

Both a relocalized militant outfits and the Islamic State without its Baathist command structure and superior weaponry is just another ragtag regional militant outfit. The distinction between the Taliban and the Islamic State lies in the fact that the Taliban follow Deobandi sect of Sunni Islam which is an Islamic sect native to South Asia and the jihadists of the Islamic State mostly belong to the Wahhabi-Salafi denomination.

Secondly,and more importantly, the insurgency in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Pashtun uprising which is an ethnic group native to Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan, while the bulk of the Islamic State’s jihadists is comprised of Arab militants of Syria and Iraq.

The so-called “Khorasan Province” of the Islamic State in the Af-Pak region is nothing more than a coalition of several breakaway factions of the Taliban and a few other inconsequential local militant outfits which have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State’s chief Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi in order to enhance their prestige, but which don’t have any organizational and operational association, whatsoever, with the Islamic State proper in Syria and Iraq.

Conflating the Islamic State either with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or with myriads of ragtag local militant groups is a deliberate deception intended to mislead public opinion in order to exaggerate the threat posed by the Islamic State which serves the scaremongering agenda of Western and regional security establishments.

From boat enthusiasts to anglers, researchers at the University of New Hampshire have found surprisingly widespread support for offshore wind energy development (OWD) among outdoor recreationists.

Also unanticipated was the strong support across the entire political spectrum, from liberals to moderates and conservatives, with respondents seeing OWD as a positive impact upon their recreation experience.

“These findings are unique because most previous studies show that recreationists tend to oppose energy development on or near public lands and protected areas,” said Michael Ferguson, assistant professor of recreation management and policy. “But most of the respondents in our research embraced the idea of offshore wind development. Besides the benefits of renewable energy, they saw it as a benefit to the entire community and region, creating tourism opportunities, and enhancing their own recreation experiences.”

In the study, recently published in the Journal of Great Lakes Research, the researchers from UNH and Pennsylvania State University examined more closely factors influencing water-based recreationists’ perceptions towards OWD in general on Lake Erie. As part of the study, respondents were asked questions about recreation frequency, OWD support and opposition, political orientation, and perceptions towards climate change. Of the 242 respondents, nearly one-half identified as boaters, with the remaining evenly split between beach users and anglers and all were largely repeat day trip visitors. The results of this study suggested significantly high levels of support for OWD among the water-based outdoor recreationists at Lake Erie across the political spectrum.

“Offshore wind energy development has been slow to develop in the United States for various social, ecological, and political reasons,” said Ferguson. “But our findings suggest that recreationists may be open to it and supportive of it.”

Some examples cited for support include unique recreation and tourism attractions like boat tours to OWD sites, better fishing opportunities especially in areas that lack natural structures that would attract more fish (like rocks and reefs), and more job opportunities for everything from construction to tourism related businesses like rentals and restaurants.

Armenia will import more gas from Iran, said the Armenian ambassador Artashes Tumanyan voicing Yerevan’s readiness to also increase electricity export to Iran, Iran Daily reports.

Tumanyan, who was addressing a meeting themed ‘Iran-Armenia ties, opportunities and challenges’, further said that recent political developments in Yerevan have not impacted the country’s foreign policy, reported Fars News Agency.

He also voiced Armenia’s readiness to increase electricity exports to Iran and hoped that trade exchanges between the two countries would rise in the near future.

Turning to Washington’s pressure on Yerevan to reduce relations with Iran, he said, “The US has talked with Armenia about Tehran-Yerevan ties, and they have realized that relations with Tehran are of high significance to us.”

Meanwhile, Chairman of Iran-Armenia Friendship Society Mohammadreza Damavandi complained that despite high historic and political relations in the cultural fields, the two countries have failed to broaden relations to desirable levels.

While Tehran and Yerevan have set a target of $1 billion in trade exchanges, they have achieved only $200 million to $250 million, he said.

Earlier in mid-August, Iran’s Deputy Energy Minister Homayoun Haeri announced that Tehran and Yerevan are currently working on finalizing the third Iran-Armenia power transmission line.

“Taking timely measures for implementing the third power transmission line from Iran to Armenia is one of the most important part of bilateral and multilateral cooperation,” Haeri said following a meeting with Armenian Minister of Energy Infrastructures and Natural Resources Artur Grigoryan in Yerevan.

The Iranian official said that during his meeting with Grigoryan, the Armenian minister also underlined that the importance of finalizing the construction of the third high-voltage Iran-Armenia power transmission line.

Grigoryan, who serves also as a co-chairman of the Armenian-Iranian intergovernmental commission, noted that in the context of intensifying Tehran-Yerevan economic cooperation, the construction of a high-voltage power transmission line between Armenia and Georgia can also play a serious role.

Twenty years ago, a small delegation organized by Voices in the Wilderness lived in Baghdad while U.S. cruise missiles attacked more than 100 targets in Iraq. Following four days of bombing, known as “Operation Desert Fox,” our group visited various Iraqis who had survived direct hits. One young girl handed me a large missile fragment, saying “Merry Christmas.”

An engineer, Gasim Risun, cradled his two-week old baby as he sat in his hospital bed. Gasim had suffered multiple wounds, but he was the only one in his family well enough to care for the infant, after an unexploded missile destroyed his house. In Baghdad, a bomb demolished a former military defense headquarters, and the shock waves shattered the windows in the hospital next door. Doctors said the explosions terrified women in the maternity ward, causing some to spontaneously abort their babies while others went into premature labor.

In December 1998, U.S. news media steadily focused on only one person living in Iraq: Saddam Hussein. With the notable exception of Stephen Kinzer of The New York Times, no mainstream media focused on U.N. reports about the consequences of U.S. economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. One of Kinzer’s articles was headlined: “Iraq a Pediatrician’s Hell: No Way to Stop the Dying.”

The hellish conditions continued, even as U.N. officials sounded the alarm and explained how economic sanctions directly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children under age five.

Now a horror story of similar proportions is playing out in Yemen.

—

In November 2018, The Guardian reported that up to 85,000 Yemeni children under age five  have died from starvation and disease during the last three years. Mainstream media and even governments of large and wealthy countries are finally beginning to acknowledge the anguish suffered by Yemeni children and their families.

Stark and compelling photos show listless, skeletal children who are minutes or days away from death. Reports also show how war plans have deliberately targeted Yemen’s infrastructure, leading to horrifying disease and starvation. Journalists who have met with people targeted as Houthi fighters, many of them farmers and fishermen, describe how people can’t escape the sophisticated U.S. manufactured weapons fired at them from massive warplanes.

One recent Associated Press photo, on page one of The New York Times for December 14, shows a line of tribespeople loyal to the Houthis. The youngest child is the only one not balancing a rifle upright on the ground in front of him. The tribespeople bear arms, but they are poorly equipped, especially compared to the U.S.-armed Saudis.

Since 2010, according to The New York Times, the United States has sold the Saudis thirty F-15 multirole jet fighters, eighty-four combat helicopters, 110 air-to-surface cruise missiles, and 20,000 precision guided bombs. Last year, the United States also sold the Saudis ten maritime helicopters in a $1.9 billion deal. An American defense contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, “earned tens of millions of dollars training the Saudi Navy during the past decade.”

—

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—along with his counterpart in the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed—seemed untouchable. He was feted and regaled by former Presidents, Oprah, Hollywood show biz magnates, and constant media hype.

Now, the U.S. Senate has passed a resolution holding him accountable for the gruesome murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Several U.S. Senators have said they no longer want to be responsible for bloodshed he has caused in Yemen. U.N. negotiators have managed to broker a fragile ceasefire, now in effect, which will hopefully stop the fighting that has raged in the vital port city of Hodeidah. One message which may have prompted the Saudis to negotiate came in the form of a Senate vote threatening to curtail the support of U.S. armed forces for the Saudi-led Coalition’s war on Yemen.

I doubt these actions will bring solace or comfort to parents who cradle their listless and dying children. People on the brink of famine cannot wait days, weeks, or months while powerful groups slowly move through negotiations.

And yet, a shift in public perception regarding war on Yemen could liberate others from the terrible spectre of early death.

Writing during another war, while he was exiled from Vietnam, Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh imagined the birth of a “Peace Child.” He ends his poem by calling on people to give both their hands for the chance to “protect the seeds of life bursting on the cradle’s rim.”

I think of Iraqi mothers who lost their babies as bombs exploded just outside their maternity ward. The shift in public perception is painfully too late for innumerable people traumatized and bereaved by war. Nevertheless, the chance to press with all our might for a continuing and growing shift, repudiating war, could point us in a new direction.

The war in Yemen is horrific and ought to be ended immediately. It makes eminent good sense to give both our hands and all the energies we can possibly summon, to end the war in Yemen and vow the abolition of all war.

By Jonathan Power*

In the Western world there is a constant debate about democracy. In the U.S. the Democrats charge quite correctly that the House’s constituencies are gerrymandered against them. Then there’s the insoluble issue of the Senate’s anti-democratic bias where its numbers are tilted against the Democrats by the fact that rural, less populated, states which tend to be conservative, elect two senators, just as do the Democratic-inclined, heavily populated, states.

In Britain, the country is riven by the Brexit debate. A referendum was held two and a half years ago when voters were given the choice of “Remain” or “Leave”. The “Leavers” won by a small margin and the country has been in political turmoil ever since. Now with Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit plans on the rocks the debate has become vitriolic. There are calls for a new referendum to reverse the previous vote. It’s likely to happen since May has been checkmated by the European Union. The Remainers will probably win.

In Hungary, the prime minister has pushed aside democracy to take more control of the press and the judiciary, despite threats, so far empty ones, from the rest of the EU to seriously punish its government.

In France, demonstrators, some violent, have hit the streets, protesting the government’s policies that seem to favour the well to do. In fact the poorer have also been helped. But is it a responsible protest when the mass of non-violent demonstrators know that their action has attracted young hooligans who use violence – burning cars, ransacking shops and fighting the police with cobblestones?

Democracy, considered a virtue, has always had its bad associates – Hitler and Robespierre for starters.

Democracy is in trouble, according to a new, incisive and broad ranging book, Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy, by Cambridge professor, John Dunn. What’s excluded from his magisterial text isn’t worth knowing. His book gives the reader everything they need to know.

As Dunn writes, democracy has lost its clarity. It’s not yet a sinking ship but it certainly has hit an iceberg.

“Representative democracy today,” he writes, “works far better as a mechanism for rejection than it can as a way of choosing together what course to follow for any length of time.”

Dunn singles out climate change. Yes, there’s a great amount of lip service to taking drastic action but, as in France, when fuel taxes were raised in order to restrict more CO2 emissions, there are massive demonstrations against it. A democratically elected government was compelled to retreat. In the U.S. Republican voters support President Donald Trump’s policy of denial although the denials came from a time well before Trump.

Dunn says that in the face of such immense challenges the record of Western democracies “has been at best uneven and at worst abominable.” Our democracies, he concludes, exist in “muted form”.  At the end of his book he blames us the voters for tolerating bad practices.

Plato, who opposed the other Greek savants, his teacher, Socrates, and his pupil, Aristotle, denounced democracy. He saw it as “a presumptuous and grossly ugly idea”. He blamed the killing of Socrates on the waywardness of democratic governance.

This and other historical examples leads Dunn to argue that with democracy “it’s overwhelmingly probable that many particular outcomes will turn out to be flagrantly unjust. The idea of justice and the idea of democracy fit very precariously together”. Worse still, “It’s often sharply at odds with the requirements for the fluent operation of a capitalist economy”. In post-Soviet Russia much of the West thought democracy would come first and capitalism second. It did for a while but now under President Vladimir Putin the order has been largely reversed.

… we are living in a disenchanted and demoralized world. Our prime purpose isn’t democracy, fighting for human rights, against climate change or for compassion towards the poor. Our lives appear to be organized around the struggle to maximize personal income.

Dunn goes on to say provocatively that, “No one could readily mistake democracy for a solution to the Riddle of History”.

Nevertheless, “In its simple and unpretentious way, it has by now established a clear claim to meet a global need better than any of its competitors. It has a unique status, fusing timeliness and well-considered modesty with a claim to something very close to indispensability”.

Having said this, we are living in a disenchanted and demoralized world. Our prime purpose isn’t democracy, fighting for human rights, against climate change or for compassion towards the poor. Our lives appear to be organized around the struggle to maximize personal income.

One of both the ingredients and the result of this is to make us short-sighted and to have little sense of history. In the American case, Trump plays on the sheer ignorance of a large section of the electorate. In Britain, Nigel Farge and his United Kingdom Independence Party and friends in the Conservative Party told outright lies, now admitted, to the voters in order to win the Brexit referendum.

We sigh and take comfort from what Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

*Note: For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist and commentator for the International Herald Tribune – and a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, chaired by the prime minister of Sweden, Olof Palme. He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS Copyright: Jonathan Power. Website www.jonathanpowerjournalist.com.

By Lisa Vives

Six counties in Kenya’s coastal region have been tagged for technical training in the blue economy – what some have called “the new frontier of the African Renaissance”. The goal is to enable young people to find jobs in the maritime industry.

Kevit Desai, a Kenyan vocational training principal, says institutions of higher learning must begin to focus on developing skills, nurturing innovations and enterprise creation for this “overlooked opportunity”. He suggested a post-Blue Economy Conference workshop to create awareness and enhance community participation in this vision for the future.

The topic prompted the World Bank last year to release a report titled The Potential of the Blue Economy on Sustainable Use of Marine Resources for Small Island and Coastal Least Developed Countries.

“An important challenge of the blue economy is to understand and better manage oceanic sustainability,” the report began, “from sustainable fisheries to ecosystem health to pollution.”

After years of neglect, the multilateral community is finally waking up, writes David Thomas of African Business. “Policymakers are excitingly speaking of job creation, new sources of government revenue and the limitless potential of ocean entrepreneurship.”

But the initiative is also worrying to those who see a ‘global ocean grab’ by the rich and powerful, deciding who shall benefit, who should decide how much to fish and where. A drive for maximum profit is underway and small-scale fisher people fear a global ocean grab is in the works.

Multinational corporations, states, NGOs, speculative investors and many others are behind a ‘power grab’ to gain control of aquatic – ‘blue’ – resources, critics charge.

A recent report on Ocean Prosperity speaks optimistically of the potential for profit: “The transition to a blue economy is a tremendous economic and investment opportunity,” they write, “and this report will help investors understand the risks and opportunities for making money from ocean resources.”

The rise of blue growth represents the latest stage in a move by powerful economic actors to control crucial decision-making – including the power to decide how and for what purposes marine resources are used, conserved and managed.

Guided by the World Bank and similar institutions, an increasing number of African countries are now embracing the blue economy for its potential to deliver solutions to their most pressing needs – particularly extreme poverty and hunger.

Fishing sits at the forefront of debates about how to make the most of the blue economy while preserving a fragile ecosystem, observes Jeremy Prince of Murdoch University’s Centre for Fish and Fisheries Research in Perth, Australia.

Support has been promised to the African Union from the Economic Commission for Africa to ensure that the untapped potentials of the blue economy are fully realized.

By Sarral Sharma

The ‘new’ phase of militancy in J&K that began after Burhan Wani’s killing in 2016 continues to present multiple security challenges. With an eye on upcoming elections, the security situation may further deteriorate if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in New Delhi does not take appropriate counter-measures to address these challenges in the state.

New Dynamics

Despite the successes of Indian security forces in eliminating the top militant commanders of different outfits, especially after the launch of Operation ‘Al lOut’ in 2017, the recruitment drive and radicalisation continues unabated in the Kashmir Valley. Over 300 militants have been killed since the operation began in 2017. However, almost equal numbers have joined different militant ranks in the same amount of time. Although government data suggests that the approximate number of active militants in the Valley is between 250-300, the unofficial figures could be higher. Due to logistical constraints, however, such as unavailability of arms and ammunitions, only a limited number can finally be recruited into militant groups.

Local recruits cover a wide spectrum, varying from highly educated individuals, former security forces personnel to school and college drop-outs. An interesting and worrisome trend is that these recruits are not crossing over to Pakistan for arms training, or seeking ideological motivation. Instead, they are mostly self-motivated–some well-intentioned and some disillusioned–local boys volunteering to join militant ranks and to die for azadi (freedom).

This phenomenon is triggered by factors that include the continuing alienation and anger generated after the Valley-based Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) entered an alliance with rival BJP in 2015, in addition to mismanagement of other domestic affairs in Kashmir. Some Kashmiris also blame the security agencies’ ill-treatment of the local youth for the growing anger and increasing recruitment. Afzal Guru’s hanging in 2013 and widespread protests in 2008 and 2010 are other contributors to the current phase of militancy. Finally, the extensive use of social media platforms to share propaganda videos, letters,text messages and so on have further expanded militancy’s reach.

These factors have culminated in the form of street violence and militancy’s rising popularity in the past two and a half years. Further, local militants are receiving significant support from the civilian population. Mass funerals of militants, civilians thronging encounter sites in large number regardless of consequences, and incidents of stone pelting on security forces have increased since 2016.

Addressing Challenges

According to some reports, Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) remains the first preference for the new recruits, followed by LeT, and then JeM. New groups such as al Qaeda’s local branch, Ansar Ghazwatul-Hind (AGuH), Kashmir’s Islamic State (IS) affiliate, and the resurgent Al-Badr have propped up over the past two years. Notwithstanding their online presence, these groups have not been able to attract many recruits. However, their presence has created further complications for security agencies. The possibility of suicide or fidayeen-style attacks, targeted killings and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blasts in the state cannot be ruled out in the current circumstances.

Incidents such as the snatching of weapons from security forces or randomly firing at security personnel have also increased; there has been a concomitant call for stringent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to avoid similar occurrences in the future. As the first line of defence internally, the J&K police remain the most vulnerable target. Some unstated measures have been taken to strengthen the state police in order to avoid desertions, abductions andtargeted killings.

Anti-militancy operations across the Valley have been fortified under the Governor’s Rule. There appears to be better coordination between the central and state security agencies in this regard. Cordon and Search Operations (CASOs) and Search and Destroy Operations (SADOs) may further increase in vulnerable areas, such as the four districts of South Kashmir. Since 2016, security forces have somewhat adapted their SoPs to account for quick, precise and pre-dawn operations based on active intelligence inputs so as to avoid large gatherings at encounter sites, stone-pelting incidents, and possible civilian killings.

These measures must form elements of a long-term and creative strategy to deal with the current phase of militancy in the Valley. For instance, security agencies may consider creating splits within militant groups, or rivalries between the old and new outfits. Winning the confidence of the local population remains critical for overall success. For this, new operational tactics could be introduced to minimise civilian casualties during security operations such as finding a viable alternative option to pellet guns. The government must also look for ways to counter social media propaganda on Kashmir. Factual videos, tweets, blogs, photos, text messages can be shared systematically and with a planned strategy to counter false propaganda.

In view of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the central government will need to approach security challenges in J&K with innovation and clarity.

*Sarral Sharma, Senior Researcher, Centre for Internal and Regional Security (IReS)

Globally, one in four people over age 25 is at risk for stroke during their lifetime, according to a new scientific study.

Researchers found a nearly five-fold difference in lifetime stroke risk worldwide, with the highest risk in East Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, and lowest in sub-Saharan Africa. The lifetime stroke risk for 25-year-olds in 2016 ranged from 8% to 39%, depending on where they live; people in China have the highest risk.

“Our findings are startling,” said Dr. Gregory Roth, Assistant Professor of Health Metrics Sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, and senior author on the study. “It is imperative that physicians warn their patients about preventing strokes and other vascular diseases at earlier points in patients’ lives. We found extremely high lifetime risk for stroke, and based on other research we evaluated, it is clear that younger adults need to think about long-term health risks. They can make a real difference by eating healthier diets, exercising regularly, and avoiding tobacco and alcohol.”

The study, “Global, Regional, and Country-Specific Lifetime Risks of Stroke, 1990-2016,” was published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Using estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study (GBD), researchers developed a new summary measure that combines one’s risk of having a stroke and surviving, with suffering a stroke and dying. For the first time, the study estimates lifetime stroke risk starting at age 25, whereas previous studies begin at age 45.

The authors analyzed the lifetime risk of first-ever stroke, categorized by subtype – ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. They did not assess the lifetime risk of recurring stroke, pediatric stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA), commonly known as “mini-stroke,” which does not result in permanent brain damage. Findings cover 1990 to 2016 in 195 countries and territories by age and sex.

The findings expose large geographic variations. In 2016, the three regions with the highest estimated lifetime risk of stroke were East Asia (38.8%), Central Europe (31.7%), and Eastern Europe (31.6%); the region with the lowest risk was eastern sub-Saharan Africa (11.8%).

“The lower risk of lifetime stroke in sub-Saharan Africa does not necessarily represent a lower incidence of stroke or more effective prevention and treatment strategies,” said Roth. “On the contrary, people there are merely at higher risk of dying of another cause first.”

The burden of stroke among adults is largely dependent on modifiable risk factors and the characteristics of health systems. Therefore, the study’s findings may be useful for long-term planning, especially in terms of prevention and public education.

Nations’ ministers of health and other policymakers need to develop programs encouraging young adults to eat healthier diets with more fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, as well as avoid tobacco and alcohol, and increase physical activity and maintain a healthy weight, Roth said. They also should advocate for lower prices of medications that control high blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This important paper provides reliable data on current lifetime risks across the world for different types of stroke, as well as providing countries with valuable insights into the burden of stroke,” said Dr. Peter Rothwell, Head of the Centre for the Prevention of Stroke and Dementia and Professor of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford. “These data and insights can be used to prioritize and target strategies for prevention. I hope this important work will be continued so that these trends can be mapped in future decades.”

Additional findings include:

• The estimated global lifetime risk of stroke – an average of widely varying rates around the world – from age 25 onward was 24.9% in 2016.
  • Broken out by stroke subtype, the global lifetime risk of ischemic stroke was 18.3% and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke 8.2%. Ischemic stroke occurs when an obstruction within a blood vessel prevents blood supply to the brain, whereas hemorrhagic stroke occurs when a weakened blood vessel ruptures.

• The greatest increases in lifetime stroke risk between 1990 and 2016 were found in East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, eastern sub-Saharan Africa, Central Europe, western sub-Saharan Africa, and North Africa and the Middle East.
  • Conversely, the risk in Central Asia, southern and tropical Latin America, high-income Asia-Pacific, and southern sub-Saharan Africa decreased substantially over the same time period.

• Despite no significant difference in global risk of lifetime stroke between men and women in 2016, the findings revealed substantial regional and country-level variation by sex.
  • Among 21 regions, the highest lifetime risk among men was in East Asia (40.6%), whereas the highest lifetime risks among women were in Eastern Europe (36.5%) and East Asia (36.3%).
  • The greatest risk among men, at 41.1%, was in China; the greatest risk among women, at 41.7%, was in Latvia.

Countries with highest lifetime stroke risk for individuals beginning at age 25:

1. China: 39.3%
2. Latvia: 37.0%
3. Romania: 36.2%
4. Montenegro: 36.0%
5. Bosnia and Herzegovina: 35.7%
6. Macedonia: 35.2%
7. Serbia: 33.8%
8. Bulgaria: 33.4%
9. Albania: 33.4%
10. Croatia: 33.0%

Nadia Murad, a 25-year-old woman from the Yazidi-Kurdish minority in Iraq who was the victim of extreme sexual violence by the Islamic State group, has been awarded the 2018 Noble Peace Prize. Murad, after Malala Yousafzai, became the second youngest lady to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Dennis Mukwege, who is a veteran gynecologist and surgeon shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Nadia Murad. Being an expert in his field, Mukwege serves  humanity with full devotion such that mending peoples who are victims of rape, sexual violence subjected by the armed rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

On the day of International Human Rights, December 10, 2108 (the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), both Nobel Laurates gave their impressive lectures in the Oslo city Hall. They argued that sexual violence is one of the oldest and most awful of weapons in wars and conflicts. Nadia Murad now resides as a refugee in Germany where she is human rights activist, w hile, Dennis Mukwege established the Panzi hospital and foundation in Bukavu in eastern DRC.

While announcing the Nobel Peace Prize winners, Berit Reiss-Anderson, the committee chairperson portrayed a difference between sexual violence that is committed during wars and conflicts from that of sexual violence under the theme of the ME-TO# movement. As such, the Nobel Peace committee embroiled the focus on sexual violence, as occurred in in wars.

Recalling the conflicts in Bosnia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Cyrus, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia, Uganda, Herzegovina, Peru and Rwanda,  girls had been separated alone for rape, torture and executions, and are subject to mental trauma.

Systematic rape is often used as a weapon of war in the ethnic cleansing. According to a European Union fact-finding team, more than 20,000 Muslims girls and women were raped during the Bosnia war in 1992. Many more teenage girls were raped in Croatia and Herzegovina, according to a 1996 World Children Report.

The State of the World’s Children 1996 report notes that the disintegration of families in times of war leaves women and girls especially vulnerable to violence. Nearly 80 percent of the 53 million people uprooted by wars today are women and children. When fathers, husbands, brothers and sons are drawn away to fight, they leave women, the very young and the elderly to fend for themselves. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Myanmar and Somalia, refugee families frequently cite rape or the fear of rape as a key factor in their decisions to seek refuge.

During Mozambique’s conflict, young boys, who themselves had been traumatized by violence, were reported to threaten to kill or starve girls if they resisted the boys’ sexual advances. Sexual assault presents a major problem in camps for refugees and the displaced, according to the report. The incidence of rape was reported to be alarmingly high at camps for Somali refugees in Kenya in 1993. The camps were located in isolated areas, and hundreds of women were raped in night raids or while foraging for firewood.

In October 1992, representatives from Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) traveled to Kashmir to document rape and other human rights abuses and violations of the laws of war by Indian security forces. They also investigated incidents of abuse by armed militant groups who have also committed rape and other attacks on civilians. PHR and Asia Watch condemned these crimes as violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

As of January 2014, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians have been incarcerated in Israeli prisons, including 23,000 women and 25,000 children since the Six-Day war in 1967. Women in Israeli prisons are frequently subjected to both physical and sexual abuse. Aside from the 750,000 Palestinians that were made refugees in 1948 during Israel’s creation, Israeli forces have also destroyed around 50,000 Palestinian houses since 1967 rendering hundreds of thousands of women and children homeless. Israel has imposed severe restrictions on movement within the West Bank. Between 2001 and 2005, 67 women were forced to give birth at an Israeli erected check point they had to cross to get to the hospital because the occupation forces would not allow them past. Thirty-six babies died.

The United Nation’s implementation of human rights seems to be failing if we look at the entire world in terms of human rights. Each year, the Nobel Prize is awarded, but the dream of a violation-free and peaceful world continues to remain unfulfilled.

*Irfan Khan, Researcher at QAU, Islamabad and writer at Daily Time, Dunya Blogs, Naya Daur, and EACPE

“If children can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school, then imagine what we can all do together if we really wanted to.” — Greta Thunberg at COP24, Dec. 2018

The world, if it goes off in a burn, will do so courtesy of the rules – or their elastic interpretation. It was a fine show of contradiction at Katowice, and the Polish hospitality did not deter the 14,000 delegates drawn from 195 countries from bringing forth a beast of regulation to delight climate change bureaucrats for years. Everyone clapped themselves in way emetic to any bystander suspicious about what had actually been achieved. The question to ask, of course, is whether this fluffy, self-congratulatory exercise makes it past the canapés and becomes a genuine policy document.

Little progress was actually made on the issue of commitments to cut emissions, even if there was, in principle, an agreement on a set of rules to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement. As things stand, the planet is set to reach 3°C, while the Paris Agreement stresses the need to keep matters manageable to an increase of 1.5°C, which would lead to more modest environmental destruction. Considerable troubling silences persist on the issue of technicalities. What, for instance, constitutes a suitable, measurable reduction in emissions or who monitors a country’s progress.

There were certain concessions. Poorer states received more solid reassurances of assistance from wealthier states to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions and attendant environmental challenges. China was pressed into accepting certain uniform guidelines to measure those emissions. States who cannot follow the “rules” to reduce emissions must explain why and show a pathway to redress that failure, more a case of nudging than punishment.

Coal advocates would not, however, have left COP24 dispirited. Poland’s own president, Andrzej Duda, gave a rumbustious display of refusal: his country, with 80 percent of its energy derived from coal, could not be asked to abandon 200 years’ worth of reserves before the idealistic abstinence of any green lobby. Poland, not the planet, came first.

Michal Kurtyka, COP24’s chair and secretary of state in the Ministry of Environment, saw little by way of contradiction in a performance run by the Polish Coal Miners Band during the talks, nor coal displays in the foyer greeting guests. It would have been silly, surmised Kurtyka, to dismiss the coal industry. “There are also energy companies of course engaging in a path of sustainable development.”

But a certain smell lingered at COP24, the sense that the conference had been sponsored by the very same entities whose behaviour was to be controlled and, in the future, abolished altogether. Kurtyka did little to dispel the aroma. “I don’t sense that there is a problem with anybody’s participation, provided that we have the same goal.”

The climate change talks were also being held, as it were, in the den of fossil fuel symbolism. Katowice was made by the legacy of coal rich reserves discovered in the mid-eighteenth century. Such delightful irony, as well, that the city could play host both to such a conference and the largest coal company in the European Union.

This did not deter Joanna Flisowska, a Katowice native and policy coordinator on coal for Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe. “We can be such a bright example for the transition away from coal if only we could put effort into using these opportunities.”

On other fronts, the climate change lobby has taken something of a battering. France’s Emmanuel Macron granted some concession to massive protests against fuel-tax rises supposedly designed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Living standards have squared off against environmental policies.

The result of the foot dragging has been to illustrate a growing divide between citizen and government official. “Hope,” claimed a despondent May Boeve, executive director of the climate change campaign group 350.org, “now rests on the shoulders of the many people who are rising to take action: the inspiring children who started an unprecedented wave of strikes in school to support a fossil-free [sic] future; the 1,000-plus institutions that committed to pull their money out of coal, oil, and gas, and the many communities worldwide who keep resisting fossil fuel development.”

Australia is particularly illustrative of this point, something emphasised by Greenpeace chief executive David Ritter. “The divide between the Government and the young people of Australia is probably the greatest it’s been since those huge protests of the Vietnam War era, and I think it’s for a similar reason.”

Students of varying ages certainly add to Ritter’s suggestions, with thousands of Australian school children taking to the streets in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Coffs Harbour and Bendigo, to name but a spread of Australian cities, insisting that Prime Minister Scott Morrison heed their calls. “The politicians aren’t listening to us when we try to ask nicely for what we want and for what we need,” suggested an irate Castlemaine student Harriet O’Shea Carre. “So now we have to go to extreme lengths and miss out on school.”

It was, however, a 15-year-old Swede by the name of Greta Thunberg, whose single person vigil outside Sweden’s parliament building featured the sign “school strike for climate change”. Three weeks were spent sitting in front of the Parliament during school hours, though she did return to classes for four days, using Friday as her weekly day of protest.

At Katowice, she made her own mark, a scolding aunt in the body of a disturbed teenager. “You are not mature enough to tell it like is,” she told delegates in her capacity as a representative of Climate Justice Now. “Even that burden you leave us children.”

Thunberg is right about one fundamental point. “You have ignored us in the past, and you will ignore us again.” But to ignore the future in favour of the present, to cobble together an ineffectual regime that privileges current living standards in the hope that devastation can be postponed, is an inherent condition of the species. Fiddling as the planet burns will continue.

The relationship between India and Israel was initially based on popular consensus, and only much later became an official one.

By Ofra Bengio

India and Israel have always had an enigmatic relation. While the two countries share many traits, it took them more than four decades to establish official diplomatic relations. India and Israel became independent almost at the same time, in the late 1940s, after a long struggle against British colonisation. Both nations boast a democratic system in a neighbourhood where democracy is frail or non-existent. Israel also has a rich ancient history similar to India, going back many millennia; this is evident in its rich culture and the many relics scattered around the country.

The main difference between the two countries, of course, is the size of the land and population: Israel’s population is around nine million, while India’s is 1, 400,000; Israel’s size is c. 20,770–22,072 sq. km in comparison to India’s 3,287,263 sq. km. Demographically speaking, the two do have one common denominator: they both have a vast Muslim minority that makes up 15–20 percent of the total population. From India’s point of view, this is one of the stumbling blocks in establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.

The main difference between the two countries, of course, is the size of the land and population: Israel’s population is around nine million, while India’s is 1, 400,000; Israel’s size is c. 20,770–22,072 sq. km in comparison to India’s 3,287,263 sq. km.

The relationship between India and Israel was initially based on popular consensus, and only much later became an official one. Israelis, especially the youth who were attracted to India’s culture and history, spearheaded the liaison. Coming in great throngs to visit India, they helped build people-to-people bridges. This provided an important infrastructure for a formal diplomatic relationship, which was established in 1992. However, while Israel had courted India throughout these years, the latter was reluctant to respond in kind.

What were India’s motives for shunning the Israeli initiatives at that time? As a young state, India had to take into account the Arab states’ numerical impact at the UN and their stance of boycotting Israel. Moreover, it could not afford to antagonise its Muslim population by establishing relations with the Jewish state. Sympathy with the Palestinian cause was a by-product of these motives. At the international level, in 1961, India became one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, with Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s president, as a co-founder. This made ties with Israel even more complicated. Another obstacle was the fact that Israel was in the American orbit, while India in the Soviet one.

By 1992, many of these impediments were, however, removed. First, Egypt made its peace with Israel in 1979, thus breaking a huge anti-Israeli Arab taboo. Another Arab taboo was lifted in the Madrid conference held from 30 October to 1 November 1991. The conference sought to revive the Israeli–Palestinian peace process through negotiations by involving Arab countries, most importantly Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The very convocation of such a conference, with the participation of Israelis and Arabs, made it much easier for many countries, including India, to warm up relations with Israel. The 1993 Israeli–Palestinian Oslo Accord as well as the 1994 Israeli–Jordan Peace Agreement removed another important barrier in Indo–Israeli relations since India has had a strong commitment to the Palestinian cause. In the meantime, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, changing the entire structure of alliances in the world. These developments further legitimised Israel in the international arena and opened for it new venues amongst giant states including Russia, China and India.

In 1961, India became one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, with Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s president, as a co-founder. This made ties with Israel even more complicated.. By 1992, many of these impediments were, however, removed.

Once the barriers were removed, relations between India and Israel improved rapidly. This became a strategic asset for both countries. The two countries then began cooperating in a range of areas, including cultural, political, economic and strategic fields. Israel supplied India with know-how in the agriculture and water fields, in which its expertise is so renowned that even Arab countries are willing to purchase its products via third parties. Israel also exported to India know-how in the fields of health, biotechnology and nanotechnology.

Strategically speaking, India and Israel developed close ties to combat terrorism, especially following the rise of extremist groups such as the Islamic State. Their collaboration included intelligence-sharing on terrorist groups, as well as joint training. In terms of weaponry, India became the largest buyer of Israeli military equipment, while Israel became the second-largest defence supplier to India after Russia, surpassing the United States. In just one decade, between 1999 and 2009, the military business between the two nations was worth around USD 9 billion.

Strategically speaking, India and Israel developed close ties to combat terrorism, especially following the rise of extremist groups such as the Islamic State.

The most dramatic turn took place at the political-diplomatic level, with the coming to power in 2014 of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India. His unique stance towards Israel proves that leaders do make big difference in relations between countries. Modi was the first Indian prime minister to have made an official visit to Israel in July 2017. Furthermore, he made clear a distinction between the Israeli and Palestinian issue by visiting only Israel, unlike earlier Indian officials, who visited both for the sake of diplomacy. Another important development from the Israeli point of view was that, under Modi, India abstained from voting against Israel in the United Nations in several resolutions. The chemistry between Prime Minister Modi and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was an important ingredient in boosting bilateral relations between the two countries. Netanyahu reciprocated Modi’s visit by visiting India in January 2018. During both these visits, the two parties signed scores of agreements aimed at boosting cooperation between the two states in various fields.

Indeed, the flourishing relations between the two countries is unprecedented amongst nations, considering the fact that Israel is such a small country while its counterpart, India, is a giant.

By Marvin C. Ott*

(FPRI) — China has long occupied a unique place in America’s relations with the world. In the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, China was a commercial magnet. Chinese products—tea, porcelains, silks—were in high demand and drew American merchants to Cathay. The clipper ships that plied the Pacific tea trade became as much a part of American lore as the Pony Express. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, a potent new actor entered the scene: Christian missionaries. For many American denominations, the prospect that China might be converted to Christianity became a lure more powerful than money. By the 1930s, Christian missionaries funded by American congregations had established an impressive network of schools, hospitals, and universities—along with churches—across much of China. Moreover, China’s political leaders at the time, Chiang Kai-shek and his redoubtable wife, were baptized Christians. Americans envisioned a China that would soon become an Asian version of the U.S.

Unfortunately, Chiang’s regime bore the brunt of Japan’s World War II onslaught against China. After the war, the Nationalist armies were defeated in a civil war with Mao Zedong’s communist forces. The victorious communists immediately expelled the American missionaries, doctors and educators. It was a great shock; suddenly, China was no longer America’s ally and project—it had become an enemy. Any doubts on that score were erased when the Korean War pitted U.S. Marines against a large number of Chinese troops. The result was two decades of intense hostility between Beijing and Washington. Everything about Mao’s China seemed alien and threatening—communes, red guards, guerrillas, and ideological campaigns.

Then, in 1971, like a bolt from the blue, President Richard Nixon visited China. The pendulum swung again; suddenly, China was all the rage whether it was pandas, acupuncture, or the Great Wall. China’s post-Mao leader, Deng Xiaoping, came on a state visit, attended a Texas rodeo, and donned a Stetson hat. The American romance with China was back in full flower. For the next 35 years, U.S.-China relations were broadly positive—even cordial. Trade flourished, and Chinese students flocked to U.S. universities while American tourists and scholars descended on China. The U.S. hope, heavily colored by wishful thinking, was that China was on the way toward becoming a modern and enlightened country. China might not be Christian, but it could still be a constructive partner for America.

This seductive vision ignored some fundamental realities. China was not just another big developing country. The Chinese were deeply aware of China’s long (“five thousand years”) and illustrious history. Deep in the collective DNA was the conviction that China embodied the world’s oldest and greatest civilization. However, part of that heritage was the “century of humiliation” (roughly from the 1840s to the 1940s) when China was dominated and despoiled by Western powers and finally by Japan.

The combination of absolute certitude concerning China’s cultural superiority and burning resentment over the actions of outside powers generated a fierce determination in China’s contemporary leaders to do more than just build a modern, successful China. Chinese nationalism and pride demanded much more—the restoration of China to a position of regional dominance and global preeminence. The Middle Kingdom must once again resume its rightful place, i.e., China must become the world’s greatest economic and military power.

In specific terms, this means (1) China will achieve a strategic monopoly in East Asia including full dominance over the South China Sea and the expulsion of U.S. military power from the area and (2) China must gain dominance over the most advanced scientific and technological sectors that constitute the foundations of 21^st century state power. In support of the first objective, China has built and deployed an impressive armada of naval and air power off its shores. At the same time, China has built a number of artificial islands in the South China Sea that are being equipped as military bases. As for the second objective, China’s much-ballyhooed “Made in China 2025” is a government campaign designed to achieve Chinese dominance over key hi-tech industries (including robotics, artificial intelligence, and aerospace) within the next seven years.

China has long used the lure of its market to compel U.S. firms to divulge key trade and technology secrets as the price of doing business in China. At the same time, China has built a robust intelligence capability dedicated to stealing the most advanced science and technology developed by U.S. companies, universities, and research institutions using cyber penetrations and traditional spies. The head of the FBI’s counter-intelligence programs recently testified before Congress portraying the threat in graphic terms. “I believe this is the most severe counterintelligence threat facing our country today. Every rock we turn over, every time we looked for it, it’s not only there, it’s worse than we anticipated. Our prosperity and place in the world are at risk.”

The U.S. government has been very slow to recognize the full dimensions of China’s challenge—and the costs of self-delusion and delay are very high. In the South China Sea, the U.S. navy is faced with the question whether it can maintain an effective presence where it is already outgunned at least ten to one by Chinese maritime forces. In the world of advanced S&T, China’s bid for global leadership (read dominance) is already formidable. Just ask Silicon Valley. The administration has adopted a more confrontational posture toward China, but the focus has been on trade revenues and tariffs. These are a sideshow. The Pentagon and the Intelligence Community know that the main event is far more serious. It is not at all clear that President Trump understands that.

*About the author: Marvin C. Ott is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Source: This article was published by FPRI

By Dave Albin*

Recently, the announcement that a scientist in China has apparently created gene-edited humans caused widespread panic and concern. Twins from two embryos that had an altered genetic segment (for mediation of potential future disease), using a relatively new technique called CRISPR, were born. Many of the responses to this event are telling in ways that the responders, mainly scientists and ethicists, may have not considered.

First of all, it’s interesting that the supplies and knowledge to perform an act of specific gene editing seem to be commercially available and well understood. This combined with the ability to isolate the natural materials for human reproduction, namely sperm and eggs, and perform in vitro fertilization with them to eventually produce a human with an altered genetic code has some calling for a moratorium on these activities. Indeed, the rise of “citizen scientists” seems to be a threat to the scientific establishment. The scary and ill-defined term “designer babies” is back being thrown around during these discussions, which often miss larger points of consideration.

Let’s touch on the use of scary-sounding terms like “designer babies.” Whenever a human embryo has been selected using genetic techniques, such as determining if an embryo carries an abnormality, these practices fall into this category. Interestingly, this doesn’t seem to cause as much concern, even though it may mean selecting embryos (meaning that others, potential people, are discarded) to avoid disease states, as using this technology to produce children with pre-selected gender, eye color, hair color, intellect, or other desired traits. This is where the concern seems to lie.

The fact that this is very much how normal human reproduction often works seems to have been lost in the debate. As long as humans have been around, people have selected their mates based on external and internal characteristics, such as all these things previously mentioned and more (and certainly some that cannot be categorized or defined). Even when a pregnancy is “unplanned” or out of wedlock, there is almost always some level of biological selection that had occurred beforehand. And this selection process will have important impacts on the characteristics of the resulting child or children. To some degree, all babies are “designer babies”. The other way of doing it is to have some group of people decide who gets to have children, or to have it happen “randomly” through assignment – some version of this controlled by someone other than you. I’m not sure whom I trust to have that much responsibility over humanity.

That it seems to be at least somewhat acceptable to screen embryos (or sperm or eggs cells) for signs of disease before use, but not to use these gene-editing techniques to fix (or attempt to fix) or minimize disease, is also telling. The scientists in China did, in fact, attempt to do this, but it’s been called unnecessary because other treatments already exist . Is it the position of these naysayers that new technologies, and treatments to alleviate human suffering from disease, are no longer necessary because current treatments exist? Strange indeed from “open-minded” scientists.

Of course, these are important issues, and luckily for us, we already have the framework of private property rights and individual sovereignty that would work just fine. If we are unable to start from a premise that each individual owns his or her own body, that seems like a major problem to me. If each individual does not own his own body, who does? The issue of children also raises questions that have been dealt with for thousands of years — babies need constant care, children need guidance as they are growing up, and at some point, they become adults, with their own natural rights and bodily ownership. All of this has been covered before by many, including Murray Rothbard (in chapter 7) and Josiah Warren. And, it should be stated that, in this particular case, parental consent was apparently obtained before any of this happened.

The language used to oppose gene-editing technologies with humans is also very telling. For example, a group called the Center for Genetics and Society has long been involved in encouraging “responsible use and regulation of new human genetic and reproductive technologies.” This group has called for an international moratorium on human embryo editing, stating “We’re living in a time when racism and socioeconomic disparities are increasing dramatically” and “The last thing we need is for some biological procedure to fuel the false idea that some groups are biologically superior to others.”

These are certainly all valid concerns. But, if we look back at past statements made on behalf of this group, it becomes a little more clear what they are after. Speaking against state-enforced patent protections for genetic materials (rightly so, because it means that a corporation can, strictly speaking, own a small piece of a person, and often many people), the following murky case was laid out with these initial statements:

Beyond U.S. patent law lie broader questions: Should we treat human genes as private property to be exploited for profit rather than shared resources managed in the public interest? Should we allow corporate ownership to penetrate deeply into areas previously considered outside the commercial realm?

So, considering genes, components that make up who and what we are, as privately owned is negative because they are “exploited for profit,” but having them treated as “shared resources” that are “managed in the public interest” is perfectly fine? Again, who do you trust to be the “manager” if not the individual?

This editorial closed with the even more confused statement, “….it (outlawing human gene patents) would restore our genomic heritage, the very DNA in our bodies, to the rightful owners — the people.” So, putting all this together, everyone has their own DNA, but “the people” somehow need to “restore our genomic heritage” by banning techniques to alter the genes that we somehow all share together?

Even so (and perhaps in light of all this confusion), calls for “oversight” in the US by National Institutes of Health have already begun, even though this appears to be illegal at the US federal level already. Rather than more bureaucratic layers and “sharing” of genetic material, property rights, individual sovereignty, and norms associated with child rearing will work just fine, thank you.

*About the author: Dave Albin conducts process development research and provides technical support for a food equipment manufacturer in Iowa. Contact Dave Albin

Source: This article was published by the MISES Institute

The Diocese of Spokane said Thursday it was unacceptable that Jesuit priests credibly accused of sexual abuse were unsupervised on the campus of Gonzaga University. While Spokane’s current bishop had no knowledge the priests had been living at the university, the diocese said its prior bishop was informed of their presence in 2011.

“The Diocese of Spokane shares the concern of those who are angry and saddened to learn that the Oregon Province of Jesuits—now part of the Jesuits West Province—placed Jesuits credibly accused of sexual abuse at the Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga University’s campus without informing the Gonzaga community,” a Dec. 20 statement from the diocese read.

In June 2011, “the Jesuit Provincial, Father Patrick Lee, informed then-Bishop Blase Cupich that seven priests with safety plans in place were living at Bea House,” the diocesan statement added.

“Bishop Thomas Daly—who was installed in 2015—was not informed by the Jesuits or Gonzaga University that these men were living at Cardinal Bea House.”

While the Jesuit province informed the diocese that the accused priests “were living on campus with safety plans requiring such things as chaperones for any trips out of Cardinal Bea House and restricting their public ministry,” recent media reporting “indicates that these credibly accused Jesuits were free to come and go on campus,” the statement read.

“This was an unacceptable situation.”
 
Since at least 2003, several Jesuit priests accused of sexual abuse were housed at the Cardinal Bea House on the campus of Spokane’s Gonzaga University, according to a series of investigative reports published this week by Northwest News Network, and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The sexual abuse accusations against the priests living on Gonzaga’s campus were not made known publicly by the university, the Jesuit province, or the diocese. Most of the accused priests were reported to be living at the Gonzaga residence in retirement or due to their declining health.
 
The house is a residence owned by the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus, and not overseen by the university. The credibly accused priests living there were reportedly subject to “safety plans” which forbade them from engaging with students.

According to the media reports, at least some credibly accused priests had regular unsupervised access to the university campus and unsupervised visits with students, and were permitted to lead prayer services in other settings, including Native American reservations.

No priests known to have been accused of abuse are now living in the campus house. The last priest known to have been accused of abuse was moved from the facility in 2016.

A diocesan spokesman told CNA that the diocese believes the priests were permitted by the Jesuits only to perform ministry “within the Regis Community of Jesuits at the Bea House,” and therefore they did not request permission from the diocese for permission to celebrate Mass or other sacraments in other contexts.

“Priests residing in the diocese but not involved in active ministry would not be granted faculties unless they requested faculties. Credibly accused Jesuit priests such as James Poole were restricted by the province.”

However, a policy change approved last month by Spokane’s current head, Bishop Thomas Daly requires any priest to undergo a background check before being permitted even to reside in the diocese, regardless of whether or not the priest intends to perform ministry.

The spokesman that the diocese is “in the process of implementing the new policies and requirements for all extern priests resident in the diocese.”

Among the priests accused of sexual abuse who lived on the Gonzaga campus was Fr. James Poole, SJ.

In 2005, an Anchorage woman, Elsie Boudreau, settled for $1 million a lawsuit against Poole, his Jesuit province, and the Diocese of Fairbanks.

Boudreau’s lawsuit claimed that she was molested by Poole, who was stationed in her home of Nome, Alaska, from the time she was 10 years old until she was 19, when she told him she would never be alone with him again.

The Fairbanks diocese paid half of the settlement, and the Oregon province paid the other half, according to a 2005 report in the Spokesman Review.

At the time of the settlement, Jesuit provincial Fr. John Whitney told the Spokane Spokesman Review that Poole had admitted the abuse, and was moved to Gonzaga campus in 2003, after his admission.

Poole would not be permitted to leave his residence on the Gonzaga campus unaccompanied, nor would he be permitted to be alone with visitors, Whitney said.

Whitney also told the Spokesman Review in 2005 that until Boudreau came forward, the Jesuit province had no idea that Poole had committed sexual abuse.

The Spokesman-Review, however, reported that Jesuit authorities knew since at least 1960 Poole had acted inappropriately in conversations with children about sex. Jesuit authorities said at that time that Poole had “a fixation on sex; an obsession.”

And, despite Whitney’s 2005 remarks, Jesuit officials were informed in 1997 by Bishop Michael Kaniecki, SJ, of Fairbanks that Poole had a history of sexual misconduct and abuse allegations; a fact that had been known to Kaniecki, himself a Jesuit, since 1986.

Whitney did not inform Gonzaga administrators or Spokane police that Poole and other residents were accused of sexually abuse. Despite the restrictions Whitney imposed on him, Poole regularly went to Gonzaga basketball games and its library, and met alone with a female student at least once.

On Dec. 18 Gonzaga University President Thayne McCulloh said he had not notified of that priests credibly accused of abuse were living on the university’s campus until 2016, although he had learned “in the years following” 2011 that priests with safety plans had previously lived there.

McCulloh said that he was wounded to learn that “the Society of Jesus had knowingly sent a man with Poole’s record of sexual abuse to live in their facility within the parameters of our campus — which serves not only as the home of college students, but regularly hosts grade-school children and visitors of all ages — without notification by the Province to the University.”

“I have asked that we be guaranteed that no Jesuit against whom credible allegations of sexual misconduct or abuse have been made ever be assigned to Gonzaga or the Jesuit communities here,” McCulloh added.

A spokesman for the Jesuits West Province, which was formed by a 2017 merger of the Oregon and California provinces of the order, said Dec. 18 that “Jesuits West guarantees that no Jesuit with a credible allegation of sexual abuse of a minor is currently or will ever be knowingly assigned to Gonzaga University or the Jesuit community on its campus.”

Such priests will instead live in a health care facility in California, the province said.

The US Department of Defense on Thursday provided to the Congress the semiannual report “Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan” covering events during the period from June 1 to November 30, 2018. The report was submitted in accordance with requirements in Section 1225 of the Fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as amended by Sections 1231 and 1531 of the Fiscal 2016 and Fiscal 2017 NDAA. 

The principle goal of the South Asia Strategy is to conclude the war in Afghanistan on terms favorable to Afghanistan and the United States.  During this reporting period, the United States and its partners used military force to drive the Taliban towards a durable and inclusive political settlement.  There have been some notable developments – the June Eid al-Fitr ceasefire and the support for peace from the broader Islamic community – which threatened the legitimacy of the Taliban. 

The Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation (SRAR), Ambassador Zalmay Khalilizad, has reinforced U.S. diplomatic engagements with Afghans, neighboring states and interested parties in the broader region.  Increased military pressure on the Taliban, international calls for peace, and the new SRAR’s engagements appear to be driving the Taliban to negotiations.

The introduction of additional advisors and enablers in 2018 stabilized the situation in Afghanistan, slowing the momentum of a Taliban march that had capitalized on U.S. drawdowns between 2011 and 2016.  The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) remain in control of most of Afghanistan’s population centers and all of the provincial capitals, while the Taliban control large portions of Afghanistan’s rural areas, and continue to attack poorly defended government checkpoints and rural district centers.

The reinforcement and realignment of U.S. and coalition forces and authorities under the South Asia Strategy have significantly increased pressure on the Taliban.  Continued DOD partnership with the Afghan Special Security Forces (ASSF) has produced an extremely lethal and agile offensive force.  Enhanced efforts to train, advise and assist (TAA) the ANDSF, from strategic to tactical levels, including the employment of the Army’s 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB) improved Afghan offensive capabilities.

NATO allies and partners remain committed to Afghanistan’s long-term security and stability.  At the July 2018 NATO Summit in Brussels, allies and partners reaffirmed their commitment to the Resolute Support (RS) TAA mission and agreed to extend financial sustainment of the ANDSF through 2024.  Furthermore, RS welcomed Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as new operational partners, increasing the coalition from 39 to 41 allies and partners and providing evidence that our partners and allies know that our strategy is working.

Afghanistan held parliamentary elections in late October, and did so with minimal U.S. military support.  Although the elections were not without violence, ANDSF preparation to secure polling stations resulted in an election that was less violent than any election conducted over the past ten years.  The parliamentary elections demonstrated the significant growth and development of Afghanistan’s institutional and security capabilities, and help set the stage for presidential elections in 2019.

The US House of Representatives has approved $5.7bn in funding for a border wall after President Trump rejected a budget without it. The Senate is unlikely to pass the new bill, raising fears of a partial government shutdown.

Trump had stated earlier on Thursday that he would refuse to sign any version of the bill without funding for a wall, sending a compromise bill that would have kept the government open through February back to the drawing board.

The House voted 217-185 to pass the new version of the bill, mostly split between Republicans and Democrats, who have rejected funding the wall. Without a successful agreement, funding for many government departments will expire at midnight on Friday.

This is the last chance for the Republican-led House to flex its muscles, as January will see a new Democratic majority seated, and the Republicans’ Freedom Caucus has promised to back Trump in his push for the wall.

In a meeting with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi last week, Trump said he had no problem shutting down the government to get his wall. On Thursday, he tweeted that Congressional leadership had talked him into signing last year’s government funding bill with a promise that the wall would be funded afterwards – only to renege on the deal.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. Defense Chief Jim Mattis will be leaving his post early next year, saying in his resignation letter that his views are not fully “aligned” with President Donald Trump and citing policies toward Russia and China as among the differences.

Mattis’ comments came on December 20 in a letter to the president that was made public shortly after Trump announced on Twitter that the defense secretary would be retiring at the end of February 2019.

The upcoming departure is the latest in a flurry of announced exits from the U.S. administration as Trump nears the halfway point in his four-year term.

It comes a day after Trump surprised and angered many U.S. military leaders, lawmakers, and international allies by announcing he was withdrawing “all” U.S. troops from Syria, where they are assisting a Syrian Arab and Kurdish alliance fighting against Islamic State (IS) militants and other forces.

News agencies are reporting that Mattis and other national security aides opposed the decision, saying it handed Russia, Iran, and Turkey a victory. Reuters quoted an unnamed senior White House official as saying that Mattis resigned during a meeting with Trump after the two had a difference of opinions “on some issues.”

The 68-year-old Mattis, a Marine Corps general, was one of the most-respected members of the Trump administration and had won praise from both Democrats and Republicans. Some, however, have criticized Mattis for not standing up to Trump for policies that many in Congress have opposed.

In his resignation letter, Mattis said, “I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours.

“It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America, and our allies.”

Mattis added that his views of “treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.”

“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” Mattis said.

Minutes earlier, Trump wrote on Twitter that “General Jim Mattis will be retiring, with distinction, at the end of February, after having served my Administration as Secretary of Defense for the past two years.”

“During Jim’s tenure, tremendous progress has been made, especially with respect to the purchase of new fighting….equipment.”

“General Mattis was a great help to me in getting allies and other countries to pay their share of military obligations. A new Secretary of Defense will be named shortly. I greatly thank Jim for his service!” Trump added.

Trump announced on December 8 that John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, would be leaving his post as White House chief of staff by the end of the year.

Trump and Kelly had been rumored to be at odds over many issues, with some U.S. media reporting the two are no longer speaking to each other.

Among other recent departures, Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general, was forced out of his position on November 7, while U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said on October 9 that she would step down at the end of the year.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired on March 13 after disagreements with the president. Trump later tweeted that Tillerson was “dumb as a rock” and “lazy as hell” after Tillerson said Trump was “pretty undisciplined,” and did not read.

President Donald Trump is considering a significant U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The first of the U.S. troops could come home as early as next month, the officials told U.S. news agencies.

There has been no comment so far from the Pentagon or U.S. Central Command.

There are 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Their noncombat mission is training and advising Afghan forces in taking over responsibility for security in their own country.

The comments from the U.S. officials came a day after Trump’s stunning announcement that the U.S. would pull its troops out of Syria.

“I think it shows how serious the president is about wanting to come out of conflicts,” a senior U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal. “I think he wants to see viable options about how to bring conflicts to a close.”

As legal access to marijuana continues expanding across the U.S., more scientists are studying the effects of its active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), in teens, adults and pregnant women.

New research from Duke Health suggests men in their child-bearing years should also consider how THC could impact their sperm and possibly the children they conceive during periods when they’ve been using the drug.

Much like previous research that has shown tobacco smoke, pesticides, flame retardants and even obesity can alter sperm, the Duke research shows THC also affects epigenetics, triggering structural and regulatory changes in the DNA of users’ sperm.

Experiments in rats and a study with 24 men found that THC appears to target genes in two major cellular pathways and alters DNA methylation, a process essential to normal development.

The researchers do not yet know whether DNA changes triggered by THC are passed to users’ children and what effects that could have. Their findings will be published online Dec. 19 in the journal Epigenetics.

“What we have found is that the effects of cannabis use on males and their reproductive health are not completely null, in that there’s something about cannabis use that affects the genetic profile in sperm,” said Scott Kollins, Ph.D., professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke and senior author of the study.

“We don’t yet know what that means, but the fact that more and more young males of child-bearing age have legal access to cannabis is something we should be thinking about,” Kollins said.

National research has shown a steady decline in the perceived risk of regular marijuana use. This, combined with the demand and wide availability of marijuana bred specifically to yield higher THC content, make this research especially timely, Kollins said.

The study defined regular users as those who smoked marijuana at least weekly for the previous six months. Their sperm were compared to those who had not used marijuana in the past six months and not more than 10 times in their lifetimes.

The higher the concentration of THC in the men’s urine, the more pronounced the genetic changes to their sperm were, the authors found.

THC appeared to impact hundreds of different genes in rats and humans, but many of the genes did have something in common — they were associated with two of the same major cellular pathways, said lead author Susan K. Murphy, Ph.D., associate professor and chief of the Division of Reproductive Sciences in obstetrics and gynecology at Duke.

One of the pathways is involved in helping bodily organs reach their full size; the other involves a large number of genes that regulate growth during development. Both pathways can become dysregulated in some cancers.

“In terms of what it means for the developing child, we just don’t know,” Murphy said. It’s unknown whether sperm affected by THC could be healthy enough to even fertilize an egg and continue its development into an embryo, she said.

The study was a starting point on the epigenetic effects of THC on sperm and is limited by the relatively small number of men involved in the trial, Murphy said. The findings in men also could be confounded by other factors affecting their health, such as their nutrition, sleep, alcohol use and other lifestyle habits.

The Duke team plans to continue its research with larger groups. They intend to study whether changes in sperm are reversed when men stop using marijuana. They also hope to test the umbilical cord blood of babies born to fathers with THC-altered sperm to determine what, if any epigenetic changes, are carried forward to the child.

“We know that there are effects of cannabis use on the regulatory mechanisms in sperm DNA, but we don’t know whether they can be transmitted to the next generation,” Murphy said.

“In the absence of a larger, definitive study, the best advice would be to assume these changes are going to be there,” Murphy said. “We don’t know whether they are going to be permanent. I would say, as a precaution, stop using cannabis for at least six months before trying to conceive.”

By Luke Coffey*

Weeks of protest in the capital city of a major country. Cars set on fire, buildings damaged, security forces using tear gas, and armored police vehicles deployed on the streets. 

This is the situation in Paris. Had this been in a country in the Middle East in 2011, the West would already have been calling for a peaceful transition of power to take place. 

For weeks protesters sporting bright yellow safety vests — required by law to be kept in every French car — have targeted the center of the French capital, striking at the heart of the country’s political elite. 

The protests, which began in rural areas in France, are the most violent central Paris has seen since 1968, and the worst in the country since 2005.

While fuel taxes sparked the initial outcry, the demonstrations quickly morphed into general anti-government protests. This is probably why concession after concession by the French government has failed to appease the protesters. 

Heading into the holiday season in Europe, there is no sign that the protests will stop any time soon. In fact, they seem to be spreading to other countries across Europe — and even globally. Demonstrations have spread to Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland. They have also taken place in Canada, Tunisia and Iraq. In Egypt, sale of yellow vests has been restricted by the government. 

The underlying theme connecting most of the protests throughout Europe is the growing dissatisfaction with the “European project” and the economic and political conditions the project has produced for the average person. With each European treaty over the years, power has been centralized in Brussels, leaving those most affected by laws coming from the EU feeling more distant than ever from the decision-making process. 

The rush for deeper political and economic integration — no matter what the social cost — planted the seed for much of the political disenchantment seen today. Whether it was inviting countries into the euro zone that did not fully qualify (Greece) or inviting countries into the EU who were not ready to join (Bulgaria), many of the political and economic decisions taken by Brussels have made the social situation worse in many nations.

It is ironic that an organization such as the EU, which was created to encourage and promote stability and prosperity across Europe, has in recent times become one of the greatest causes of instability and economic decline on the continent. 

Italy’s economy today is smaller than it was in 2008. At the height of the euro zone crisis, Greece and Spain had youth unemployment levels at 50 percent. When the economic situation is so dire, there will be social consequences. This is what we are seeing today. 

The political consequence of the economic crisis was the rise of political parties on the far right and left. The growing popularity of extreme parties has done two things. First, it has squeezed the moderate political middle to the point where it feels it has no voice or is so desperate to be heard that it starts flirting with extreme movements. This leads to the further polarization of the political system. 

Second, it has allowed countries such as Russia to take advantage of the situation, with Moscow advancing its geopolitical goal of dividing Western societies and weakening government institutions. Russia is often blamed for the rise of extreme political movements in Europe. While there is evidence to show that Moscow does, in fact, fund and support some of these movements, it is more truthful to say that Russia does a better job taking advantage of these movements after they are established.

One thing that seems clear, however, is that the different yellow vest protest movements popping up across Europe appear to have no single message other than an anti-establishment one. 

While protests in France began over green taxes on the price of fuel, yellow vests protesters in Ireland are a motley crew of socialist republicans demonstrating alongside those campaigning against the use of fluoride in the public water supply. In the UK, parts of the pro-Brexit movement have adopted the yellow vest and have little in common with their Irish counterparts. In Sweden, protesters are angry about the country signing on to the Global Compact for Refugees, while in Belgium the main gripe is about taxes. 

Until policies are pursued that address many of the economic and political problems created by an aloof European elite, social disenchantment among Europe’s populations will remain. If the legitimate grievances of the political middle are not taken seriously then expect the rise of extreme political parties, both on the left and the right, to continue. 

It remains to be seen if Europe’s leaders are willing to confront this issue head-on, or if they will simply learn to live with constant protests and social disenchantment. 

How long the yellow vest movement will last is anyone’s guess, but the underlying causes of the recent protests are unlikely to go away any time soon. 

• Luke Coffey is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @LukeDCoffey