The Patriarchate of Constantinople will expand its presence in Russia through the parishes of the former Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP). There are also negotiations on the restoration of communion with representatives of the so-called Catacomb church.

According to the statute adopted by the episcopate of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), as well as the Tomos of autocephaly that goes in the same package, after the OCU is granted independence, all its communities outside Ukraine with their hierarchs and clergy should fall under the direct control of Patriarch Bartholomew.

In light of the growing conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and since the latter has opened its own parishes in Turkey, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is expected to put pressure on Moscow via its new parishes in Russia under the “metropolitans” Adrian and Joasaph of the former UOC-KP. Moreover, according to our sources, the presence of Constantinople in the canonical territory of the ROC may expand further through the Russian non-canonical communities of the so-called Catacomb or the True Orthodox schismatic branches.

The first example of this scenario is the appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew by the marginal “Schema-Metropolitan of Moscow” Seraphim (Raphael) Prokofiev-Motovilov, the head of the “True Orthodox Church (TOC-R or Raphaelites)”.

In his letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Motovilov asks for the “recognition of the hierarchy” of the TOC-R, citing the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to recognize the hierarchy of Macarius Maletich (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, UAOC). Indeed, the hierarchy of the TOC-R of Motovilov originated from the UAOC: the first bishop of the TOC-R, Stefan (Linitsky), was “consecrated” on December 17, 1996 in Ternopil, Ukraine, by then Bishop of Khmelnitsky and Kamenets-Podolsky Methodius (Kudriakov) The latter was ordained in the UOC-KP by “Patriarch” Volodymyr (Romaniuk) who had received “grace” from Vikenty Chekalin through Andriy Abramchuk.

In its turn, in October 2018, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized as canonical the hierarchy of the UAOC including all of its departed bishops. This was attested to by the Patriarch Bartholomew’s letter to Metropolitan Makarius (Maletich).

It is worth noting that so-called Metropolitan Seraphim Motovilov maintains close contacts with the “True Orthodox Church” of the Greek Old Calendarists, for example with “Metropolitan of Avlona and Boeotia” Angelos Anastasiou. He is also known for blaming Patriarch Bartholomew for ecumenism and having a scandalous reputation, in particular for being openly involved in commercial extrasensory healing and witchcraft.

According to the latest information, the Patriarchate is seriously considering the possibility of accepting Seraphim Motovilov into communion – as a measure of last resort in response to the non-canonical actions of the Moscow Patriarchate in Turkey.

Don’t forget that a new Orthodox church appeared in Ukraine under the auspices of the Constantinople. At the Council held on December 15 the two largest denominations previously out of communion with the Orthodox world got united, elected their new Primate and approved the statute. New Orthodox Church in Ukraine is expected to be granted a tomos of autocephaly on January 6 in Istanbul.

These events provoked a severe response of the ROC which views the situation as an encroachment on its canonical territory and an attempt to destroy the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

As early as October 15, after Constantinople nullified anathemas imposed on the heads of competing Ukrainian churches by the Moscow Patriarchate, the Synod of the ROC broke communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Under the pretext of concern for believers of the Moscow Patriarchate in Turkey, as well as in response to the opening of Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Stavropegia in Ukraine, on November 10, the head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department of External Church Relations Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk announced the decision on sending of the ROC clergy to Turkey. Although the Ecumenical Patriarchate had never agreed to this, at that point Moscow deemed it possible to make a unilateral decision.

At the same time, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew began to restore canonical order in the Orthodox diaspora, asserting the exclusive right of Constantinople to shepherd it. For example, he made a historic trip to South Korea.

*Jelena Rakocevic graduated from University of Montenegro in 2013 with a Master in International Relations degree and currently lives in Podgorica, Montenegro. Rakocevic’s writings have been published by Delfi.lt, EurasiaReview.com, ModernDemocracy.eu and other digital media.

Under the chairmanship of Boris Gryzlov, the State Duma which is the lower chamber of legislators, held the first Russia-Africa Inter-Parliamentary Conference and a special mini business forum themed “Russia – Africa: Horizons of Cooperation” on June 15, 2010. Nearly a decade has elapsed, Russia is only now returning to fill in the pitfalls and cracks in its relationships with Africa.

On Nov 19, Russian legislators together with the Ambassadors of African countries in the Russian Federation agreed to hold the next conference in 2019. During the preparatory meeting, the meeting noted the use of this platform to exchange views on common problems, common issues for the African continent and the Russian Federation. The participants hoped to use the forthcoming conference to brainstorm for views and opinions necessary for consolidating the future relations and serve as a stimulus for enhancing cooperation between the Russian Federation and African countries.

The Chairman of the State Duma, Viacheslav Volodin, said during the opening speech: “We propose to move from intentions to concrete steps” and finally called for the presence of Russian media on the African continent. There were many contributions during the meeting among them from Ambassador of Algeria H.E. Smail Allaoua, Ambassador of Rwanda H.E. Jeanne d’Arc Mujawamariya and Ambassador of Zimbabwe Major General (rtd) Nicholas Mike Sango.

After the State Duma meeting, Kester Kenn Klomegah fixed an interview with (H.E.) Ambassador Major General (rtd) Nicholas Mike Sango who willingly shared his objective views and opinions on a few current issues connecting Russia and Africa. Here are the interview excerpts:

Aside the inter-parliamentary conference, what important issues came up at the meeting with Russian legislators held recently in the State Duma?

The meeting of the Chairman of the State Duma (lower chamber of Russian legislators) and African Ambassadors in October was a welcome first initiative towards the convening of the Russia-Africa Parliamentary Forum.

This initiative was informed by the recognition that despite the geographical locations of the two institutions, the disparity in the level of development, the diversity of cultures and aspirations of the peoples of the two regions, there is growing realization that Africa is an important partner in the “emerging and sustainable polycentric architecture of the world order” as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has aptly asserted. In fact, Africa’s critical mass can only be ignored at great risk therefore.

State Duma proposes to move away from intentions to concrete steps. Does it imply that Russia has unfulfilled promises and pledges in Africa? What are your objective views about this?

For a long time, Russia’s foreign policy on Africa has failed to pronounce itself in practical terms as evidenced by the countable forays into Africa by Russian officials. The Russia-Africa Parliamentary Forum can only achieve the desired objectives if anchored on a solid policy framework.

What would African leaders prefer: the development of political relations or expansion of genuine economic partnership?

While Russia and Africa have common positions on the global platform, the need to recognize and appreciate the aspirations of the common man cannot be overstated. Africa desires economic upliftment, human security in the form of education, health, shelter as well as security from transnational terrorism among many challenges afflicting Africa. The Russian Federation has the capacity and ability to assist Africa overcome these challenges leveraging on Africa’s vast resources.

Despite the historical social and political relations, the Russian Federation has shied away from economic cooperation with Africa, making forays into the few countries that she has engaged in the last few years. African leaders hold Russia in high esteem as evidenced by the large number of African embassies in Moscow. Russia has no colonial legacy in Africa.

Unfortunately, the former colonial masters continue to exploit African resources because, despite the “Look East Policy” adopted by Africa, Russia has not responded in the manner expected by Africa, as has China, India and South Korea, to name a few. Africa’s expectation is that Russia, while largely in the extractive industry, will steadily transfer technologies for local processing of raw materials as a catalyst for Africa’s development.

At least, over the past decade Russia has signed various bilateral agreements and MoUs nearly with all African countries. Do you think there have been challenges in implementing these agreements?

The Russian Federation has singed bilateral agreements with a number of African countries. These agreements, of necessity require strong government support anchored on a social policy that promotes a two-way beneficiation. African products other than from a few north African countries and South Africa find their way into the Russian market. As a result, trade figures between Russia and Africa are anchored on selective countries even though a number of bilateral agreements with other African countries are in place.

State Duma talk about Russian media presence in Africa. What steps can we take to raise African media representation in the Russian Federation?

The Sochi International Olympics and the FIFA international football extravaganza surprised many Africans on the level of development of the Federation. There is a dearth of information about the country. Russia-Africa issues are reported by third parties and often not in good light. Is this not a moment that Russia has coverage on Africa by being permanently present in the continent? Even the strongest foreign policies if not sold out by the media, will definitely not succeed.

Indeed, Africa’s media should equally find space to operate in Russia. Because of limited resources, Russia should equally make it easier for African journalists to operate on her territory. The Russia-Africa Parliamentary Forum as a precursor to the Russia-Africa Forum should lay the necessary foundation for deeper and holistic Russia-Africa political, cultural and economic cooperation for mutual benefit of the peoples of the two friendly institutions.

Two developments, the pending return of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to the Arab fold and protests in Sudan, Jordan and Tunisia, send contradictory messages of where the Middle East and North Africa are headed.

Conservative monarchies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that for much of the past decade have gone to great lengths to reverse the achievements of the 2011 Arab popular revolts that toppled the autocratic leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and sparked mass protests in a swath of land stretching from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Gulf have heralded the pending lifting of Syria’s suspended membership of the Arab League as symbolizing the definitive death of the Arab spring.

A number of recent contacts, including a visit to Damascus by embattled Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, the first by an Arab leader since the eruption of the Syrian civil war; a meeting in Cairo of Syrian and Egyptian intelligence chiefs, and the refurbishing of the shuttered UAE embassy in the Syrian capital, are widely seen as precursors for Syria’s return.

In a twist of irony, Messrs. Al-Bashir and Al-Assad have both been accused of war crimes. The International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Al-Bashir that has largely been ignored by Middle Eastern and African nations.

Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who overthrew Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s first and only democratically elected leader, in a UAE-Saudi-backed military coup in 2013, drove home autocrats’ seeming victory with the appearance in a court of the country’s two toppled leaders, Hosni Mubarak and Mr. Morsi.

In a demonstration of Mr. Al-Sisi’s supremacy, Mr. Mubarak was required to testify against Mr. Morsi in a case involving a 2011 jail break.

There is little doubt that Middle Eastern and North African autocracy has the winds at its back, in part because many in the region have been taken aback by the brutality of the counterrevolution that has sparked civil war, military intervention and harsh repression.

Nonetheless, multiple protests in recent years across the region in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Mauritania and Sudan as well as online protests in various countries, including Saudi Arabia, suggest that grievances underlying the 2011 and subsequent protests remain widespread. This is true for countries like Egypt where the achievements of the 2011 protests have been reversed as well as Tunisia, the one country that succeeded in pursuing political transition.

A recent survey conducted by Zogby Research Services (ZRS) concluded that only one in five Tunisians and Egyptians believed that their country was moving in the “right direction,” while 69% of Tunisians and 55% of Egyptians said their countries were moving in the “wrong direction.”

When asked whether respondents felt they were better or worse off than they had been five years ago, only 21% of Tunisians and 20% of Egyptians said “better off,” while 59% of Tunisians and 64% of Egyptians claimed they were “worse off.”

The survey seemed to confirm the notion that the key to long-term stability in the Middle East and North Africa lies in resolving the region’s ticking time bomb: unemployment and particularly youth unemployment.

The Zogby survey showed that employment, corruption, nepotism, an improved educational system and political reform were priorities for Egyptians and Tunisians. “The bottom line: the need to create jobs and reform governance so as to create greater confidence and opportunities for citizens are the challenges faced by the leaderships in both Tunisia and Egypt,” said James J. Zogby, the founder of ZRS.

Official youth unemployment rates across the Middle East hover around 30 percent and 20-25 percent in North Africa with real rates believed to be far higher.

Neither Arab autocrats nor democratic Tunisia have so far been able to deliver. Yet, the outcome of the battle between greater political liberalism and autocracy in the Middle East is likely to be won in the sphere of economics rather than politics.

Arab autocrats as well as Tunisian leaders have since 2011 been long on promising economic reform that would create jobs and enhance career perspectives and short on delivery. A failure to tackle corruption, the enhanced role of the state in countries like Egypt where the military supported by the UAE and Saudi Arabia plays an ever-greater role in the economy, and depressed oil prices, have stymied growth in the region.

As a result, economics rather than politics will also seal the ultimate fate of the Arab spring, a code word for the crisis of confidence in the system and in leadership that has helped autocrats in the Middle East and North Africa retain or regain power and has fuelled populism, nationalism and the rise of the far right across the globe.

In a rare and furtive recognition of Middle Eastern and North African realities by the Trump administration, the US embassy in Riyadh tweeted in early December a video with Arabic subtitles promoting peaceful protest as a path to “positive social and political changes,” but quickly deleted it when questioned about it by Middle East Eye.

The video argued that “even in oppressive, authoritarian conditions, protesters can tailor their campaigns to succeed.” It featured archival photos of celebrated protest movements, asserting that research showed that between 1900 and 2006, non-violent protests had been twice as effective as violent ones.

Mr. Al-Assad’s return to the Arab fold may constitute one more setback for forces of change in the Middle East and North Africa but is a long way from symbolizing their demise. For that to happen, the region’s autocrats have to make good on their promises by implementing painful structural reforms that inevitably will challenge vested interests. So far, there is little indication of that happening.

Which means that a warning earlier this year by Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that “public dissatisfaction, bubbling up in several countries, is a reminder that even more urgent action is needed” remains as valid today as when she first issued it.

The international community continues to actively monitor the situation around the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty after the US stated their intent to withdraw from the agreement if Russia “will not return to compliance with its terms and conditions” within 60 days.

According to Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, the US Embassy in Moscow delivered an official note to the Foreign Ministry on December, 4, but it reproduced “groundless accusations of alleged violations by Russia without any evidence to back these claims.”

“Let me emphasise that Russia has never received any materials, data or facts from anyone proving that Moscow was in breach of this treaty or failed to comply in good faith with its provisions. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to the INF Treaty as one of the cornerstones of strategic stability and international security,” she said at the briefing on December, 5.

Analyzing difficult situation, Thomas Graham, Lecturer in Russian and European Studies at European Studies Council, MacMillan Center, Yale University, said that Russia and the United States, despite mutual accusations of violating the INF Treaty, have the opportunity to ensure the opposite.

“Experts agree that there are technical solutions that would enable each country to determine that the other side is now in compliance with the treaty. The issue is whether there is sufficient political will and desire in Moscow and Washington to save the treaty. Or whether each for its own reasons would rather be free of the limitations imposed by the INF Treaty,” Thomas Graham told PenzaNews.

From his point of view, today the question of strategic stability is no longer one that can be decided solely between the United States and Russia, as was the case during the Cold War.

“The strategic landscape has changed radically since the INF Treaty was signed in 1987. While the United States and Russia remain by a wide margin the preeminent nuclear powers, the nuclear equation is becoming increasingly multipolar as other countries, particularly China, expand their nuclear arsenals. In addition, several countries, including China, India, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, have intermediate-range ballistic missiles in their arsenals, which are not subject to the limitations of the INF Treaty,” the analyst explained.

According to him, in these circumstances the treaty needs to be multilateral.

“Achieving that would require arduous negotiation, and there is no guarantee of success. Nevertheless, even if the INF Treaty no longer makes sense, there is a reason to try to save it for the moment. Saving it would restore a modicum of trust between the United States and Russia, trust that would help the two countries to develop a way to move beyond the INF Treaty toward a new structure of arms control appropriate for today’s world,” Thomas Graham said.

In his opinion, Russia and the US are the best countries to develop such a concept adequate to the challenges of today.

“Instead of casting blame at one another for undermining strategic stability, the two countries would be better served by starting discussions aimed at jointly developing a new concept of strategic stability and then persuading other countries to adopt it. That would provide the basis for a new structure of arms control appropriate for the world we now live in. The question is how to start such discussions given the deepening antagonism between the two countries. To that question, there is no easy answer. I wish that the United States and Russia would show enough statesmanship to put an end to the deterioration in bilateral relations,” the analyst added.

In turn, Patrick Sensburg, German MP from the CDU/CSU fraction, reminded that for years the US has voiced concerns about Russia’s alleged non-compliance with the INF Treaty.

“For this reason I would like Russia to rebut our concerns with the aim of leading the discussion to be more transparent. In fact, we need to build better trust between our governments,” the politician said.

At the same time, in his opinion, the existing contract should not be terminated without an alternative project prepared in advance.

“Important treaties with the aim of disarming such as the INF should not be prematurely terminated unilaterally without any alternative – even if we are in doubt whether one side sticks to the contract or not. Together, we must work to ensure more international trust and security and we should get further then the already agreed rules and not beyond,” Patrick Sensburg said.

According to him, the world community should do everything possible to keep the agreement in action.

“We should do everything we can to maintain within the contract. The INF treaty is seen as an anchor for peace in Europe and the world. Nevertheless, the treaty needs a modernization, for example, not only involving Russia and the United States, but also countries like China,” the German MP said.

Meanwhile, Steven Pifer from Center for International Security and Cooperation, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, and former United States Ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000), ex-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, suggested that in the near future the INF Treaty will lose its power.

“Unfortunately, I fear that we are seeing the end of the INF Treaty, which will have a negative impact on European and global security,” the expert stressed.

In his opinion, the major problem is that Russia “has deployed the 9M729 ground-launched cruise missile” [SSC-8 according to Western classification; the US consider it to be a medium-range missile, prohibited by the INF Treaty; Russia is sure that the rocket is not subject to the agreement, since it was not developed or tested for such a range].

“The White House does not seem interested in preserving in treaty, and some in Pentagon would like to develop a US ground-launched intermediate-range missile. In these circumstances, no one seems to be pressing a strategy to maintain the treaty and its limits,” Steven Pifer explained.

However, breaking the agreement will bring negative consequences for both countries, he said.

“With the treaty’s demise, Russia will be free to deploy its ground-launched intermediate-range missiles. At some point, the United States and NATO will decide on military countermeasures to ensure that Russia does not gain any meaningful advantage from its deployments. The end result is likely to be less stability, less security and greater military expenses for both sides,” former US ambassador said and added that it’s important to remember why the INF Treaty was concluded in the first place.

Pal Steigan, Norwegian politician, publisher, writer, independent entrepreneur in the field of culture and information technology, shared the view that the contract would be terminated.

“With the one-sided attack on the INF Treaty by the Trump-administration I think it is beyond salvation. A treaty between two parties cannot be saved by only one of them,” the politician stressed.

In his opinion, the US has given Russia the clear signal that it will not abide by the treaty.

“Russia will have to take that into account. I cannot see any reason or even wisdom in it for them to uphold the politics of the treaty. So then you have a new arms race. But in fact there is a new arms race already. The US are positioning new theatre nuclear weapons and has launched The Nuclear Posture Review [document published by the US Department of Defense] which spells it out load that the US opens for field use of tactical nuclear weapons. And China and Russia have answered in kind presenting their new weapons,” Pal Steigan said.

According to him, the main obstacle to mutual understanding between the two countries are the American elites.

“The outline of an understanding between Trump and Putin in Helsinki would have been a good place to start. But Trump is not allowed to walk along that path by his own deep state. The Helsinki meeting opened up for disarmament and new treaties, but the deep state and the military industrial complex cannot accept that,” the politician said.

“We have been balancing on the brink of nuclear war since September 2013. It is a very dangerous situation and nuclear war could be triggered by a series of international events. And the Western politicians are sleepwalking into it,” Pal Steigan added.

In turn, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear-security expert and a professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, suggested that it is possible, but difficult to rescue the treaty.

“Russia could, for example, say: “We don’t think our 9M729 missile is a problem, but as a gesture of good will, we will dismantle the limited number of these missiles that exist, if you will add something to the Mk. 41 launcher that makes it clear it cannot fire cruise missiles,” the analyst suggested one of the scenarios.

In his opinion, the INF Treaty is still a very important document.

“Although many things have changed, saving the INF Treaty would serve both US and Russian security better than abandoning it. If the United States withdraws, then US allies in Europe and Asia face unlimited threats from Russian INF-range missiles, […] and Russia might face a short-time-of-flight threat to its nuclear command and control systems, as the US Pershing II missiles posed before they were dismantled, making any nuclear crisis more dangerous,” Matthew Bunn said.

In his opinion, the United States and Russia have to get back to talking to each other seriously about each of their concerns, and trying to find ways to build confidence and reduce the threats that each side sees as most dangerous.

“Russian President Putin and US President Trump should agree again that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and direct their experts to work seriously to reduce the nuclear dangers the two sides’ arsenals pose,” the analyst said.

“The United States and Russia should also get military-to-military contacts and nuclear scientist-to-nuclear-scientist cooperation going again. It is a danger to both our countries and to the world that the world’s largest nuclear complexes are proceeding in total isolation from each other,” the expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65855-2018

Suddenly President Trump’s no longer the fool, the dupe of his generals. Hiis latest, historic tweets are bombshells. “Getting out of Syria was no surprise. I’ve been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer. Russia, Iran, and Syria & others are the local enemy of ISIS” and the US was “doing there [sic] work.”

The shouts ‘Bring the troops home’ filtered through Washington’s cacophony — Russiagate, hookergate — and Trump was listening. 72% are in favour of pulling out of Syria, though you wouldn’t know it if all you listen to is “fake news” from the MSM. Sometimes Trump delivers, practices what he preaches. Wow.

Finally Trump is doing something he promised on the campaign trail: “Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?“

The ‘deep state’ was listening in 2016, and prepared their cold war arsenal, Russiagate, to try to bring him to his senses, or rather their senses. He started off with mud pies in the face, threats of impeachment even before he was sworn in. He fought back with tweets, ushering us into the new era of social media presidency.

They had to keep him off the Red Phone, the Washington-Moscow Direct Communications Link (Russian: Горячая линия Вашингтон — Москва), where he could talk directly with his once-admirer and friend, Vladimir Putin, making deals to take directly to the American people. So the Washington beltline has sent one guided missile after another at the president, leaving him bloodied but, apparently, far from out. In fact, just coming into his own.

JFK, LBJ

The (very few) pundits who approve compare him to LBJ (made famous by another peacenik chant: How many babies did you kill today?). In 1966, in the midst of the Vietnam War, Vermont Senator George Aiken recommended that President Lyndon Johnson simply “declare victory and get out.” Because the US clearly couldn’t win militarily, he implied it should stop deploying troops and start deploying diplomats.

Surely it’s not LBJ that Trump longs to be compared to, but that president who dared stare down the generals in 1962-3, refusing to force the empire down Cuba’s throat, and then made a volte face on Vietnam and decided to ‘bring the troops home’.

No one has dared compare Trump to JFK, who the deep state bumped off for his cardinal sin: going against the empire. Making peace with the Soviet Union. Listening to the peacenik chants and war resisters, already gaining momentum in 1963. Kennedy suddenly realized: Hey, I’m chief honcho. The CIA/FBI and their mad schemes are wrong. If I do what the people want, I can take control of them and ‘make America great again.’

His ‘great’ would have been FDR part II, and would have made the Russians friends again, like they were when we had no choice, during WWII, long before the CIA was born, when the FBI was doing its job, fighting the mafias that had taken root during prohibition. US politics has been downhill since then. Kennedy tried to reverse it in 1963 and was assassinated. No one has dared since then.

Trump is no JFK, but he is president, has no ‘deep state’ baggage, has enough smarts, and knows enough history to know that he can ‘pull a JFK’. He dislikes and fears the FBI/CIA much like Kennedy. Like Kennedy, he pretends he likes Israel, though I suspect he really doesn’t. He was booed by zionist lobbyists during the election campaign for politely stating that Israel must make compromises if it wants peace. They only came on board with his gift of Jerusalem.

Netanyahu got his phone call last week with the bad news, and is no doubt beginning to wonder if Trump’s Jerusalem might be some kind of Trojan Horse. The Israeli PM is not campaigning on Trump’s ‘deal of the century’, as he doesn’t want any deal until the West Bank is full of bloodthirsty settlers.

Syria is Trump’s opportunity to 1/ fulfill arguably his most important election promise, 2/ find out who his real allies are, 3/ finally work on making America great again. Not ‘great’ as in ‘terrifying’, but as in ‘admired, respected, respectful.

The only people who want a US base (illegal, unwanted, imperial) in Syria are the military and their Washington beltway lackeys, who can’t pass up the chance to invade somewhere, anywhere. To rape and pillage, test out their latest war toys on the new ‘enemies’ of America, enemies created by the US itself in its lust for world control.

Beltway blowback, but Turkey

Will Trump’s growing list of beltway enemies let him act? Will they move impeachment into high gear, or ‘do a Kennedy’ and bump him off? Are the people willing to let them get away with this treason again?

The MSM is the warmongers’ ace. It was born in imperial savagery in the 19th century,** and relishes the blood and guts. Peace makes lousy headlines. It loathes Trump and will add fuel to the deep state’s flame.

Up to now, Trump was drinking their kool-aid, accepting their fake news from the Pentagon that the US needed to remain in Syria in order to check Iranian influence in the region. Did the contradictions (Iran bad, Saudi good) finally get to him? He is now arguing: let Russia and Turkey look after Syria. There has been silence from Jerusalem but the zionists can’t be any happier in their homeland than in the US.

Erdogan was ready for Trump’s bombshell and encouraged him: the best hedge against Iran, he told Trump, was not the Kurds, or even the Saudis, but Turkey. Of course, Erdogan has his own imperial agenda, a return to Ottoman glory. Hopefully he won’t try to steal choice bits of Syria as the new regional hegemon. There is much bad blood between him and Assad, and he has had to eat crow by accepting Assad as part of the deal. But no one ever gets what they want for Christmas. You learn to take the knocks as you grow up.

Trump needs Erdogan and Turkey as a regional ally, not enemy. This move keeps Turkey in NATO, and prevents it from shifting wholesale to Russia and China and their budding Eurasian Economic Community and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Trump doesn’t give a fig about NATO. He has called NATO “obsolete” because it “wasn’t taking care of terror.” He’s holding back on his promise to dismantle that white elephant. But that’s what sensible people called for in 1991,*** and a quarter century later, it’s still the right thing. Better late than never.

Putin is a model of diplomacy through all this. Both Turkey and Israel (sort of) shot down Russian planes, the pilots killed, without retaliation. Erdogan looked like a willful child after 2011, abandoning Assad, counting on the US and the Syrian opposition to make sure Syria collapsed, hoping to move in to collect the spoils. When that didn’t pan out, he made a volte face and is now Russia and Assad’s greatest ally.

The Kurds are being abandoned yet again, but that is their eternal fate, lacking their own state. No one, Turk, Syrian, Russian, American, wants a Kurdistan. Israel would love a Kurdish state as a spoiler, but even Netanyahu doesn’t dare play G-d. The Kurds will just have to reach accommodation with Damascus (and Ankara). Sorry, guys.

There are bruises — in Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem — but for people (including US troops) everywhere, a sense of relief.

Trump’s legacy?

Trump is the real conservative after all. He is called a phony. Neither a Bush nor a Tea Partier. But the real conservative is against empire. You can’t rebuild America if your best young people are training to kill gooks, and dying for their misguided efforts. Empire, now ‘empire-lite’, is a liberal fetish.**** This move could lead to further unravelling of US empire, and true conservatives will approve. By pulling out of Syria, Trump is obeying the constitution and appealing to the people. Sounds like real democracy.

The rest of Trump’s agenda is still a shambles. The Mexico wall, his Muslim ban, the rebuilding of infrastructure, his promise of a 14% tax on the net worth of wealthy Americans … His denial of global warming and gutting of environmental programs is outrageous, but if Trump pulls off this coup, he will at least undo some of Bush-Obama’s imperial legacy. Besides, states and cities across the US are moving to adhere to the Kyoto protocol and respond to local needs.

Yes, Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2003, but as president, he did everything the deep state asked: a Wall Street bailout, deporting more Hispanics than Bush or Trump, invading Libya and, yes, Syria. Not to mention his ‘surge’ in Afghanistan, which only made things worse there. With Trump’s decision to pull all 2,000 troops from Syria and 7,000 troops from Afghanistan, Trump is already looking good in comparison.

Only Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is happy, telling CNN’s “State of the Union” he is “very proud of the president. The American people are tired of war,” arguing “roads, bridges, schools“ are what we should be spending money on.

The naysayers are getting fake news time:*Senator Lindsay Graham, calling Trump’s Syria withdrawal a “stain on the honor of the United States”, “a huge Obama-like mistake” (i.e., the Iraq withdrawal in 2011)

*Senator Marco Rubio: “It will haunt this administration and America for years to come.”

*The National: “Donald Trump has destroyed America’s credibility with one tweet.”

Really? Now why was Obama’s one brave move, his Iraq policy, wrong? Who will Trump’s action ‘haunt’? Is America’s credibility based on illegal, unwanted occupation and violence? As for retired secretary of defense Mattis, Trump shot back: “Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world.”

The Pentagon can still fight ISIS using small teams of Special Operations forces in Iraq. And work with the Russians and Syrian government, if it can get off its regime-change high horse.

Let Mattis eat his words along with his Christmas pudding. If Trump survives the slings and arrows until the next election and wins a second term, maybe we’ll get our peace dividend promised in 1991, and he’ll take the next step and scuttle NATO, finally empowering the UN as the world’s peacekeeper.  
xxx

*This hotline was established in 1963 and links the Pentagon with the Kremlin (historically, with Soviet Communist Party leadership across the square from the Kremlin itself). Although in popular culture it is known as the “red telephone”, the hotline was never a telephone line, and no red phones were used. The first implementation used Teletype equipment, and shifted to fax machines in 1986. Since 2008, the Moscow–Washington hotline has been a secure computer link over which messages are exchanged by a secure form of email.
**Reuters news agency was established by a German Jew, Paul Reuter, in 1851 and came to specialize in swashbuckling, sensational British imperial news, enthusiastically supporting empire (doesn’t matter whose), in line with the interests of Jewish financial capital (both German and British) at the time. By the 1870s, while 1% of Germany’s population, Jews controlled 13 out of 21 daily newspapers and had strong presence in four others.
***In 1990, people just assumed NATO would disband along with the Warsaw Pact. French president Mitterand coined the slogan “US out and Russia in”, meaning, of course, Europe. Czech Foreign Minister Jiri Dienstbier in 1990 proposed replacing NATO and the Warsaw Pact with the OSCE European Security Commission. (Walberg, Postmodern Imperialism, 2011, p150.)
****See Michael Ignatieff, Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan (2003).

The newly elected President of Costa Rica, one of the world’s youngest heads of state, 38-year-old former journalist Carlos Alvarado, has vowed to fully decarbonise the country’s economy and makes it the first carbon-neutral nation in the world by 2021, on the 200th anniversary of its independence.

“Decarbonisation is the great task of our generation and Costa Rica must be one of the first countries in the world to accomplish it, if not the first,” Alvarado said in his inauguration speech of 2018. ”We have the titanic and beautiful task of abolishing the use of fossil fuels in our economy to make way for the use of clean and renewable energies.”

Many commentators interpreted this as a decision to ban fossil fuels. Not quite true.

Costa Rica does not have a legislation in place to restricting the use of fossil fuels, nor does its constituency plan to. However, it stepped up its ambition in reducing its share to the negative, climate change –related global ecological footprint.

Its Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez plans to alter the country’s PEM (Primary Energy Mix) by gradually decarbonising it, but also by planting forests, employing better land management, and by the forthcoming carbon sequestration technologies.

Aiming for carbon neutrality by ambitiously set 2021, the tiny Central American state is signalling it wants to beat bigger, more developed and wealthier countries to environmental glory. The UK and much of Scandinavia targets the 2050 as the year of zero net emissions. Germany hoped for the 95% reduction by a year of 2020, but is most probably to miss it.

Costa Rica’s climate change started with its leaders change

“Our crisis cannot be environmental… Deep and structural, this must be a crisis of our cognitivity. Thus, the latest Climate Change (CC) Report is only seemingly on Climate. It is actually a behavioristic study on (the developmental dead end of) our other ‘CC’ – competition and confrontation, instead of cooperation and consensus,” – warns Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, and concludes: “Cognitive mind can do it all.”

Well, Costa Rica has it on its grasp: Home to less than 5 million people, it has long played above its weight on the climate change policy formulation, norm setting and instrument formulations as well as on implementation policies and practical actions. Nation has produced echelons of leaders in all generational cohorts who have promoted vigorous and progressive environmental policies at home and on the international stage.

Former President José María Figueres served the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Advisory Group on Climate Change and Energy. His younger sister, Christiana Figueres, chaired the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN block that convened the 2015 Paris climate agreement – a most important instrument after FCCC’s Kyoto Protocol.

As curiously as foresightedly, Costa Rica holds no armed force (standing army) for a ¾ of century – ever since 1948. Moreover, by 1994 the country amended its constitution to embody a right to a healthy environment for its citizens as one of the fundamental human rights.

Complementing the unique constitutional right, Costa Rica has impressive practical results in greening its economy.

In 2018 only, the country went 300 days using only renewable energy. As of December 2018, 98,15% of electricity is produced from water, wind, geothermal energy, biomass and the sun (thermal and photovoltaic). Back in 2015, it managed to generate 100 % of its electricity from renewable energy sources for 299 days; in 2016, it ran for 271 days and in 2017 for 300 days on everything but fossil fuels.

According to the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, the country generates most of its electricity, around 99 per cent, with a variety of methods including hydropower (78 per cent), wind (10 per cent), geothermal energy (10 per cent), biomass (1 per cent) and solar (1 per cent).

However, there is still a lot to do. Almost 70 per cent of the country’s (non-electricity) energy consumption still comes for the PEM composed of fossil fuels. Transportation heavily leans on petrol while gas is still widely used for cooking and smaller vehicles.

Greening politics and economy, rethinking transport

In order to meet the targets (domestic and these emanating from the Paris Agreement) on carbon neutrality by 2021, Costa Rica – on its national and subnational level – is now focusing on transportation. Modern passengers and freight transportation is one of the largest polluters all over the world. At the same time it is one of the sectors most tedious to decarbonize. In Costa Rica itself, transportation accounts for some 2/3 of carbon/green-house gas emissions.

Using incentives and subsidies for cleaner vehicles, particularly electric mode of public and personal transportation, the state and city authorities aim to greening and decarbonising. Skilful recalibration of petrol taxing and road-tolls could be one of the solutions.

Of course, the easiest way to get to carbon neutrality is to introduce the carbon quotas by limiting the fossil fuels consumption.

However, it has to be reconciled with the current technological possibilities to switch to electric solutions. The batteries, its life time, recharging mode and speed, dispersion and availability of sockets as well as the weight and price of batteries are some of the challenges for years if not decades to come, not only to Costa Rica but even for the world’s technological champions.

On the other hand, as the country’s economy grows, demands for the old-fashioned ICE (inner-combustion engine) cars is rising. In 2017, on every newborn baby two new cars were registered (in contrast to some 120 new electric cars). For over 60% of population diesel fuelled bases, cars and locomotives are daily choice of commuting. The country already ranks second in per capita emissions in Central America, which makes further electrification both a logical choice and urgent necessity.

Elsewhere in the world, governments are also struggling with how to balance financial means and the tasks; driving habits and curbing the emissions, consumeristic social styles with a future imperatives, but it seems Costa Rica is going braver and further than most. Therefore, its greening of politics, energy, economy and international conduct is worth to closely monitor and learn from.

*Sinta Stepani, international relations specialists based in São Paulo, Brazil.

With 2019 parliamentary election in India hardly three months away and Prime Minister Modi having successfully completed nearly 5 years of governance, he has no reason for regret. Careful analysis of Modi’s governance clearly highlight the fact that every step he has taken with courage of conviction and malice towards none. Some of his initiatives may not have yielded the type of success that was expected and other initiatives may have exceeded the expectations. The ground reality is that overall performance is more than satisfactory.

Modi has launched combination of initiatives in socio-economic spheres. What is conspicuous is that he has tried to boost the expectations and confidence of the people and took valiant efforts to build pride amongst the Indians about the traditional and historical value system in India and has taken steps for eradicating several shortfalls in social life of individuals, particularly the poor and downtrodden.

What is very vital is to take a holistic view of five years of governance instead of seeing several steps in isolated manner. Every action of Mr. Modi has resulted in positive impact in several aspects of life and this has to be clearly seen, understood and appreciated. While industrial and economic growth are vital aspects of governance, such growth has to be accompanied by growth in life style and living conditions of the people belonging to lower income group. This is precisely what Mr. Modi has strived hard to achieve.

Mr. Modi inherited a government five years back that was steeped in corruption, with people losing faith as to whether fair and corruption free government could be possible at all in India. Mr. Modi conclusively proved that it would be possible, as he ensured a corruption free central government at the decision making level. Of course, corruption has not been wiped out in India adequately so far particularly at the level of state governments and lower level of administration but Mr. Modi has given hope hat corruption free governance is possible and fighting against corruption is a long drawn process and it would be possible to succeed.

Mr. Modi’s campaign for clean India, efforts to spread yoga movement , construction of thousands of free toilets for poor house holds , opening of bank account for millions of poor people are measures of far reaching significance, which can not be reversed by any government in future. Such measures have enabled people to look and hope for better quality of life, boosting their personal pride and expectations.While corruption in India has grown to gigantic proportions in the last several years before Mr. Modi took over and it called for very harsh steps to defeat the demon of corruption, demonetisation, anti-binami act, promotion of digitalization are great strategies to fight the corruption at the fundamental level.

The banking system in India has undergone severe jolt before Mr,. Modi took over. The insolvency and bankruptcy act is a very important strategy to stabilize the banking operations and eliminate bad debt. Positive results are already being seen.

With his level of confidence in India’s future and pride, Mr. Modi has elevated the status of India in the international relations to new height and perhaps, even much more than what Jawaharlal Nehru could achieve in his time.

Due to historical reasons, India has difficult relations with China and Pakistan. Mr. Modi is managing the relationship with neighbouring countries tactfully to ensure military conflicts would not escalate that would cause set back in economic growth of the country.

There are of course, persisting problems of unemployment due to steady growth in population, distress in farming operations, communal clashes etc. which are due to basic and fundamental historical issues. No government can solve such issues in quick time and strategic approach is needed with short term and long term perseverance and planned strategies, which is what Mr. Modi is adopting. Mr. Modi’s make in India campaign, skill development programme for youth are all part of such strategies.

Apart from several positive and proactive measures which have been well discussed in the media, there have been number of other significant measures which have not received adequate attention. For example, today there are 499 government and private medical colleges offering more than 70,000 seats in India. About 24% of these colleges have come up after 2013-14 when Mr. Modi assumed office as Prime Minister of India. Solar power generation capacity in India was just around 1500 MW before Mr. Modi took over. In the last five years , the solar power generation capacity has now increased to 25000 MW. Wind power capacity has now reached around 35000 MW in 2018. So many other similar examples of proactive growth could be readily pointed out.

The forthcoming 2019 parliament election will be between Mr. Modi and several opposition leaders , though none of the opposition leader matches Mr. Modi in charisma and commitment, individually or collectively. Even in Bharatiya Janata Party, the gap between the stature of Mr. Modi and other leaders is very conspicuous.

The governance of Mr. Modi during the last five years is of Mr. Modi and by Mr. Modi and therefore, Mr.Modi has to adopt a strong campaign to carry forward his message to the people. His achievements have to be told effectively and positively in a convincing way , which Mr. Modi alone can do. He has to address as many meetings as possible, clearly realizing that India needs his leadership and continuation of the standards of governance that he has shown to be possible.

There is no consensus on what the Indo-Pacific concept will cover. It is not clear what kind of structure is needed for such an Indo-Pacific construct. Nevertheless, the main protagonists behind the Indo-Pacific concept continue their diplomatic efforts to crystalise such a strategy. ASEAN remains non-committal even though it has reasserted ASEAN centrality.

By Nazia Hussain*

India, Japan and the United States held their first trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the recently concluded G20 Summit in Buenos Aires. Invariably deliberating on the Indo-Pacific, the leaders of the three countries agreed that a “free, open, inclusive and rules-based” order is essential for the Indo-Pacific’s peace and prosperity.

They also stated the importance of meeting in a trilateral format at multilateral conferences. Coined as the JAI meeting, Prime Minister Narendra Modi explained the significance of the JAI (Japan, America, India) acronym, which translates to “success” in Hindi.

JAI Troika

The JAI grouping is shaping up to play a key role in Indian foreign policy. India has proposed the three countries synergise their infrastructure projects and other efforts in the region. Tokyo and New Delhi have already agreed to deepen naval and maritime-security cooperation and collaborate on infrastructure projects in third countries, including Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, to enhance strategic connectivity in the Indo-Pacific.

Assuring all countries of the inclusiveness and openness of the Indo-Pacific concept, PM Modi articulated five action points that would serve the common interest of promoting peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region — connectivity, sustainable development, maritime security, disaster relief and freedom of navigation.

Modi also underlined the importance of building consensus on an architecture in the Indo-Pacific region based on principles of mutual benefit and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Question of Implementation

While stakeholders have a broad agreement on the principles that the Indo-Pacific concept entails, what needs to be discussed next is the implementation of these principles of freedom of navigation, peaceful resolution of disputes, and a rules-based order.

Without addressing the question of implementation and lacking clarity on the specifics, countries in the region including ASEAN will continue to remain hesitant to embrace the Indo-Pacific concept.

According to Kavi Chongkittavorn, ASEAN member states showed different levels of scepticism to the Indo-Pacific concept. The Philippines and Cambodia were the most reluctant to discuss the initiative within the ASEAN framework fearing it might hurt ASEAN centrality, while Laos, Brunei and Myanmar were silent.

However, they became more receptive to discussions as more information became available. Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia seem to be supportive of the initiative although each of them would like to shape different aspects of the Indo-Pacific concept in pursuant of their respective strategic interests.

Changing Strategic Paradigm?

The strategic paradigm has changed in the Indian Ocean and the debate now is how to respond. Washington and New Delhi have time and again reiterated that ASEAN centrality is key to the Indo-Pacific concept as it embodies regional inclusivity and multilateral trade. ASEAN already has in place a set of inter-linking regional mechanisms such as the East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) Plus, designed to engage big powers and neighbouring countries.

The Indo-Pacific framework should make use of these existing mechanisms to ensure that the Indian Ocean region has complementary rather than competing mechanisms. For instance, ASEAN can engage its ASEAN Maritime Forum to complement efforts by the Indian Ocean RIM Association (IORA) and the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS).

ASEAN can also engage BIMSTEC as an economic sub-grouping in the Bay of Bengal involving Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal and Bhutan, especially since two of the BIMSTEC members (Myanmar and Thailand) are also member states of ASEAN. BIMSTEC’s connectivity projects in the Bay of Bengal region will greatly benefit from ASEAN’s involvement.

ASEAN’s role in the Indo-Pacific Framework

To get ASEAN on board with the Indo-Pacific concept, it is essential the Southeast Asian grouping plays a role in defining the evolving regional security architecture which follows. Since Indonesia has been the most active among ASEAN member states in articulating its version of the Indo-Pacific, Jakarta has been tasked by ASEAN to finalise the ASEAN concept paper on the Indo-Pacific.

Although the concept paper is still being drawn up, ASEAN diplomats have alerted ASEAN dialogue partners that the ASEAN framework will not toe the line of the US-inspired strategy despite some overlap on key principles. Furthermore, it will be inclusive and not aimed at any particular power.

It will also come with practical measures and action plans. ASEAN aims to synergise elements of Washington, Tokyo and India’s concepts with ASEAN-led projects concerning infrastructure development, governance and maritime cooperation.

ASEAN foreign ministers are scheduled for a retreat in Chiang Mai in January 2019 and will have the opportunity to further deliberate on ASEAN’s vision for the Indo-Pacific.

Need to Continue Engagement

The Indian Ocean is a contested, complex and congested region. Each stakeholder has their own perception of what the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) means. For Washington, the Indo-Pacific stretches from the west coast of the United States to the west coast of India. For Tokyo and New Delhi, it lies from the west coast of the US to the east coast of Africa.

The US has emphasised the power dynamics underlying the FOIP while Japan has highlighted its economic potential. To Japan, the FOIP is open to all countries which observe the rule of law, freedom of navigation, and relevant standards of transparency and sustainable development.

While stressing that no one is excluded, the US aspires to a regional order of independent nations in the Indo-Pacific that defends its populations, respects human dignity, competes fairly in the market place, and is free from great-power domination. Thus, it may not be easy for China to be part of the FOIP even if Beijing wished to be included.

As different states have different understandings of the idea of Indo-Pacific, it is critical to ensure that the Indo-Pacific concept does not create misunderstandings. To this end, there is a need to continue engagement with ASEAN member states and stakeholders in the Indian Ocean so that all Indian Ocean actors are on the same page. More so now that Australia, India and Indonesia are heading into electoral campaigning in 2019.

*Nazia Hussain is a Research Analyst in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Cherian Samuel*

The quest to create norms in cyberspace has again gathered steam, more than a year after the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) process proved unable to arrive at a consensus report. This time around, two simultaneous mechanisms have been set in motion: a UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE), like earlier, spearheaded by the United States and the Western allies; and, an Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) led by Russia and China, and supported by a number of other countries. In the absence of any serious introspection on the part of governments over why the previous UN-led process failed, coupled with the fact that the new initiatives are likely to be competitive rather than complementary, it is hard to be optimistic that norms in cyberspace will materialise anytime soon.

The focus of the state-centric mechanisms such as the UNGGE has been on two tracks: confidence building and capacity building. Both come with their own legacy issues which indirectly impact their use in these mechanisms. Confidence building finds its origins in the Cold War era, when such measures were deemed necessary to reduce the possibilities of conflict between the two nuclear armed blocs. Much of the same discourse, terminology and presumptions have therefore seeped into confidence building measures a propos cyberspace and led to it being viewed through the same prism of conflict. One of the reasons for the collapse of the UNGGE process could be said to be its excessive focus on the security component in the deliberations and in the draft report. Whilst the goal was to arrive at confidence building measures, the existing atmosphere of suspicion and distrust meant that issues such as the rights of states in responding to cyber attacks and taking appropriate countermeasures were viewed by some countries as mechanisms to legitimise “unilateral punitive force actions” and covert attempts to “convert cyberspace into a theatre of military operations.”

Capacity building, on the other hand, has largely been associated with aid programmes and couched in the language of development. Discussions on capacity building have often revolved around issues of the responsibilities of “donor’’ and recipient’’ countries, the ability of recipient countries to absorb and utilise technical knowhow, finding sustainable sources of funding for capacity building efforts, and so on. The spending of resources to build up capacities in other countries has been justified on the grounds that this has considerable spin-off benefits in areas ranging from migration to security. Whilst this has largely been a one way flow in most areas, with the developed countries identifying successful policies, practices and ideas, and then adapting and sharing them with the less developed countries, it is a more equitable process in cybersecurity where no one country can claim to be truly secure. At the same time many of the dilemmas that have hobbled traditional capacity building can also be seen to be at play here, the foremost being that ‘donor” countries have their own priorities and perceptions of what they should pass on to recipient countries which might be completely irrelevant to the needs of latter. Consequently, like confidence building, capacity building has also been viewed with suspicion, seen by some as a tool of foreign policy, a means to advocate a particular model of governance, create market access for domestic companies, or promote specific technical standards.

The mandate of successive UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security has been to deliver consensus reports and recommendations to the First Committee of the United Nations which deals with disarmament and international security issues. Given these antecedents, it is but only natural for the UNGGE to concentrate on issues of security and to consider capacity building as an adjunct to confidence building. This is also reflected in the outcome reports of various UNGGEs. Whilst the 2015 Report expressed the “vital importance” of capacity building as a means to “bridge the divide in the security of ICTs and their use,” the preceding 2013 Report described capacity building as a key pillar in global efforts to “reduce risk and enhance security [and to] promote a peaceful, secure, open, and cooperative ICT environment.” Cyber -related issues have also been brought before the UN’s Third Committee, which deals with social, humanitarian and cultural issues. Most recently, Russia initiated a resolution on cybercrime, which was passed with 88 votes in favour, 55 against and 29 abstentions. Essentially, shifting cyber issues to another committee will not make the faultiness go away or shift focus to less contentious issues.

It goes without saying that for a global build-up of cybersecurity, capacity building needs to be given much more importance than it has received till date. The history of benign neglect of capacity building seems to be changing with a number of new initiatives coming to the fore, chief among them being the Global Forum of Cyber Expertise initiated by the Dutch Government under the London Process, which is possibly the first intergovernmental initiative solely dedicated to cybersecurity capacity building. Other initiatives have included the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre in Oxford, which was set up by the British Government after the first Global Conference on Cyber Space (GCCS). Such initiatives allow countries to share experiences and expertise, an example being India’s Cyber Surakshit Bharat Initiative which has been shared with the GFCE.

Within the rubric of capacity building, the two most useful components are: 1) Maturity Assessments of various countries and even various sectors across countries; and, 2) Simulation Exercises of likely scenarios requiring emergency response. Maturity Assessments serve a variety of purposes; they enable benchmarking of capabilities, and allow policy makers to assess gaps in capabilities and decide priorities. While such exercises are being continually carried out by organisations at the global level, carrying out similar exercises at the regional level would enable countries at a largely similar level of maturity to assess requirements more realistically. Regional initiatives also have the advantage of avoiding any ideological creep and policy advocacy that are implicit in many of the global initiatives on capacity building.

The second component of capacity building, which is a natural corollary of Maturity Assessments, are simulation exercises of likely scenarios requiring emergency response. Again, more associated with confidence building rather than capacity building, it is a useful way to gauge available expertise, inefficiencies in information sharing, and other processes, and ultimately speed up cyber capacity building in countries since it would include cyber security response teams, national critical infrastructure and government agencies, and other stakeholders. It is also a useful bridge between policy makers and practitioners, taking a complex subject out of the conference room and into the operational arena, and enabling each to understand the other’s perspectives and constraints. When used across countries, it becomes both a confidence building as well as a capacity building mechanism with the added addition of enabling networking amongst networks and feeding into the global conversation on cybersecurity.

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

*About the author: Cherian Samuel is Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi

Source: This article was published by IDSA

By Wesley J. Smith*

We are witnessing the birth of a new faith. It is not a theistic religion. Indeed, unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, it replaces a personal relationship with a transcendent God in the context of a body of believers with a fervent and radically individualistic embrace of naked materialistic personal recreation.

Moreover, in contrast to the orthodox Christian, Judaic, and Islamic certainty that human beings are made up of both material body and immaterial soul – and that both matter – adherents of the new faith understand that we have a body, but what really counts is mind, which is ultimately reducible to mere chemical and electrical exchanges. Indeed, contrary to Christianity’s view of an existing Heaven or, say, Buddhism’s conception of the world as illusion, the new faith insists that the physical is all that has been, is, or ever will be.

Such thinking leads to nihilism. That’s where the new religion leaves past materialistic philosophies behind, by offering adherents hope. Where traditional theism promises personal salvation, the new faith offers the prospect of rescue via radical life-extension attained by technological applications – a postmodern twist, if you will, on faith’s promise of eternal life. This new religion is known as “transhumanism, ” and it is all the rage among the Silicon Valley nouveau riche, university philosophers, and among bioethicists and futurists seeking the comforts and benefits of faith without the concomitant responsibilities of following dogma, asking for forgiveness, or atoning for sin – a foreign concept to transhumanists. Truly, transhumanism is a religion for our postmodern times.

Transhumanist prophets anticipate a coming neo-salvific event known as the “Singularity”

Transhumanism makes two core promises. First, humans will soon acquire heightened capacities, not through deep prayer, meditation, or personal discipline, but merely by taking a pill, engineering our DNA, or otherwise harnessing medical science and technology to transcend normal physical limitations. More compellingly, transhumanism promises that adherents will soon experience, if not eternal life, then at least indefinite existence – in this world, not the next – through the wonders of applied science.

This is where transhumanism becomes truly eschatological. Transhumanist prophets anticipate a coming neo-salvific event known as the “Singularity” – a point in human history when the crescendo of scientific advances become unstoppable, enabling transhumanists to recreate themselves in their own image. Want to have the eyesight of a hawk? Edit in a few genes. Want to raise your IQ? Try a brain implant. Want to look like a walrus? Well, why not? Different strokes for different folks, don’t you know?

Most importantly, in the post-Singularity world, death itself will be defeated. Perhaps, we will repeatedly renew our bodies through cloned organ replacements or have our heads cryogenically frozen to allow eventual surgical attachment to a different body. However, transhumanists’ greatest hope is to eternally save their minds (again, as opposed to souls) via personal uploading into computer programs. Yes, transhumanists expect to ultimately live without end in cyberspace, crafting their own virtual realities, or perhaps, merging their consciousnesses with others’ to experience multi-beinghood.

Transhumanists used to repudiate any suggestion that their movement is a form of, or substitute for, religion. But in recent years, that denial has worn increasingly thin. For example, Yuval Harari, a historian and transhumanist from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Telegraph, “I think it is likely in the next 200 years or so Homo sapiens will upgrade themselves into some idea of a divine being, either through biological manipulation or genetic engineering by the creation of cyborgs, part organic, part non-organic.”

According to Harari, the human inventions of religion and money enabled us to subdue the earth. But with traditional religion waning in the West – and who can deny it? – he believes we need new “fictions” to bind us together. That’s where transhumanism comes in:

Religion is the most important invention of humans. As long as humans believed they relied more and more on these gods, they were controllable. With religion, it’s easy to understand. You can’t convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana with the promise it will get 20 more bananas in chimpanzee Heaven. It won’t do it. But humans will.

But what we see in the last few centuries is humans becoming more powerful, and they no longer need the crutches of the gods. Now we are saying, “We do not need God, just technology.”

Ha! The old stereotype of the bearded Christian fanatic in robe and sandals carrying a sign stating, “The end is nigh!” has been replaced by transhumanism proselytizers like author Ray Kurzweil (of Google fame) whose bestselling transhumanist manifesto is titled, The Singularity is Near.

I can’t end this essay without highlighting an absolutely crucial distinction that must be drawn between transhumanism and orthodox faiths, particularly Christianity. Christianity’s highest ideal is love. St. John the Evangelist wrote, “God is love.” Christ commanded Christians to “love one another as I have loved you.” Hence, believers understand that Christian living requires clothing the poor, visiting the sick and imprisoned, etc. Because, as Jesus taught in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, when we do these things to “the least of these, you have done it unto Me.”

In contrast, transhumanism’s highest virtue is intelligence

In contrast, transhumanism’s highest virtue is intelligence, which is why increasing human brain capacity is the movement’s second most desired enhancement after defeating death. Thus, transhumanist entrepreneur Bryan Johnson was reported by the New Scientist as investing $100 million to develop an implant to increase intelligence. “I arrived at intelligence”, the story quoted Johnson as saying, because “I think it’s the most precious and powerful resource in existence.”

In all the transhumanist literature I have read, I have seen little interest in increasing the human capacity to love, beyond the most carnal understanding of that term. Perhaps that is because even crass materialists understand that love transcends firing neurons, bringing us as close as we are capable to expressing the divine. Indeed, it is no coincidence that an ancient theist gave us our most profound description of love:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, it is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

You won’t find anything as deep, meaningful, and yes, intelligent as St. Paul’s love discourse in any transhumanist manifesto. Indeed, even if we ultimately reengineer ourselves into post-humanity, until and unless we exponentially expand our capacity to love – which is a spiritual discipline, not a mechanistic endeavor – we will never become the creatures we long to be.

*About the author: Award-winning author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and the author of The War on Humans.

Source: This article was published by the Acton Institute

By Frank Shostak*

In a market economy, a major service that money provides is that of the medium of exchange. Producers exchange their goods for money and then exchange money for other goods. As production of goods and services increases, this results in a greater demand for the services of the medium of exchange (the service that money provides). Conversely, as economic activity slows down the demand for the services of money follows suit.

The demand for the services of the medium of exchange is also affected by changes in prices. An increase in the prices of goods and services leads to an increase in the demand for the medium of exchange.

People now demand more money to facilitate more expensive goods and services. A fall in the prices of goods and services results in a decline in the demand for the medium of exchange.

Now, take the example where an increase in the supply of money for a given state of economic activity has taken place. Since there was not any change in the demand for the services of the medium of exchange this means that people now have a surplus of money or an increase in monetary liquidity.

Obviously, no individual wants to hold more money than is required. An individual can get rid of surplus cash by exchanging the money for goods. Individuals as a group however cannot get rid of the surplus of money just like that. They can only shift money from one individual to another individual.

The mechanism that generates the elimination of the surplus of cash is the increase in the prices of goods. Once individuals start to employ the surplus cash in acquiring goods this pushes prices higher.

As a result, the demand for the services of money increases. All this in turn works towards the elimination of the monetary surplus.

Once money enters a particular market, this means that more money is now paid for a product in that market. Alternatively, we can say that the price of a good in this market has now gone up. (Note that a price is the number of dollars per unit of something).

Observe that what has triggered increases in the prices of goods in various markets is the increase in the monetary surplus or monetary liquidity in response to the increase in the money supply.

While increases in the money supply result in a monetary surplus, a fall in the money supply for a given level of economic activity leads to a monetary deficit.

Individuals still demand the same amount of the services from the medium of exchange. To accommodate this they will start selling goods, thus pushing their prices down.

At lower prices, the demand for the services of the medium of exchange declines and this in turn works towards the elimination of the monetary deficit.

A change in liquidity, or the monetary surplus, can also take place in response to changes in economic activity and changes in prices.

For instance, an increase in liquidity can emerge for a given stock of money and a decline in economic activity.

A fall in economic activity results in fewer goods produced. This means that less goods are going to be exchanged – implying a decline in the demand for the services of money – the services of the medium of exchange.

Once a surplus of money emerges, it produces exactly the same outcome with respect to the prices of goods and services as the increase in money supply does. That is, it pushes prices higher.

An increase in prices in turn works towards the elimination of the surplus of money — the elimination of monetary liquidity. Conversely, an increase in economic activity, while the stock of money stays unchanged, produces a monetary deficit. This in turn sets in motion the selling of goods thereby depressing their prices. The fall in prices in turn works towards the elimination of the monetary deficit.

A Time Lag Between Monetary Surpluses and Price Increases

There is a time lag between changes in liquidity (i.e. a monetary surplus) and changes in asset prices such as the prices of stocks.

(The reason for the lag is because when money is injected it does not affect all individuals and hence all markets instantly. There are earlier and later recipients of money).

For instance, there could be a long time lag between the peak in liquidity and the peak in the stock market. This means that the effect of the previously rising liquidity can continue to overshadow the effect of currently declining liquidity for some period. Hence, the peak in the stock market emerges once declining liquidity starts to dominate the scene.

Exploring How Changes in Liquidity have Historically Driven the Stock Market

The yearly growth rate of liquidity topped in November 1927 at 10.2% — after a time lag of 22 months the S&P500 responded by peaking in August 1929 at 31.71. (Note liquidity is the yearly % changes in AMS (i.e., a measure of money supply) minus yearly % changes in the CPI and industrial production). In 1987, the time lag between a peak in liquidity and a peak in the stock market was much shorter — the yearly growth rate of liquidity topped in January 1987 at 15.1%. The S&P500 responded to this by peaking eight months later at 329.9 by August of that year.

According to historical data, the yearly growth rate of liquidity bottomed at minus 16.6% in May 1929. Yet it took a long time before the S&P500 responded to this. It took over three years after the bottom in liquidity was reached before the S&P500 started to recover. The stock price index bottomed in June 1932 at 4.43.

The time lag between the bottom in liquidity and the bottom in the stock market has been however shorter in recent history. The yearly growth rate of liquidity had bottomed at minus 5.4% in September 2000. It took twenty-five months before the S&P500 bottomed at 815.28 by September 2002.

In May 1975 the yearly growth rate of our monetary measure, AMS stood at 4.5%. The yearly growth rate of the consumer price index stood at 9.5% while the yearly growth rate of industrial production closed at minus 12.4%. As a result, our measure of liquidity stood at 7.4%. In response to this, the S&P500 peaked at 107.5 by December 1976. Now, our measure of liquidity hit bottom at minus 10.5% in May 1976. In response to this, the S&P500 reached its bottom at 87.04 in February 1978 – a fall of 19% from the peak.

The S&P500 closed at 1,549.38 in October 2007 before a large decline took place bringing the stock index to 735.1 by February 2009 — a fall of 52.3%. The yearly growth rate of liquidity peaked at 6.1% by June 2003 (see chart). The bottom in the stock price index at 735.1 reached by February 2009 well after a bottom in liquidity at minus 5.9% took place in November 2007.

Where is the S&P500 heading? Our measure of liquidity has peaked at 16.3% in October 2016. Thereafter it fell to minus 4.5% by November 2017. This we suggest poses a threat to the S&P500. It is quite likely that the stock price index has peaked in September 2018 at 2,914.

*About the author: Frank Shostak’s consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments of financial markets and global economies. Contact: email.

Source: This article was published by the MISES Institute

Instead of blood pressure, temperature, and heart rate, the vital signs for a forest are captured in key traits such as the amount of nitrogen in a tree’s leaves, the leaf area, or the density of the wood. These “functional traits” can impact how trees grow — and therefore how forests respond to climate change. While researchers have begun trying to tease out these patterns in recent decades, incomplete data has made it difficult to understand what’s happening to particular traits in any meaningful way — especially when you get down to the level of individual trees in a forest.

To help fill this important knowledge gap, Daniel J. Wieczynski and Santa Fe Institute external professor Van M. Savage, both ecologists at the University of California-Los Angeles, and their collaborators decided to analyze existing data from trait studies on forest communities to see what could be revealed about these shifts on a global scale.

“One of the challenges is that you need a lot of data to accurately measure functional diversity,” says Wieczynski. “So our idea was to take what functional data we have available from databases and pair this with locally collected field data, as well as data about species abundance, to say something about climate-biodiversity relationships that we couldn’t say before.”

The team, which also included Santa Fe Institute external professor Brian Enquist of the University of Arizona, amassed data from 421 tree communities around the world, including information from 55,983 individual trees from 2,701 species, and examined a range of “functional traits” that influence individual growth, such as plant height, wood density, leaf area, and the amount of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in a leaf. To determine the climatic conditions these tree communities are living in, they also analyzed the temperature, precipitation, wind speed and vapor pressure in each one.

The study — one of the first to examine how climate is influencing functional traits in forest communities on a global scale — found evidence of major changes in these traits, which could affect forest productivity and composition and even how forests are distributed around the globe. And they found that climate affects nine different traits in various ways: For example, they discovered that leaf area is most influenced by vapor pressure and temperature, while height is primarily affected by temperature variability. To the authors’ surprise, two climatic factors in particular had an outsized effect on trait diversity overall: temperature variability — not just mean temperature — and vapor pressure. They also found evidence that forests are currently shifting their traits in response to global warming.

Wieczynski and Savage hope the work could help improve the accuracy of computer models that try to predict how forests will respond to climate change in the future. ” By calculating a more accurate relationship between functional diversity and climate, using the methods we used, we’ll be able to more accurately predict those changes in the future using these models,” Wieczynski says. “And hopefully this will show it’s important to measure more trait data in communities, or more individual level information in communities than just species-level information.”

“I think these results will be useful to determine climate change’s effects on ecological systems,” Savage says.

This is just the start in gaining a better grasp of how climate change is affecting functional traits in forest communities, Wieczynski adds. “The next step is to go out to do new field studies where you actually measure trait values for more individuals.”

Uppsala University researchers have devised a new model for the Universe – one that may solve the enigma of dark energy. Their new article, published in Physical Review Letters, proposes a new structural concept, including dark energy, for a universe that rides on an expanding bubble in an additional dimension.

We have known for the past 20 years that the Universe is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. The explanation is the “dark energy” that permeates it throughout, pushing it to expand. Understanding the nature of this dark energy is one of the paramount enigmas of fundamental physics.

It has long been hoped that string theory will provide the answer. According to string theory, all matter consists of tiny, vibrating “stringlike” entities. The theory also requires there to be more spatial dimensions than the three that are already part of everyday knowledge. For 15 years, there have been models in string theory that have been thought to give rise to dark energy. However, these have come in for increasingly harsh criticism, and several researchers are now asserting that none of the models proposed to date are workable.

In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our Universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole Universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble. All existing matter in the Universe corresponds to the ends of strings that extend out into the extra dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this kind can come into existence within the framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there are more bubbles than ours, corresponding to other universes.

The Uppsala scientists’ model provides a new, different picture of the creation and future fate of the Universe, while it may also pave the way for methods of testing string theory.

Trash, particularly plastic, in the ocean and along the shoreline is an economic, environmental, human health, and aesthetic problem causing serious challenges to coastal communities around the world, including the Gulf of Mexico.

Researchers from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab and the Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve teamed up for a two-year study to document the problem along the Gulf of Mexico shorelines. Their findings are documented in the publication, Accumulation and distribution of marine debris on barrier islands across the northern Gulf of Mexico, in ScienceDirect’s Marine Pollution Bulletin.

From February 2015 to August of 2017, the researchers kept tabs on marine debris that washed up on the shoreline every month at 12 different sites on nine barrier islands from North Padre Island, Texas to Santa Rosa, Florida. The trash was sorted by type, frequency, and location.

The most shocking discovery was that ten times more trash washes up on the coast of Texas than any of the other Gulf states throughout the year.

Most of the trash, 69 to 95 percent, was plastic. The plastic items included bottles and bottle caps, straws, and broken pieces of plastic. Researchers also cited that more trash washed ashore during the spring and summer. This could be because more people are outside and on the water during this time.

The Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria will be held in Russia in early 2019, a Russian diplomat announced Friday.

The leaders of the Astana trio (Russia, Turkey and Iran) will meet in Russia at the beginning of 2019, Russian Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov told reporters on Friday.

“The Russia-Turkey-Iran summit will be held in Russia at the beginning of next year,” he said, Tass News Agency reported.

“Now it is our turn to host the summit of the guarantor countries. It is due to take place tentatively during the first week of next year, that depends on the presidents’ work schedule,” Bogdanov noted.

The previous top-level meeting in this format was held in Tehran on September 7.

A roadside bomb hit a tourist bus on Friday in an area near the Giza Pyramids, killing two Vietnamese tourists and wounding 12 others, Egypt’s Interior Ministry said in a statement.

It said the bus was traveling in the Marioutiyah area near the pyramids when the crude roadside bomb, concealed by a wall, went off. The wounded included 10 Vietnamese tourists. The other two wounded were the Egyptian bus driver and the guide.

Regional broadcaster Al-Arabiya reported that the death toll rose to 3.

The bus was carrying a total of 14 Vietnamese tourists, it added, saying only two of them escaped unharmed.

Egypt has battled Islamic militants for years in the Sinai Peninsula in an insurgency that has occasionally spilled over to the mainland, hitting minority Christians or tourists. However, this is the first attack to target foreign tourists in almost two years.

Arab investment spans far and wide. Recent reports suggest investors from the region are looking as far afield as the Balkans for new opportunities, specifically Croatia, where Agrokor, the giant agribusiness company, has been courting foreign funds. But this would be a colossal mistake for Arab investors, who might not appreciate the region’s political complexities. 

The Agrokor case represents a wider trend of how Russia is exploiting regional corruption to expand its leverage over Europe and, in the process, subvert the interests of other foreign investors in the country.

Last week, a Kremlin-backed bank, Sberbank, announced it was receiving offers for its 39.2 percent stake in Agrokor. In 2017, Agrokor was bailed out under government supervision after revelations that the conglomerate, which comprises about 15 percent of Croatia’s entire gross domestic product, was about to collapse due to debt. A collapse would have crashed the Croatian economy and could have even destabilized the EU. 

According to Maxim Poletayev, an aide to Sberbank’s CEO overseeing Agrokor’s restructuring, Sberbank is currently in talks with funds and banks from the Arab world, along with those from elsewhere, to buy its shares in Agrokor and help refinance the indebted firm.

But investing in Croatia comes with unique risks. The country was recently described by Ernst & Young as the most corrupt state in southeast Europe, making it ripe for Russian infiltration. 

Indeed, Russia appears to have exploited its involvement in Croatia’s Agrokor scandal to score a victory for Gazprom. When Agrokor almost went bankrupt in March 2017, its total debt was €5.8 billion ($6.6 billion). Of this, €3.5 billion was owed to banks and financial institutions. The biggest creditors were Russia’s Sberbank and VTB, with total liabilities of €1.3 billion. The same banks were the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout, acquiring a total 47 percent stake in Agrokor. 

Opposition parties described the Croatian government’s Agrokor bailout as highly corrupt. Leaked emails that emerged exposed alleged conflicts of interest in the restructuring process, with lucrative pay-offs for members of the so-called “Borg Group,” a secretive network of business associates. Martina Dalic quit as both economy minister and deputy prime minister in the wake of pressure from opposition groups over the scandal, although she denied any wrongdoing. 

The deep involvement of Russian finance in the largest company in the Croatian economy put the Croatian government in a subservient position. No wonder that shortly after the Agrokor crisis, Russia’s Gazprom moved rapidly to sign a 10-year contract with private Croatian company Prvo Plinarsko Drustvo (PPD). Under the agreement, Gazprom would deliver 1 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Croatia annually, covering 70 percent of the Croatian market. 

Meanwhile, Croatia’s state anti-corruption unit, USKOK, inexplicably failed to take any strong action over the Agrokor corruption allegations against the Croatian government. Instead, it exerted a laser-sharp focus on an obscure dispute with Hungary between the two countries’ state-owned oil companies, INA and MoL. 

That dispute between INA — Croatia’s largest energy company — and MOL is also the clearest case study of how Russia’s growing economic and political leverage in Croatia was used to strengthen a Croatian-Russian nexus, at the expense of other major foreign investors in Croatia. 

After Hungarian company MOL acquired a 49 percent stake in INA in 2009, Croatia sought to annul the agreement in 2013, accusing Zsolt Hernadi, MOL’s chairman, of bribing former prime minister Ivo Sanader. An Interpol arrest warrant was issued for Hernadi in 2013. 

Recent reports seem to suggest Russia may have been the force behind this development. Putin ally Gen. Alexander Prokopchuk, Interpol’s vice president for Europe, has been accused of using Interpol to issue arrest warrants for dissidents opposed to Putin. 

Lending credence to this suspicion is that the grounds for Interpol’s warrant in the INA-MOL case were rejected in 2014 by UNCITRAL, the UN’s highest trade law body. The agency threw out Croatia’s demand for Hernadi’s extradition because the prosecution’s case relied almost entirely on the flawed testimony of a single witness. These were presumably the same flawed grounds used by Croatian courts to prosecute Hernadi in the first place — a damning indictment on what would appear to be a deeply compromised Croatian judiciary.

The Interpol warrant was nullified shortly after UNCITRAL’s ruling, but was suddenly renewed again this November on the same charges of which Hernadi was previously acquitted. 

Russia has hardly been reticent about where it stands on the Croatia-Hungary issue. In 2014, Gazprom offered to buy up MOL’s shares to acquire the Hungarian company’s stake in Croatia’s INA. In 2017, Rosneft followed up with an offer of its own. 

Endemic corruption at the highest levels of the Croatian state has been the prime gateway for Russia’s approach. Agrokor was just the lever to get the gate open. 

If Arab investors come in under Sberbank’s watch, not only will their finance be at risk — as it was for Hungarian giant MOL — in a country whose judiciary is deeply compromised, they will also end up reinforcing Russia’s consolidation over the Croatian economy, and aiding in its gas conquest of Europe. 

That would be bad for the EU, and bad for the Arab world, which could end up on the wrong side in a new Cold War.

Palestinians seem to learn more about their future from Israelis than from anyone else. That makes it easier for Palestinians to justify their policy of rejectionism, which represents their historic inability to achieve anything toward liberating their country.

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s extremist education minister, this week reportedly said US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” would propose the creation of a Palestinian state. Bennett, leader of the racist anti-Arab Jewish Home Party, vowed he would do everything possible to prevent that from happening. Of course, he does not need to do anything because as we already know, the Palestinian leadership will reject Trump’s plan first.
Instead of unveiling a peace plan that is dead on arrival, Trump would be better served if he first developed a strategy to empower a new Palestinian leadership to replace the feeble ones of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas.

They have tried to stand up to Israel’s continued atrocities and war crimes, but unsuccessfully and at great cost. Israel does not adhere to international law or shy away from committing war crimes against non-Jews. And because no one really holds Israel accountable, it can pretty much do what it wants.

The real cause of the weakness of Palestinian leadership is the rise of Palestinian rejectionists who hold sway over society through bullying and violence. Any Palestinian who dares accept a peace plan based on compromise would be targeted by these extremist activists who dominate Palestinians’ failed narrative.

They embrace a delusional ideology of turning back the clock on history and creating a single democratic state where Jews, Muslims and Christians could live as equals. But delusion works when dealing with people who are defined more by their suffering than their optimism.

The best Palestinians can expect is a foothold from which they can strengthen and rebuild their community, and narrow the huge gap that exists in the balance of power with Israel. What should matter most to Palestinians are sovereignty, statehood and real independence.

What Palestinian leadership lacks is the courage to stand up to the extremists and rejectionists. Palestinians elected a government, albeit under the oppression of occupation, and that government has never had authority over its own people. Extremists have always managed to pull the rug out from Palestinian empowerment, preventing the PA from achieving anything except dismantling the Oslo Accords.

The extremists say the accords failed because they were flawed, but the truth is that the accords were dragged to failure in the wake of suicide bombings, extremist hatred, and the fanning of Palestinians’ emotions, leading them to national hopelessness.

Ironically, the accords are basically a blueprint of how Israel achieved its own independence. Israel had to fight to implement its existence. The UN partition plan did nothing but define an area. Israel took the proposed Jewish state and half of the proposed Arab state. Then it waited for the opportunity to take the rest, confident that it would do so.

Palestinians lack that confidence in themselves and their rights. They know how to yell, complain and reject. That is all the extremists will allow. But if by some miracle Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could stop looking backward and start looking forward, knowing that Palestinian justice is more powerful than Israel’s military occupation, he could initiate the first steps toward rebuilding his country.

Even if the Trump plan only proposes Palestinian statehood in a limited area of the West Bank, that state could become the foundation for a stronger Palestinian future that would grow and allow its people to litigate toward equality. As we balance the field toward becoming equal, Palestinians will weaken the Israelis.

Who knows what might happen in the future if there were two states? No one can predict the future, but you can look toward it and build, strengthen and empower. Instead of playing their normal role as rejectionists, Palestinians should embrace Trump’s plan and be strategic in moving forward, taking instead of saying no. They need to break from their all-or-nothing history. We cannot have it all, at least not in this generation, which always leaves us with nothing.

I would rather a small state serving as the foundation for a brighter future, than continue playing the role of suffering victims under an occupation in which we have absolutely no power and survive only on Israel’s whims. Take the Trump plan, shut down the extremists, look to the future, and opportunities will surely arise to make Palestine not just equal to Israel but even better.

US President Donald Trump has doubled down on fiery rhetoric aimed at his political opponents, threatening to close the entire southern border of the US if the government shutdown continues.

“We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall & also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with,” Trump tweeted in the early hours of Friday morning.

At the current rate, the partial US government shutdown will likely continue into 2019 as Democrats dig in amid an impasse over funding for Trump’s controversial border wall.

Trump added that the US loses “over 75 billion dollars” per year in trade with Mexico under the NAFTA agreement. So egregious is the disparity on trade that Trump claimed he would view the border closure as a “profit making operation.”

He also bemoaned the loss of US car manufacturing jobs to Mexico and advocated returning to pre-NAFTA trade arrangements.

While both chambers of congress met briefly on Thursday, no steps were taken to end the partial shutdown, though many lawmakers didn’t bother to show for the meetings. Both the House and Senate are scheduled to reconvene Monday.

The dispute has left hundreds of thousands of federal employees in the dark about when they will be paid, with many placed on temporary unpaid leave.

Trump has refused to sign a broader funding package, insisting that the border wall issue take precedence.

The impasse follows Democratic party victories in the midterm elections after which they will retake the House of Representatives in January.

This is likely to prevent the release of the estimated $5 billion in funding Trump claims will be needed for the initial phase of construction of the now infamous wall, which has become a hallmark of his presidency.

His political opponents claim he is holding the government hostage over a vanity project that will achieve almost nothing towards its stated aim while pandering to unnamed “right-wing radio and TV hosts.”

At least 19 people have been killed and 406 injured in Sudan since protests began on Dec. 19 over the country’s deteriorating economy, the official SUNA news agency reported Thursday.

Protesters have been railing against chronic shortages of basic necessities, including bread and fuel.

Minister of Information, Communications and Information Technology Bushara Guma Aro said at a press conference the protests were initially peaceful and the police did not intervene, but they gradually turned violent.

The dead include three in Northern State, five in Nahral-Neil State, six in Gedarif State, three in White Nile State and two members of the security forces, Aro told SUNA.

Among the injured, 219 were protesters and 187 were security forces, he added.

He stressed that some of the casualties had resulted from confrontations between shop owners and protestors who attempted to loot their properties.

Aro also noted that the security forces have arrested 107 elements belonging to armed movements.

He said the government has taken measures to overcome the crisis, adding that after Jan. 15, the shortages will be resolved.

He called on those demanding a change in government, saying “the way to regime change is through the ballot box”.

The opposition in Sudan has called through social media for wide-ranging demonstrations throughout the country following Friday prayers.

On Tuesday, Sudanese security forces dispersed thousands of protesters who had gathered in central Khartoum to demand the resignation of President Omar al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir, who has been in power since 1989, pledged Monday to carry out economic reforms amid the street protests.

A nation of 40 million people, Sudan has struggled to recover from the loss of three quarters of its oil output — its main source of foreign currency — when South Sudan seceded in 2011.

The U.S. began imposing sanctions on Sudan in 1997, including a trade embargo, over human rights violations and terrorism concerns but pledged to lift them in January.

Original source