The world is still in mourning for the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris a few days ago. The execution of a Malaysian citizen Bernand Then, snatched from a restaurant in Malaysian territory six months ago by Abu Sayyaf has shown just how inept and impotent governments are to terror attacks around the world.

The execution also hints of some global coordination, that hasn’t really been seen before.

Bernard Then, along with Thien Nyuk Fun, the owner of the Ocean King Seafood restaurant was taken at gunpoint by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group six months ago in Sandakan, Sabah, in Malaysian territory. Negotiations had been going on for many months to release them. Thien was released earlier this month, but negotiations to release Then broke down as the Philippine air force reportedly bombed Abu Sayyaf held territory in air raids.

Then’s severed head was found yesterday in a sack dumped near a municipal building in Barangay City last night.

This all occurred as 21 national leaders were gathering in Manila for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit.

The agenda for this summit included economics, regional cooperation, and terrorism.

This is the first time that world leaders have got together after the Paris terror attacks where the coordination of attacks on Syria is being discussed. US President Barak Obama was to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on ways to coordinate the fight against Islamic State.

President Obama, as some other leaders are under pressure to carefully screen any future Syrian immigration, due to potential risks of letting potential terrorists slip through.

However, the beheading of the Malaysian on the first day of the APEC Summit is a complete slur of utter contempt for the Asian-Pacific leaders meeting in Manila, especially with the backdrop of the recent Paris attacks.

This symbolically highlights the powerlessness of states against terrorism. It is also a reminder that terrorism can occur within any part of the globe without any great difficulties.

This in effect signals that there are no sanctuaries free of potential terror attacks.

There is a grave risk now that governments around the world will continue to curtail the freedom of its citizens in the name of ‘the war on terror’. However frankly, nothing can be done to prevent an attack made by any perpetrators, should they have the will to do so. The world must not risk making the same mistakes as stepping up attacks on IS and other terrorist strongholds, restrict the travel of its citizens to terrorist held areas, and further restrict freedom of movement within their own countries.

A new doctrine to fight terrorism that tackles the base problems is needed. The world has been on the ‘bomb it and rendition’ paradigm since 9/11. This has made the world a more dangerous place than it was 15 years ago.

Until the world is able to find a new paradigm in approaching terrorism, it will remain impotent to senseless acts of barbarism and terror.

As expectations build for a global consensus to emerge from the United Nations climate conference in Paris, starting on November 30, 2015, that could agree to taking action to limit any rise in global temperature to 2 degrees celsius, I would like to explain why these expectations are misplaced. And what we can do about it.

The essence of the problem is that most people and organisations are asking elites to take action on their behalf rather than taking action themselves. Not only is this a fearful and powerless approach, it reinforces the widespread delusions that elites have the power in this regard and that they are responsive to our pleas. Neither of these is true. We have the power and elites only respond when we create the circumstances that compel them to do so. And not otherwise. Hence, it is the action that we take, as individuals, communities and organisations, that generate the outcomes we want.

As a nonviolent activist, I have never asked elites (or their governments and corporations) to change their behaviour. Instead, I have invited them to respond powerfully to circumstances that I create that compel change. If I invite others to participate in the action I am taking and enough do so, elites have no choice but to act as I prefer. Let me give some examples to explain this.

If I want corporations to stop producing genetically modified (GM) food, the most powerful action I can take is to never buy it. If I only buy certified organic/biodynamic food and enough other people do so, then the market in GM food (and poisoned foods generally) will simply vanish. So if you don’t want GM food, don’t lobby elites for food labeling, just buy the certified organic/biodynamic food already available or, better still to enhance your self-reliance, grow organic food in your own backyard or in a community food plot. Then invite and/or campaign for others to join you.

The same principle applies to the climate. The science is overwhelmingly clear that it is our over-consumption of fossil fuels and meat that are the primary drivers of the climate catastrophe. So the most effective action we can take to tackle the climate crisis is to change our lifestyle to consume less (and preferably no) fossil fuels and less (and preferably no) meat. And to then invite others to consider doing so too. If there is less demand for fossil fuels and meat, you can rest assured that corporations will not be anxious to supply them because it is not profitable to supply a product for which there is no buyer.

This principle applies to all areas of our consumption where we need to make an impact if wider environmental problems are to be addressed. We need to reduce our water consumption, use less paper, wood and plastic, consume fewer metals and use less electricity.

So we can spend our time lobbying elites to legislate to force others to change their behaviour or we can systematically reduce our own consumption in these areas and invite/inspire those around us to do the same. If you would like to participate in one comprehensive program for doing this, you are welcome to join those participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth‘ which offers an easy series of steps for reducing your consumption in seven key resource areas by 10% per year for 15 successive years while simultaneously building your self-reliance.

In essence, if you lobby elites to control our consumption for us by making changes in what (or how) they produce, you are asking them to violate the economic law of supply and demand. If you change/reduce what you want, any sensible company will alter their production to match it (or eventually go out of business).

If you want your electricity from a renewable energy source, organize to produce it yourself at home or in your neighborhood, or buy it from a responsible supplier. If you want less burning of fossil fuels, reduce your own consumption, for example, by using your own car progressively less and, as you adapt (by staying nearer home or finding other ways to travel), eventually not at all.

Corporations produce what sells and is profitable. If you shift your consumption to healthy food, renewable energy and sustainably produced goods, while steadily reducing your consumption and increasing your self-reliance, you will create the world you want both through your own actions and your inspiration of (some) others.

If this sounds unrealistic, the strategy I have described above is Gandhi’s. Gandhi never asked anyone to do anything he wasn’t already doing himself. And by a century ago, his personal consumption was pitifully modest, even by Indian standards of his day, and he was highly self-reliant, exemplified by his daily spinning of khadi to make his own clothing. If he could dramatically reduce his personal consumption and develop his self-reliance 100 years ago, how much can you do today?

But let’s get back to Paris. Why will the climate talks fail? There are two primary reasons. On the whole, the corporations that have the most adverse impact on the climate (and environment generally) are not yet feeling anywhere near enough ‘consumer pressure’ to change their behavior adequately so, irrespective of the rhetoric some of these corporations will utter in various international fora (and despite any claims of corporate progress that are being made), they will resist any change that does not reflect reality in the markets in which they operate.

Moreover, the proposed corporate ‘trade agreements’ (such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement) are designed to fundamentally subvert governments – see ‘Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement: A Corporate Power Grab‘ – and, if adopted, they will render governments largely powerless on environmental issues (among other awful outcomes). See ‘Text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership‘.

But this is precisely why we have a lot of power too. It takes time and effort – and we are always battling against their corporate media trying to manipulate us into buying what they want to supply – but, in fact, we can influence most markets enormously (by altering and reducing what we buy).

The other reason that the climate talks in Paris will fail is because the goal being considered is delusional. Anyone who is seriously interested in tackling the ongoing climate catastrophe knows that tolerating a 2 degree increase (which, tragically, may well be ‘locked in’ already) is far too high. The maximum increase in temperature that is consistent with the environmental conditions of the Holocene period, on which human civilization is based, is less than .5 of one degree.

We are currently at a mere .85 above pre-industrial levels and we are already experiencing climate chaos as our record temperatures, storms, floods, wildfires and droughts, monster hurricanes, vanishing Arctic, Antarctic and glaciers, and disappearing Pacific islands remind us. What do you think we can expect if we go to 2 degrees? And, inevitably, precipitate ‘runaway climate change’; that is, activate a variety of positive feedback loops that reinforce and accelerate ongoing environmental breakdown. Which leads to a related point.

Another trap with the focus on 2 degrees is that it draws our attention away from the synergistic impact of our combined assaults on the environment including those unrelated to the climate. These include the devastating assaults on the environment through military violence (often leaving vast areas uninhabitable), rainforest destruction, industrial farming, mining, commercial fishing and the spreading radioactive contamination from Fukushima. We are also systematically destroying the limited supply of fresh water on the planet which means that water scarcity is becoming a frequent reality for many people and the collapse of hydrological systems is now expected by 2020. Human activity drives 200 species of life (birds, animals, fish, insects) to extinction each day and 80% of the world’s forests and over 90% of the large fish in the ocean are already gone.

Despite this readily available information, governments continue to prioritise spending $US2,000,000,000 each day on military violence, the sole purpose of which is to terrorise and kill fellow human beings, while struggling to find the modest resources necessary for any number of valuable initiatives, including those related to environmental sustainability.

In any case, we have just become obsessed with talking about ‘2 degrees’ because it was the target nominated in early studies published in the 1970s, became anchored in policy debates over the decades, and ‘was officially sanctioned as the long-term global goal for greenhouse gas emission reductions at the COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009’. See ‘Two degree Celsius climate change target “utterly inadequate”, expert argues‘. In fact, 2 degrees is far too high and if you are reading the scientific literature, many scientists are telling us that. For example, in 2009 Johan Rockström, James Hansen and colleagues explained that three of nine interlinked planetary boundaries – in relation to climate, biodiversity loss and biogeochemical cycles – have already been overstepped. See ‘A safe operating space for humanity’.

However, reminding people that 2 degrees is far too high doesn’t make good ‘business as usual’ reading so it isn’t part of the primary discourse leading up to Paris. And on this count, regrettably, we are being badly served by many who regard themselves as ‘activists’ too.

This includes those people organizing and participating in those many events for activists being held in Paris in parallel with the UN talks. I am well aware that it is exciting to travel to an exotic location to share stories and participate in events with others who share your view and to discuss plans for tackling the climate catastrophe. However, unless you are travelling to Paris by walking or cycling (as some will be doing), you are simply contributing to the climate catastrophe, particularly if you travel by aircraft or car. There are other ways to organize which set a far more appropriate example to those we are trying to influence.

So, in essence, those who are scared and powerless will either do nothing or they will waste their time lobbying elites, and their governments and corporations, to change (without applying the market pressure that compels corporations to respond ‘automatically’). And climate marches (and other events) that focus on lobbying elites, rather than mobilizing ‘ordinary’ people to change their own behavior, are badly misconceived because they do not understand nonviolent action and how to use it to leverage power effectively.

On the other hand, if you are fearless and powerful enough to respond to reality, do some research of your own and then take personal action and invite your family, friends, neighbors and community to join you. If you want a simple framework for powerful action to tackle all environmental problems, ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ will give you one.

In addition, if you want to take nonviolent action, don’t waste your time on those wrongly-focused climate marches (unless you are using them to raise awareness of effective campaigns). Instead, plan and participate in locally-organized, strategically-focused nonviolent campaigns that mobilize ‘ordinary’ people to act differently on a permanent basis and which alter the behavior of corporations, including those (such as the weapons manufacturers) which function outside markets we can influence by using our purchasing power. For some idea of what this requires, see ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions‘. If we alter and systematically reduce our consumption and focus our nonviolent action campaigns accurately, elites will be compelled to move in the right direction. They will not do so otherwise.

One final point. Another ‘denial tactic’ that has been used effectively to distract many people from the urgency of the environmental crisis in which we now find ourselves is to talk about ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation’ and to dismiss talk about human extinction as premature because we have until mid-century or even the end of the century. However, once again, if you read the scientific literature carefully, some highly reputable climate scientists are warning us of the rapidly narrowing timeframe, with ‘near term human extinction’ now possible by 2030. See ‘Why is Near Term Human Extinction Inevitable?‘

So be aware of the ways in which your own fear let you be deceived about unpalatable realities.

And remember the lesson from Gandhi: If you are not willing to reduce your own consumption of environmental resources, why should anyone else?

In essence: forget Paris and get on with saving the planet yourself. You have vast power if you choose to apply it locally and strategically.

By Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi

The barbaric attacks in Paris have led to discussions at the G-20 Summit in Antalya which have been more political than economic.

Antalya, with its strict security, was packed with political and business delegations. Despite the summit’s economic focus, politics has forced itself into the discussions.

The Paris attacks shocked the world only a few days before the summit; they showed yet again that terrorism has no respect for either religious or cultural boundaries.

Saudi Arabia has always warned against terrorism, and the words of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman at the conference left no room for doubt or indecision. “We have suffered in the Kingdom from terrorism,” he said. “We have been determined to fight it rigorously and decisively, and to address its intellectual perceptions, especially those that take from the teachings of Islam a justification for terrorism. Islam cannot be blamed for such monstrosity.”

The king highlighted that Saudi Arabia had been a victim and a target of terrorism and had continuously warned against it. It has established the International Center for Counter-Terrorism under the United Nations umbrella and donated $110 million to make it an international center for the exchange of information and research concerning terrorism.

The presence of terrorism, No. 1 on the world leaders’ agendas, brings up the subject of the world’s ability to fight it. It is no secret that extremists and terrorist organizations have found safe havens in failed states. We see how Syria and Iraq are attracting terrorists and their organizations from around the world.

If the world really wants to combat terror, then decisive action is needed in the way that states promoting terror are treated.
The continuation in power of the murderous Syrian regime that has killed a quarter of a million people is an inexcusable stain on humanity. The world is reaping the fruits of its inaction in Syria where many originally thought the problem would remain an internal one. Yet, the terrorists are making their way to other countries even as the refugees are fleeing the threats of chaos and death.

Fighting terror is an international responsibility and dealing effectively with the Middle East’s political and economic problem must be the first step toward a solution.

Some Middle East countries instigate wars and sectarianism by supporting militias to fight proxy wars. Observing Iran’s policies, one can clearly see it is a common factor in the area’s problems, and the world should cease its acquiescence in Iranian policies.

Iran’s problem goes beyond the nuclear weapon deal, extending to expansionist policies and extreme ideologies.

The world cannot ignore its responsibilities, particularly since the centers of power in the world have changed. The world was once run by US-Soviet meetings and then by the G8. This is not, however, the case any longer; a new dynamic and a new reality have taken their places on the international stage.

The varying development rates and a number of economic crises have given some countries greater power in the world’s economy. Thus Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country in the G-20, a group which represents 90 percent of the global gross national product.

The summit has discussed economics as per the G-20 mission to monitor sustainable growth, infrastructure development, and job creation.

Even if the world were to achieve economic results that avoided crisis, economic recovery would still be fragile.

There is an interest in China’s declining economic growth and how it affects other countries’ economies. We can say that the economy is of vital importance to governments because without a successful econmy, governments might find themselves in trouble because of a lack of internal stability.

Terrorism tries to create internal instability, hinders development rates, depletes resources and instigates worry and unease in society, making investors reluctant to invest.

The Middle East has talked about this problem and King Salman, representing the Arabs, stated certain clear political positions.

He began his speech with terrorism, knowing that the world would listen attentively to him because of Saudi warnings and shared intelligence which have alerted the world to imminent threats.

Yes, politics and economics did mix at the summit in Antalya, but whoever said that the two were separate?

Armenia, a northern neighbor of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is delighted with the recent lifting of the international sanctions on Iran. The Armenian government is looking forward to further strengthening its cooperation with Iran and expectations are particularly high in the energy and transportation fields. This cooperation would certainly ease the economic and political blockade imposed on Armenia by Turkey and Azerbaijan. However, Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), a Russian-led economic bloc, may create a number of unique obstacles that might impede the rekindling of a prosperous bilateral relationship between the two countries.

Armenia has always viewed Iran as a crucial ally in its combat against the aforementioned economic and political isolation as well as against its geographical dependence on Georgian transit routes. On the other hand, Iran is also keen on further developing its relations with Armenia for various political and economic reasons, with a major one being the possibility of gaining access to EEU markets.

Armenia and Iran, despite distinct religious differences, share a number of historic events and cultural values. The two countries also have common problems associated with isolation from regional projects. For instance, neither country was included in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project. Instead, they have initiated their own gas pipeline, which was initially aimed at making Armenia a transit state through which Iranian gas could be exported to and sold in Europe.

Moreover, the construction of this $220 million gas pipeline would allow Armenia to find an alternative gas supplier and thus become less dependent on Russia’s energy sources. However, due to Russia’s predictable intervention, the pipeline’s diameter was reduced from 1,420 to 700 millimeters, thus making the export of Iranian gas to Europe via Armenia unfeasible.

Almost as soon as the nuclear deal was signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, Armenia decided not to miss the strategic opportunity resulting from the gradual lifting of sanctions from its southern neighbor. Already in August, 2015 Iran and Armenia signed an agreement regarding the construction of the third electricity transmission line between the two states. This project, which is worth around $120 million, would increase the electricity transmission capacity between Iran and Armenia, and would enable Armenia to export 6 billion kWh annually instead of the current 1.3 billion kWh of energy. This information was provided by the Deputy Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Armenia, Areg Galstyan, during a recent seminar titled “The changes of energy security of the Republic of Armenia”.

Another important development in the Iranian-Armenian relations occurred on October 14, 2015, when Iran’s first vice-president, Eshaq Jahangiri, arrived in Yerevan, which also made him the highest-ranking Iranian official to travel to Armenia since 2011. According to the Iranian media, the major goal of this visit was to revive certain Armenian-Iranian economic projects, which were postponed because of the sanctions. For now, the two parties are also trying to consolidate their relations in the transportation sector. For that purpose, the two states restarted discussions over the construction of the Iranian-Armenian railway, the preliminary proposal for which dates back to 2009. The railway construction, which would cost roughly $3 billion, has also obtained an interest from China, which via this railway may alter the path of exporting its goods to Europe. Therefore, on September 21, 2015, being aware of the possible potentnial for Chinese involvement in the project, an Armenian delegation, headed by prime minister Hovik Abrahamyan, paid a visit to China to discuss the perspectives of getting sufficient funds for the construction of the costly Armenian part of the railway.

Meanwhile, by putting an emphasis on its geographical stance, Armenia also seeks to become a so-called “bridge” for re-engaging Iran into the international arena. Iran and Armenia have been discussing the possibility of making trading tariffs lower for a long time. However, since Armenia’s accession to the EEU in January, 2015, the country is not allowed to sign bilateral free-trade agreements with other states. For that purpose, according to the announcement of Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharian in September, 2015, Armenia has launched talks in the EEU for signing free-trade agreement with Iran. During his visit to Armenia, the Iranian vice-president has also stressed the importance of developing trade relations with Armenia by emphasizing Armenia’s role as a transit zone for exporting Iranian goods to EEU.

Yerevan would certainly wish to expand and intensify the opportunities for cooperation with Tehran on a sector-by-sector ground; such sectors may be air travel and tourism. And although Iran is currently the number four largest trading partner of Armenia, after the European Union, Russia and China, respectively, the potential of enhancing the scopes of trade cooperation has dramatically increased of late.

Nevertheless, it seems that Armenia’s geographical advantage may be threatened by the geopolitical environment. Russia would not easily accept the diminished Armenian dependence on its trade and energy resources. And due to the Vienna deal, Iran’s further actions in the South Caucasus may bring back the historic competition with Russia for the influence in the region. Thus, the situation may change once Iran decides to exploit its current status and resources and get re-engaged in the South Caucasus to strengthen its stance in this region.

Conversely, today Iran is a very important ally for Russia, and partnership with Armenia would hardly be able to deteriorate this strategic relationship. Furthermore, the two countries have similar stands on the Syrian problem. Besides, by intensifying cooperation with Iran, Russia also wants to exclude the chances of Iran’s possible rapprochement with the West and the United States. Therefore, it seems that if the Armenian government manages to carefully maneuver in this situation, it may bolster its ties with Iran, without spoiling its relations with Russia.

It’s a tragic fact of man’s nature that people prescribe an ounce of prevention when a pound of cure is needed — and a pound of cure when times call for a ton of desperate measures.

Immigration, rightly and largely thanks to Donald Trump, has become a big issue this election cycle.

But not big enough.

And last Tuesday’s GOP debate was illustrative of the problem. When John “Can’t do” Kasich and Jeb “Invasion is an act of love” Bush both scoffed at the idea of following the law, saying we “can’t” deport illegals, the response was lacking. Only Senator Ted Cruz rode in to save the issue from their demagoguery. He said it was “offensive” to suggest that enforcing the law is anti-immigrant and warned that the Republicans will lose if they “join Democrats as the party of amnesty.” He also quite eloquently pointed out that the media wouldn’t be suppressing the dark reality of illegal migration if “a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” and that there’s nothing compassionate about diminishing millions of Americans’ earnings.

Yet even the intelligent, staunchly traditionalist Cruz misses the boat on immigration. Even the intrepid, titillatingly anti-establishment Trump does. In 2013, Cruz proposed (at 3:28 in this video) increasing H1B visas 500 percent and doubling legal immigration. And Trump repeats the theme that immigration must be done “legally.” The problem?

Americans are “legally” being done out of their jobs. They’re “legally” being pushed into socialism. And they’re “legally” having their culture stolen away. Yet much more than this went unmentioned during Tuesday’s debate.

“Think about the families!” cried Kasich, alluding to family unification. “C’mon, folks!” Okay, c’mon, let’s think about families.

The families argument is pure propaganda. Families can also be united by sending people the other way — back to their native countries, where most family members often are in the first place. Second, the families argument could be used as a pretext for not enforcing any law. Why imprison people for bank robbery or embezzlement? If they have children, the kids will be left without a parent, or even parentless and have to languish in foster care. And as with illegals, many other law-breakers engage in their crimes “because they want a better life.” How many mafia figures didn’t use their ill-gotten gains to support their families?

Moreover, failure to enforce immigration law is discriminatory. If such law can be flouted with impunity, why should any of us have to follow the law? The amnesty crowd are essentially creating a privileged group — illegal migrants — who alone will get a pass on their criminality. Is unfair discrimination compassionate?

Kasich also trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty and said the idea of deporting “11 million people who are law-abiding…is not an adult argument.” But is this a mature statement? The illegals by definition aren’t “law-abiding” because they broke the law in coming to the U.S. in the first place. Here’s something else unmentioned: Reagan reportedly called the 1986 amnesty “My biggest mistake.”

And Kasich, Bush, “Gang of Eight” Marco Rubio and others think we should repeat it.

Note that since the ’86 mistake there have been six more amnesties, each one attended by promises to secure the border. It’s said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Should we play the fool an eighth time? Are we Charlie Brown with the football?

Transitioning to political footballs, there’s the Kasich-Bush-Insane notion that we “can’t deport 11 million people.” Here’s the ideal debate response:

Well, we certainly can’t if we look to make not good policy but excuses. But despite what “Can’t do” Kasich might say this isn’t a matter of capability but will. But first realize that we don’t have to deport illegals — we can get them to deport themselves.

You use a carrot-and-stick approach; the removal of the carrot and application of the stick. First make sure illegals can’t get any government benefits; of course, this includes no driver’s licenses, which can enable illegals to vote in our elections. Then ensure they can’t get jobs by punishing employers hiring them. Once these incentives to remain are gone, most will leave voluntarily, as Arizona’s crackdown on illegals some years back proved. And once most depart, deporting the few remaining will be an easy task. So the issue isn’t complicated; it’s only made so by pandering politicians who put votes ahead of country.

Speaking of a treasonous spirit, the topic of H1B visas — which allow employers to recruit high-skilled foreign workers — came up during the second-to-last GOP debate on Oct. 28. Once again, no candidate fielded it sufficiently. Ideal debate statement:

In the news there has been story after story recently about corporations replacing high-skilled American workers with lower-wage foreigners; this is a violation of the law, which stipulates that an H1B-visa recruit can only be retained if it “will not affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,” but this law is routinely flouted and unenforced. Outrageously and rubbing salt in the wound, in some cases these Americans have even been forced to train their foreign replacements under threat of losing their severance packages! This is treasonous! And think about the families, the families that these Americans can no longer support. Is this compassionate? Is this an “act of love”?

The H1B-visa program is being abused, and is used to abuse Americans, by crony capitalists in and out of government who grease each other’s palms. This will stop, cold, under my presidency. More than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force. We need to ensure that corporations hire available American talent. Let high-skilled foreigners build up their foreign countries, and let high-skilled Americans have the jobs that are their birthright.

Returning to Tuesday’s debate, many candidates mentioned Islamic terrorism when asked to cite America’s biggest current threat. Yet not a single debater pointed out the following. Debate statement:

With many millions of unknown-quantity illegals violating our border during the last couple of decades, probability dictates that some terrorists have come across. There’s no doubt that some weapons of mass destruction have come across. Yet we can’t get it across to our feckless leaders that it’s silly, in the extreme, to talk about a “war on terror” and pursue “nation building” in faraway lands while leaving our back door to Mexico vulnerable. It’s a bit like going to the nearest crime-ridden naked-city street looking to be Charles Bronson in Death Wish and leaving your home’s door wide open on your way out. And think about the families on 9/11 and those on the next 9/11, whose loved ones will have been sacrificed on the altar of political pandering. Leaving your national family’s door open isn’t an act of love. It’s criminal negligence and an act of treason.

Having said all this, none of the above addresses our main “legal” problem: legal immigration. Since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia; 70 to 90 percent of those vote for socialistic candidates upon being naturalized. This is a universal Western phenomenon, mind you, and was actually referenced by Labour Party operative Andrew Neather. A former aide to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, he admitted in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Yet such schemes wouldn’t be possible had Westerners, including conservative ones, not fallen victim to “immigrationism”: the idea that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be unquestioned. The reality?

Immigration always presents problems of assimilation. It’s just a matter of whether the likelihood of it is great or virtually nil.

As to the latter, a recent poll showed that a majority of Muslims in America prefer Sharia law to American civil law. Note also the studies showing that young Muslims in the West are actually more Islamic and anti-Western than their elders.

In addition, note that amnesty duly passed into law would be as “legal” as our widely accepted legal immigration. Legal is not synonymous with smart.

Mexico’s Supreme Court nullified the authorization granted by the executive branch to cultivate genetically-modified soy in Campeche and Yucatán.

Mayan indigenous communities in the southeastern states of Campeche and Yucatán celebrated the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) decision to provisionally suspend the permission granted to the transnational company Monsanto to cultivate genetically-modified (GMO) soy. The SCJ argued that when the authorization was given — during the government of Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) — the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fishing and Food (SAGARPA) neglected to consider the right of prior consultation of indigenous communities, established by the Mexican Constitution.

The Second Court of the SCJ ordered that a consultation with the affected communities be done, although the judgment, published on Nov. 4, did not take into account the environmental damages that production of GMO soy produces.

“We did it!,” Gustavo Huchín Cauich, a Mayan beekeeper from the town of Hopelchén in Campeche, announced in the social media. He led a campaign against Monsanto through Change, online petition platform.

“The Supreme Court decided that we, the Mayan communities, have the reason in the writs of amparo we presented against the permits the federal government granted to Monsanto to cultivate soy. This means that Monsanto cannot plant transgenic soy in the Yucatán peninsula and the only way to grant the permits would be doing a previous consultation with us, as members of the communities to be affected,” Huchín Cauich said.

Organic honey endangered

More than 25,000 indigenous families who are organic beekeepers have been affected by Monsanto GMO crops that cover 250,000 hectares in the southeast of the country. In 2011, the European Union ceased the importation of their honey after finding traces of genetically-modified pollen. This resulted in the beekeepers presenting writs of amparo asking to prohibit the planting of GMO soy.

According to Huchín Cauich, “the planting of GMO soy affects beekeeping, a historic and traditional practice of the Mayan people and violates the rights to a healthy environment by the excessive use of pesticides and the deforestation which accompanies GMO agriculture. Presently, thousands of hectares of jungle have been deforested. Our jungle is the last remaining one in the country.”

Diverse studies have demonstrated that GMO soy affects honey production, changing the flavor and quality. It requires the use of the herbicide glyphosate which is suspected to be carcinogenic, according to the World Health Organization, and affects the bees and is a source of soil contamination.

“This year we have witnessed how soy producers, mostly large agribusinessmen from outside the region, have increased the aerial spraying of pesticides, placing the health of people and bees, our principal source of income, in jeopardy,” Huchín Cauich said.

Mexico is the sixth largest honey producer in the world and the third largest exporter after Argentina and China, making up 10 percent of the 300,000 metric tons that is sold on the global market each year. The 90 percent of Mexico’s honey production goes to Europe.

By Sajad Mohseni*

Political instability in Iraq and Syria can be considered as one of the most important reasons behind the rise of Daesh (Islamic State) as the most powerful terrorist group in the world, so that, the possibility of Daesh getting active in other countries can be surmised on the basis of the political stability in those countries. In addition to political instability of governments, economic insufficiency is another factor that has further worsened the situation, helping Daesh to bring under its control vast parts in the eastern side of Syria as well as large swathes of territory in northern and western Iraq.

As a result, the group has been able to consolidate its grip on oil reserves in those regions, and in addition to foreign financial aid that it receives, take advantage of economic spoils it has collected in areas under its control in order to recruit more people and boost its military power.

Nonetheless, recent developments indicate that the group has relatively lost its ability to expand territories that are under its control. Advances made by the Iraqi army in the western province of al-Anbar and the movement of Peshmerga forces toward full liberation of the northern Kurdish town of Sinjar, on the one hand, and domination of the Syrian army over Damascus’ suburbs in addition to efforts made by the Syrian army to totally capture the northern city of Aleppo on top of the rising strategic and logistical losses of Daesh, on the other hand, have dealt heavy economic and psychological blows to this group.

The beginning of air strikes by Russia on September 30, 2015, in addition to the military advisory service provided by Iran to Syrian government, and further strengthening of Syria’s ground forces have changed the course of the war of attrition between Daesh and the central government in Syria in favor of President Bashar Assad’s administration, enabling the country’s army to further advance in areas previously controlled by Daesh. In Iraq, advances made by the Iraqi army in al-Anbar Province in the western front, and further advances in northern front with support from the Kurdish Peshmerga forces and the United States aerial attacks have also put mounting psychological pressure on Daesh. As a result, the terrorist group has lost a large part of territories it had previously under control, with the northern Iraqi Kurdish town of Sinjar being a major example to the point.

Sinjar is important in that after Peshmerga forces consolidate their grip on this northern town, they will be able to cut the strategic road that connects the Syrian city of Raqqa to northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which is one of the most vital routes for Daesh forces in the Iraqi front and one of the most strategic routes along which oil consignments from Mosul are taken to black market in Turkey. As a result, the development can lead to escalation of economic pressure on the terrorist group, which will further increase after Daesh has lost Baiji refinery, which is one of the most important oil refineries in the Arab country.

Despite all these facts, it seems that one of the most effective ways to fight Daesh is to cut financial lifeline of the group. The noteworthy point in this regard, however, is that as pressure on Daesh increases, it is possible for the group to opt for “indirect war” as a major option, especially if the group fails to form a powerful coalition with other opposition groups in Syria to bolster its position there. Therefore, one may say that piling up pressure on Daesh in military front can make the group go for other options as its next priorities, which can be enumerated as follows:

• Increasing terrorist attacks in other countries that are fighting Daesh: Due to increasing pressure on Daesh, this option can be considered as the most important option available to this group. In this case, Daesh terrorists will try to create insecurity in countries that are opposed to them, thus, making them end their strikes against the group in Iraq and Syria. One of the most important tools that Daesh may use in this regard is to instigate the public opinion in those countries against governments as a result of terrorist attacks, so that, those governments would have to end their war with Daesh. The recent bomb blasts in the Lebanese capital city, Beirut, and the French capital, Paris, as well as the downing of Russia’s Airbus A321 passenger plane over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula may be related to this scenario. More importantly, these cases may not be the end of terrorist attacks by this group as its terrorist members are possible to conduct more bomb attacks in other countries.
• Attacking the interests of countries that are fighting Daesh in other countries and beyond their borders: This option will seek to mount pressure on any state actor that has engaged Daesh and may include identification of the interests or nationals of those states in other countries in order to be attacked.
• Hostage taking operations by Daesh as a source of acquiring money: What makes this option seem more possible is the escalation of economic pressure on this group, especially in Iraq, because selling hostages has been one of the most important sources of money for this group.

Despite all the above facts, it seems that following recent debacles faced by Daesh, the wars in Syria and Iraq will gradually start to have international consequences. At the end of the day, the pressure of the public opinion will either make foreign governments withdraw from war in these countries, or domestic atmosphere in those countries will become more insecure so that the governments will have to pay more attention to what is going on inside their countries, as a result of which they will lose some of their latitude to act at international level.

*Sajad Mohseni
Doctoral Student of International Relations; Tarbiat Modarres University

“We said clearly that we agreed on a date, March 23, and it was not a unilateral decision, but established with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia)… I ask that the negotiations be accelerated. Even Timochenko – leader of the guerrilla – said in Havana that if there was the political will we could sign before March 23, and I think the same”, President Juan Manuel Santos told reporters in regard to the peace process in Cuba from the Philippine capital Manila, where he is attending the XXIII Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

“It is not the government’s fault if the peace process slows, since we have all the interest and will to reach an accord as soon as possible,” added Santos, responding to a reporter on what would happen if no peace deal is signed on March 23.

“We have already said that if they want a bilateral and definitive cease-fire we must advance on all the aspects that this concerns,” stressed the President.

There has been a dramatic rise in terrorism over the last 15 years. There are nine times more people killed in terrorist attacks today than there were in 2000. In 2014, 32,658 lives were lost to terrorism, the highest number recorded, and an 80% increase from 2013. These are the findings of the recent Global Terrorism Index, published by the Institute for Economic and Peace (IEP).

According to the IEP report, just two terrorist groups, ISIL and Boko Haram, are now jointly responsible for 51% of all deaths from claimed terrorist attacks world-wide. Both groups predominately target private citizens.

Boko Haram and ISIL in numbers

The Global Terrorism Index notes that terrorism spread significantly in the past year, with attacks and fatalities in more countries than ever. While many countries experience no terrorist activity, the number of countries to experience at least one or more deaths from terrorist activity has increased from 59 in 2013 to 67 in 2014. This includes OECD countries such as Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada and France.

Despite this, just five countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria– account for 78% of all deaths in 2014. Importantly, over 60% of the countries ranked by the Index experienced no deaths from terrorism, and 13 times as many people are killed globally by homicides than die in terrorist attacks.

The Underlying Drivers Of Terrorism

Global Terrorism Index finds that the two factors most closely associated with terrorism are the levels of political violence and conflict. Ninety-two per cent of all terrorist attacks between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries where political violence by the government was widespread, while 88% of all terrorist attacks between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries that were experiencing or involved in violent conflicts.

However, drivers of terrorism differ: in OECD countries, socio-economic factors such as lack of opportunity and low social cohesion correlate significantly, while in non-OECD countries, internal conflicts, political terror, and corruption are strongly correlated.

“Since we can see a number of clearly identifiable socio-political factors that foster terrorism, it is important to implement policies that aim to address these associated causes. This includes reducing state-sponsored violence, diffusing group grievances, and improving respect for human rights and religious freedoms, while considering cultural nuances,” said Steve Killelea, Institute for Economics and Peace Founder and Executive Chairman.

Terrorism In The West: Lone Wolf Attacks

The majority of deaths from terrorism do not occur in the West, noted the Global Terrorism Index. Excluding the September 11 attack, only 0.5% of deaths from terrorism have occurred in the West since 2000. Including September 11, the percentage reaches 2.6.

Of the attacks that do occur, lone wolf attackers are the main perpetrators, causing 70% of all deaths in the West over the past 10 years. It is important to note that political extremism, not Islamic fundamentalism is the main driver of terrorism in Western countries.

Foreign Fighters

The rise of ISIL has brought with it several challenging dynamics for counterterrorism. The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria since 2011 is the largest influx in modern times. Current estimates now range from 25,000 to 30,000 fighters, from roughly 100 countries. Half of the foreign fighters travelling to Iraq and Syria are from neighbouring MENA countries and a quarter from Europe and Turkey.

The flow of foreign fighters does not appear to be diminishing with over 7,000 arriving in the first six months of 2015.

Additionally, the report found that terrorist activity is a significant driver of forced migration. Ten of the 11 countries most affected by terrorism also have the highest rates of refugees and internal displacement. This highlights the strong connection between the current refugee crisis, terrorism and conflict.

By Scott N. Romaniuk

In what French President François Hollande called an “act of war” by ISIS militants, the Paris attacks saw France declare a state of emergency across the country and close its borders. The decision to secure France’s borders was based on the rationale that any perpetrators of the attacks still at large would not be able to leave the country. Border security is also expected to play a role in preventing terrorists from entering a country.

The decision to close France’s borders is one that is incredibly challenging to implement. France shares a 1,274-mile long border with six countries to the east and a 436-mile long border with Spain and Andorra to the south. Its long coastline also poses a problem for border security. France is also part of the European Union’s (EU) Schengen zone – the product of an agreement that abolished the EU’s internal borders rendering border crossings and checkpoints across much of the bloc obsolete.

The events of the Paris attacks heighten tension about the role of borders in the modern EU. Germany’s Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, asked Europeans not to link it to the ongoing migrant crisis. The next day, the Greek government announced that two men linked to the attacks registered as migrants in Greece and one of them “entered Europe [via Leros] while masquerading as a refugee just six weeks ago.”

While one of the gunmen was identified as a Frenchman, Belgian authorities have made several arrests related to the Paris attacks. These are precisely the factors that reinforce the idea that borders, particularly border closure, while playing an important role in national security, divert authorities’ attention from the real factors that facilitated such a highly-coordinated series of attacks in the heart of the French capital. A major obstacle is that one case cannot easily link terrorism with migration and consequently impact policy. This does not imply, however, that more cases need to arise before changes are made to the EU’s counterterrorism policy solely on the basis of migration.

Following an extraordinary European Council meeting held on September 21, 2001, approval was reached on a comprehensive policy to combat terrorism. In addition to the five areas in which new instruments and measures were to be implemented, all EU member states became bound to a single long-term counterterrorism strategy. Shortly after ISIS militants carried out the Paris attacks, ISIS announced that it was just the “first of the storm” and that France would continue to be one of its top targets.

For the second time in a single year, the French nation had been deeply shocked by terrorist attacks with the security of France appearing less certain than in previous years. These events, and potential future attacks, illustrate the need to revisit the plan that came into effect in 2001, which implied that, “the rotating presidencies were no longer able to set the EU counterterrorism agenda solely on the basis of their own national priorities” as Dr. Ordrich Bures explains in EU Counterterrorism Policy: A Paper Tiger?

The 2001 policy from inception was so ambitious and so widely encompassing that it seemed to be blatantly detached from the ability of policymakers to put its measures into practice – a perspective that, though observed by many in EU institutions, has yet to be acted on.

EU counterterrorism policymakers have been caught-up in debates with critics that terrorism is something exceptional, something more than organized crime and that the perceived difference implies that completely novel measures and instruments need to be put in place in order to combat it. Law enforcement authorities across the EU receive considerable training and sufficient means to combat organized crime, which also uses terrorism as a utilitarian tool. Counterterrorism, however, remains a question of organized crime even though what the EU faces today is serious internal and external threats from groups like the Islamic State.

For years now many EU member states have voiced their concerns about the inadequacies of Frontex, which remains drastically underfunded and understaffed. The agency has also been misused, supplementing national services in military-like missions rather than concentrating on coordinating border control. Executive Director of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, reported on the agency’s efforts this past year in registering “more than 800,000 irregular border crossings,” and voluntary aid organizations, which have been shouldering a lot of the responsibility in Europe’s migrant crisis, are unable to sustain the responsibility for a long period of time.

Frontex should not have to enlist the help of volunteer organizations since this is the EU’s principle border control agency tasked with securing the EU’s external borders. But at the moment, the EU suffers from a combination of its resources being stretched too thin, poor allocation of resources, and a major blip in its prioritizing. Even though the EU has to maintain a fine balance between helping those who are fleeing conflict zones and ensuring the safety and security of its own citizens, the EU has to take stock of its recent failure to protect its own first and foremost.

The EU still accepts social cohesion superficially, pretending that freedom of movement poses little risk for the simple reason that it fails to accept the challenge of social disruption accompanying discriminate management of passports and identity checks on movement controls. The EU has chosen to settle the matter by accepting the free movements of all peoples in Europe. Alternatively, the need may soon arise to accept checking some Europeans or all Europeans.

EU authorities need to acknowledge that violence, organized crime, and terrorism share a relationship with the current migrant crisis. International human smuggling is strongly linked to other forms of transnational crime such as the trafficking of narcotics. Criminals, fugitives, terrorists, and weapons can be moved as easily as economic migrants and those claiming to seek refuge from conflict zones like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among other places.

Frontex’s 2015 risk assessment has only recently shown that human smuggling can serve as a channel for terrorist operatives into Europe where they can move freely throughout the Schengen area. This should not have come as a surprise to EU authorities even before the Islamic State threatened to place terrorists among the thousands of migrants streaming into Europe where they are safely hidden in plain sight.

At a time when EU member states are calling for less intrusion and increased state sovereignty, the area of counterterrorism and border security is a principle area in which more EU is necessary, meaning greater cooperation, cross-“border” collaboration, and communication among authorities throughout the bloc. The Schengen system has measures built in that allow for enhanced security procedures if national interests are threatened. There is no sense worrying about defending Schengen given its flexibility. Instead, the EU must acknowledge the flaws in its outdated counterterrorism policy above and beyond those in its disturbingly neglected migration policy, and consider national priories in the face of the growing threat of terrorism (as part of transnational crime).

Carnegie Europe’s Visiting Scholar, Marc Pierini, talks about this threat, noting the some thousand or so terrorists already in the EU. It is clear that the growth of this number is a real possibility with Europe’s migrant influx. Even though increased rates of migration is something that the EU should have proactively addressed, beginning with updating its decade-old policies, it will have to come to terms with its interest in maintaining open borders, but in light of increased migration. One cannot dodge the fact that EU’s own “openness” is a self-created vulnerability making it susceptible to terrorist infiltration and networking.

To a large extent, current EU counterterrorism policies are relics that predate the events of the past several years, when increased terrorist instances have been recorded and migrant flows have swelled. These are the sort of events that the EU should have seen coming and should have been preparing for by taking into account the need for consensus, flexibility in its principles, prioritization, the role of internal and external borders, and the importance of agencies put in place for the sole purpose of surveying and managing those borders.

The EU also needs to reorient its current counterterrorism policy so as to focus on EU security against the threats of organized crime. Its core principles, furthermore, need to be re-read through the lens of current events and the expertise of security professionals and experts, without allowing its critics to delay the implementation of policy through boisterous claims that systematic border control infringes on Schengen and both the concept and practice of free moment.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com.

By John Alexander*

Following the most recent NATO Summit held in Wales, Canada along with all alliance members, committed to “reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities.”² The alliance members accepted as “guidance”³: to continue to spend a minimum of 2 percent of individual national GDP, or where a country is currently spending less than 2 percent, then to increase spending within the next ten years to 2 percent. A similar commitment was made to spend “20 percent of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development,” or, where they are not currently doing so, to increase to this percentage within ten years.⁴ And lastly, nations agreed to enhance interoperability and “… that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics.”⁵ In 2013, Canada spent the equivalent of 0.89 percent of GDP on defence.⁶ Among G7 nations, Canadian defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP are the lowest, even behind the ‘cash-strapped’ nations of Europe.⁷

Despite Canada’s commitment at the Wales Summit, a number of questions remain regarding future levels of Canadian defence expenditures and their effect upon Canada’s NATO commitment, particularly in light of Prime Minister Harper’s comment highlighted above. Are political commitments like those coming out of the Wales Summit largely symbolic in nature without an expectation of substantive follow-through by contributing nations? More pointedly, to what degree is Canada actually prepared to meet her commitment? This article will demonstrate that Canada is unlikely to achieve these targets, based upon historical precedent, and based upon recent indications given by the Government of Canada. However, despite this, it will be argued that the failure to achieve these targets does not reflect a reduction in Canada’s commitment to NATO, either politically or financially.

What Is Meant by the Target of 2 Percent GDP?

Before attempting to analyse whether Canada will meet the targets that she committed to at the Wales Summit, it warrants examining the meaning and scope of that commitment. The targets are measured as a percentage of GDP. The first criticism of this type of target mirrors common criticism of GDP as a measurement of economic growth and capacity in the first place.⁸ A common, accepted measure of GDP is necessary to allow for a common understanding of commitment levels.

This criticism translates across to the analysis of the absolute amount of defence spending used to calculate the 2 percent. The manner by which NATO members report spending towards their military is not consistent across the alliance, and therefore, the manner of comparing them has always been a challenge.⁹ A dollar (or pound or euro) in the hand of one member’s military is not the equivalent of a dollar in the hand of another. Spending is reported differently. It may appear as operations in one budget, and personnel costs in another, or even as military spending in one budget, and other departmental spending in another, and how the funds are used will also differ among nations. Factors at issue include how much money nations spend towards operations, capital equipment acquisitions, personnel costs, and real property management. These differences demonstrate the difficulty of using this type of measurement to determine real levels of military investment and financial support, as it is the responsibility of each reporting nation to identify how the funds have been spent.

A further criticism of a military defence spending target based upon percentage of GDP is that it fails to take into account a country’s ability to pay. In considering what it means to be a nation that can ‘afford’ to pay, there are a number of possibilities, two of which are considerations of a nation’s GDP per capita, and national debt levels. The GDP per capita analysis provides a context that calculations based simply upon aggregate GDP do not. It is clear that $2 million in military spending in a country with a GDP of $100 million impacts that country differently if it is supporting a population of 100,000, or a population of 10,000, although both situations represent a 2 percent contribution level. However, even with this added level of analysis, it does not go far enough to answer how much a country can afford to pay. One must also consider a nation’s debt load. This calculation subtracts the public debt from GDP, and calculates the percentage of the surplus (per capita) that is expended on defence. One can see the effect of these two additional considerations in the following: On a per capita basis, Canada’s military spending ranks tenth out of 27 nations, contributing $537 per individual citizen towards defence.¹⁰ When national debt as a percentage of GDP is then factored in, Canada ranks fifth overall.¹¹ In the cases of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Belgium, their national public debt exceeds their GDP. It should be clear by now that the simple funding formula of 2 percent of GDP towards defence spending is an insufficient metric for determining how much each partner of the alliance should be committing.

In summary on this issue, a target of 2 percent of GDP for defence spending is a crude measurement. There is a multitude of other ways to determine the fair contribution of each nation towards the overall shared responsibility for collective defence that could have been used. Katarzyna Zukrowska, in The Link Between Economics, Stability and Security In A Transforming Economy, argues that determining the appropriate level of defence spending per nation is best arrived at through an appreciation of the linkage between the triad of security, stability, and economy within each nation.¹² In other words, the appreciation for threats to one’s security, balanced against the stability in ‘the neighbourhood,’ and the health of the national economy should combine to dictate the necessary level of funding by nations towards defence. This represents a far more nuanced analysis than that employed in the 2 percent per GDP Wales Summit commitment.

Is a Percentage Target Even a Meaningful Measure?

Ironically, it is not clear that meeting the 2 percent of GDP target will actually increase or even maintain current levels of defence spending. Were all nations to meet their respective 2 percent of GDP defence spending target within ten years, significant changes to the funding levels of most countries would have to occur. In Canada’s case, the defence budget would double, while at the extreme, Lithuania’s defence budget would increase 278 percent.¹³ The Wales Summit declaration commits Allies “… to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets.”¹⁴ Beyond the 20 percent commitment to major new equipment, including related Research & Development, nothing contained within the declaration defines how Allies are to expend their defence budgets.

A percentage target in no way addresses how that money is being spent. Canada, for its part, has long contended that it is not strictly about how much the military is funded, but rather, how efficiently those funds are being expended. For example, the US spends 34 times the amount that Canada spends on defence. However, the US military is only 22 times the size of Canada’s military.¹⁵ This could, but does not mean that United States’ defence spending is inefficient. However, absent from this raw comparison of reported funding levels is how that funding is allocated, for example, the proportion of declared funding spent on research and development, various alliance funding (i.e. NATO) or other global commitments, such as military training provided to developing nations. These amounts vary widely for each nation. By way of example, in 2012, the US carried 22 percent of NATO’s Common-Funded Budgets and Programs, while Canada’s share totalled 6.09 percent.¹⁶ As a percentage of each nation’s budget, the portion committed towards NATO is substantially higher from Canada than the United States.

Similarly, if one were to compare Canada to Italy, two countries committing roughly $18.9B US to defence spending in 2013, it becomes readily apparent how differently two countries can expend their military budgets. Canada expends 49.7 percent of its budget towards military/civilian salaries and pensions, while Italy expends 76.9 percent for the same. Under combined Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Research and Development (R&D), Canada expends 30.3 percent of its budget, while Italy expends 7.5 percent.¹⁷ This demonstration is not intended to shame any nation, but rather, it serves to demonstrate that merely addressing military expenditure as a percentage of GDP does not address the efficiency with how those funds are utilized.¹⁸ The need for efficient spending is a theme of the current Canadian government, as noted earlier herein by Prime Minister Harper.

For the Sake of Argument …

For the sake of argument, assuming that the 2 percent of GDP target for defence spending is a valid target, is Canada likely to reach that goal? In order to answer this question, one must look at Canada’s historical levels of defence spending, and at the current government’s level of commitment to the target, as evidenced in its public statements.

Figure 1 – Data compiled from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Canada’s Historic Defence Funding Levels

An analysis of Figure 1 demonstrates that Canada has not kept pace with the average level of defence spending by NATO countries (in terms of percentage of GDP) since 1962. While Canada’s reduction in defence spending is not unique—an examination of the budgets of NATO members over recent years demonstrates that virtually every country has been reducing funding for their militaries, including the United States¹⁹— Canada’s reductions have been more significant than the NATO average. As noted by Ivan Ivanov, a visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati, in Transforming NATO: New Allies, Missions, and Capabilities, “Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Luxemburg, and Spain formed another group of relatively rich countries with low defense spending.”²⁰

Political Will

In light of Canada’s historical low levels of defence spending, it is likely that a very significant political commitment would be necessary for Canada to meet the 2 percent of GDP target. Given this, it is interesting that in the first public statement following the Wales Summit, Prime Minister Harper made no mention of the alliance members’ funding pledge, but instead, chose to highlight Canada’s ongoing (non-NATO) commitment towards the fight against terrorism, and, in particular, the fight against ISIL.²¹ Ironically, the Wales Declaration highlighted that “the commitment to achieve a target of defense spending at 2 percent of Gross Domestic Product is an important political signal and demonstration of solidarity among the member states of the NATO Alliance.”²² Should the absence of any commentary by the Prime Minister of Canada on this significant commitment pose a concern to NATO alliance members? The answer to this, unfortunately, is not clear-cut. While lukewarm on the idea of meeting specific funding level targets, it is clear that Canada remains committed to collective defence through NATO. The effect of these opposed themes on Canada’s NATO commitment bears exploration.

Should Canada Fail to Meet Its 2 percent of GDP Target, Will That Adversely Affect Its NATO Commitment?

Canada clearly remains committed to NATO. Speaking in an interview at the Economic Summit in London on 3 September 2014, Prime Minister Harper stated, “… where there is a common threat to ourselves and our allies, and where particularly our major allies the United States, but also the United Kingdom, France, are willing to act, the general position of the Government of Canada is that we are also willing to act and prepared to play our full part.”²³ Despite this clear commitment, is it likely that Canada’s failure to meet the 2 percent of GDP target will adversely affect NATO? It will be argued herein that due to current sufficient NATO funding levels and Canada’s self-interest, the answer to this question is likely to be ‘no.’

How Much Does NATO Require?

It is easy to be sympathetic with Ivanov’s observation of the United States’ frustration with the apparent “unwillingness of European allies [and Canada] to contribute to collective defense,” when, as of 2006, only seven allies were spending 2 percent or more of their GDP on defence.²⁴ This number of committed nations remained unchanged as of 2013. However, one question that begs asking, is how much does NATO require? Speaking to the Western Economic Association International Conference in June 2013, Adrian Kendry, Head of Defence and Security Economics in the Political Affairs and Security Policy Division at NATO Headquarters stated that “… the positive news is that the Alliance, as a whole, does have a pool of forces and capabilities sufficient to conduct the full range of its missions.”²⁵ The Wales Summit emphasizes the requirement for an agreed output metrics to assess the interoperability and effectiveness of NATO nations’ forces provided, although further fidelity to these metrics is not defined within the declaration.

At a policy level, there is a push to better utilize the resources that NATO currently possess. On 30 September 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated: “I know that in an age of austerity, we cannot spend more. But neither should we spend less. So the answer is to spend better. And to get better value for money. To help nations to preserve capabilities and to deliver new ones. This means we must prioritise, we must specialise, and we must seek multinational solutions. Taken together, this is what I call Smart Defence.”

It is surprising, given Prime Minister Harper’s statements at the beginning of this article that focus on the efficient use of resources, which the idea of Smart Defence does not seem to resonate back in Canada in any policy level documents within the Department of National Defence. The reasons are unclear as to why. Perhaps it is the physical separation between Canada and Europe, or the concern with losing sovereign control over one’s forces when capabilities are pooled together. Either way, there is little indication emanating from Canada that it will in any significant way contribute towards Smart Defence in the immediate future. Despite this, NATO’s current level of funding and its commitment to “spend better” suggest that Canada’s failure to meet its 2 percent of GDP commitment may not have adverse consequences for NATO.

Output Metrics

The Wales Declaration called upon allies to “ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics.”²⁶ Canada’s declaration on finding efficiency and arguing for better spending of defence dollars seems to be consistent with this goal. Beyond the Wales Declaration, nothing further has been published which quantifies or explains what those metrics will look like, or how they will be applied. It will be interesting to see what form these metrics take moving forward. Will these metrics consider, for example, the obligations of each nation’s military beyond their NATO commitments? What is the balance of effort towards each nation being able to provide for their own national security and how much effort should they then be called upon to have dedicated directly towards the collective security of the alliance?

The Canadian Conundrum: An Enviable Place to Be

The Canada First Defence Strategy articulates the three roles of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as being, “… defending Canada, defending North America and contributing to international peace and security.”²⁷ This articulation seems to imply defending Canada is the top priority. Yet, ‘top priority’ does not equate to ‘highest funded.’ An analysis of funding estimated to be expended for 2013, as reported by the Department of National Defence, demonstrates that funding towards International Peace, Stability and Security, the ‘last in the chain,’ will consume 77 percent of the $2.6B earmarked for the three roles of the CAF. Defending Canada will consume 14 percent, and North American defence will consume 9 percent.²⁸ The reported funding does not include personnel, capital equipment, or real property costs associated with each role. Only the operations and management (O&M) costs are factored into the equation.

The unique geographic positioning of Canada, combined with a very low population density and immense geography, means that defending Canada would be very problematic were Canada to have a serious threat to its sovereignty.²⁹ Identifying the defence of Canada as a priority is easier than devising an actual defence policy achievable by the CAF, given the immense size of Canada when compared to the size of its military forces. In The Future Security Environment: 2013-2040, a publication recently produced by the Chief of Force Development within the Department of National Defence, it was noted that the CAF should be prepared to deploy “… in reaction to events that threaten Canada’s sovereignty, national interests, key allies, or in an effort to contribute to regional and global security.”³⁰ However, beyond identifying as a task the protection of Canada’s territorial sovereignty, including the Arctic, no further mention is given to specific threats to her territory.

Fortunately, due to Canada’s geographically opportune location, Canada has not been faced with a serious domestic threat.³¹ She has no direct threats to her sovereignty that necessitate a large domestic military presence for deterrence. Her single largest trading partner is also her greatest ally with which she shares a separate military alliance in the defence of North America through the North American Aerospace Defence Agreement (NORAD). The two nations also jointly participate in several economic associations, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Threats to Canadian sovereignty remain relatively low. The low threat to sovereignty permits the commitment of a greater percentage of operational funding towards UN, NATO, NORAD, and other coalition operations throughout the world.

Membership in the ‘Big Boys Club’

A November 2004 Chief of Review Services report detailed the Canadian benefits from membership in NATO as: a “Seat at the Table” argument; a “United States” argument; a “European” argument; and a “Collective Defence” argument. NATO has provided, and continues to provide, Canada with “… access to a venue where it sits as an equal with other influential states”³² in an increasingly integrated world. Interestingly, when discussing the benefits of Collective Defence, CRS reported that “… enhancing the effectiveness of NATO will also support Canadian interests by discouraging the formation of smaller security pacts among NATO members.”³³

The NATO alliance continues to serve Canadian interests for now and for the foreseeable future. The alliance provides Canada with a collective defence capability, although as demonstrated earlier, this is not as significant, given its relatively low threat exposure level. The most significant benefits Canada derives from membership in the alliance are an equal voice at the table. In this regard, Canada has a greater voice within the alliance than perhaps can be argued it has within the United Nations. However, as mentioned by Ivanov in Transforming NATO: New Allies, Missions, and Capabilities, the strength of that voice can be limited by the need for consensus within the alliance. He states that: “It is necessary to note that the lack of consensus and further commitment of the allies naturally reflects the alliance’s limited capabilities to meet the specific operational demands of the mission.”³⁴ In other words, it will be in Canada’s interests to remain within the alliance as long as the alliance can reach consensus when required.

Canadian Concerns

The November 2004 Chief of Review Services report expressed concern “… with respect to Canadian contributions to projects in countries where audits are slow, or the audit trails are not solid.”³⁵ The question of accountability within NATO is all the more relevant now as several European nations are struggling with an increasing debt crisis and are looking to shrink defence expenditures. While a valid concern, it does not appear that issues of accountability are currently a significant factor affecting Canadian NATO contribution levels.

Canada’s Recent Commitments to NATO – ‘Boots on the Ground’

Despite concerns with respect to accountability within NATO, and the fact that Canadian defence spending as a percentage of GDP is at an unprecedented low level since the end of the Second World War, evidence suggests continued Canadian support for NATO operations. As noted by Benjamin Zyla, an Assistant Professor in the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa, in Years of Free-Riding? Canada, the New NATO, and Collective Crisis Management in Europe, 1989–2001, “Canada has demonstrated a dedication to the alliance that seems stronger than NATO’s collective commitment to itself.”³⁶ Canada demonstrated in Afghanistan that it was prepared to undertake a difficult mission in Kandahar province, and as a result, sustained casualties per capita higher than other alliance members. Canada is once again demonstrating commitment to international peace in contributing fighter and transport aircraft and Special Operations Forces to the (non-NATO) coalition fight against ISIL in northern Iraq.

Conclusion

Writing a year before the Wales Summit, Kendry noted, “… there can be no absolute reassurance concerning the commitment to 2 percent.”³⁷ Despite the Declaration committing to defence funding of 2 percent of GDP within ten years, and a commitment to dedicate 20 percent of defence funding to capital acquisition and Research and Development, there is little reason to believe Canada will achieve this goal. Lieutenant-General (retired) Jo Godderij, former Director General of the International Military Staff of NATO, addressed the NATO Defense College on 22 October 2014, expressing his personal opinion that the more significant messaging emanating from the Wales Summit was not whether nations would achieve the funding levels prescribed, after all ten years is a very long period in the political scape, but rather, that there is a commitment by member nations “to stop the decline” in military spending now and realise an increase.³⁸ And that perhaps, is the most significant message for Canada to take out of the Wales Summit. Canada enjoys a unique and enviable position within the alliance: her borders are relatively unthreatened, her economy is secure, and her ability to commit precious resources towards her various alliances is higher than most other nations. Canada demonstrates every reason to believe she will continue to deploy and sustain NATO missions in the future. Canada should continue to be seen as a reliable partner within the alliance for years to come.

About the author:
*Colonel John Alexander, CD, has served in the Canadian Armed Forces for the past 25 years and holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from Western University, and a Master of Defence Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada. A tactical aviation and special operations pilot, he commanded 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron in Petawawa, Ontario, and has held numerous appointments at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. A recent graduate of the NATO Defense College in Rome, Colonel Alexander is currently Commander Task Force El Gorah in northeastern Sinai in Egypt.

Source:
This article was published in the Canadian Military Journal Vol. 15, No 4.

Notes:

1. Privy Council Office, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper Economic Summit-London, England.” Economic Summit-London, England. (Ottawa: HK Publications, 2014), p. 10.
2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Wales Summit Declaration: Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales, 2014, para 14.
3. Ibid. The paragraph preamble to the 2 percent commitment in paragraph 14 states: “Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:” This language certainly leaves open to individual nations to identify how far towards the commitment they can realistically achieve.
4. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Wales Summit Declaration … , para 14.
5. Ibid.
6. IISS. The Military Balance 2014. (Abingdon: Routledge for the ISS, 2014), p. 486. NATO officially reports a figure of 1 percent. However, the means of reporting/accounting differs between sources. For consistency in comparing nations, the Military Balance 2014 is being utilized.
7. Roland Paris, “Is Canada Pulling Its Weight in NATO?” Centre for International Policy Studies. May 9, 2014, accessed 27 September 2014, at http://cips.uottawa.ca/is-canada-pulling-its-weight-in-nato/.
8. In Carl Eks’ NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues, he delves much deeper into the funding formula challenges of NATO activities purely as a percentage of GDP, reflecting upon such matters as the ‘ability to pay,’ and the Gross National Income (GNI) of participating nations. The Gross National Income (GNI) is the total domestic and foreign output claimed by residents of a country, consisting of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), plus factor incomes earned by foreign residents, minus income earned in the domestic economy by non-residents.
9. Ivan Dinev Ivanov. Transforming NATO: New Allies, Missions, and Capabilities. (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2011), p. 26. Dr. Ivanov is a visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati. He has also taught at Georgetown College and Muskingum University. His regional focus is Europe and the Middle East, as well as various aspects of international cooperation, politics of transition and economic development.
10. Based upon current statistics as reported by the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Fact Book at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html. Accessed 11 October 2014.
11. Formula = Defence expenditure per capita/(GDP per capita – Debt per capita).
12. Katazyna Zukrowska, The Link Between Economics, Stability and Security In a Transforming Economy, at <n.d. www.nato.int/docu/colloq/1999/pdf/269-283.pdf>. Accessed 11 October 2014, p. 270.
13. Calculations based upon statistics as reported by the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Fact Book at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html. Accessed 11 October 2014.
14. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Wales Summit Declaration …, para 14.
15. IISS. The Military Balance 2014. (Abingdon: Routledge for the ISS, 2014), p. 486.
16. Adrian Kendry, The Nexus between Economics and Security: NATO’s Challenges and Opportunities in 2020 and Beyond.” RAND Defence Economics Sessions – Western Economic Association International Conference. 30 June 2013, p. 6. Note: Canada’s Department of National Defence website reports Canada’s contribution to NATO’s “common budgets for investment and operations” as 5.94 percent, “… making it the sixth largest financial contributor among allies.” (Department of National Defence 2013) As noted in the Congressional Research Service paper entitled “NATO Common Funds Burdensharing: Background and Current Issues” of April 2010, the complexity of determining a “fair” distribution has long been debated within NATO. The 2001 NATO Handbook noted that “[b]y convention, the agreed cost-sharing formulae which determine each member country’s contributions are deemed to represent each country’s ‘ability to pay’. However, the basis for the formulae applied is as much political as it is economic.”
17. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence, 24 February 2014, at http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20140224_140224-PR2014-028-Defence-exp.pdf, p. 9. Accessed 28 October 2014.
18. Ellen Hallams and Benjamin Schreer, “Towards a ‘Post-American’ Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing After Libya,” in International Affairs (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2012), p. 315.
19. IISS. The Military Balance 2014. (Abingdon: Routledge for the ISS, 2014), pp. 486-492
20. Ivanov, p. 29.
21. Stephen Harper, PM delivers closing remarks at the NATO Summit. Accessed 24 September 2014, at http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/05/pm-delivers-closing-remarks-nato-summit#sthash.33ozIar8.dpuf.
22. Kendry, p. 4.
23. Privy Council Office. “Prime Minister Stephen Harper Economic Summit-London, England,” in Economic Summit-London, England. (Ottawa: HK Publications, 2014), p. 9.
24. Ivanov, p. 30.
25. Kendry, p. 2.
26. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Wales Summit Declaration …, para 14.
27. Department of National Defence. Canada First Defence Strategy, (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2008), p. 7.
28. Department of National Defence. Future-Oriented Financial Statements: 2013-2014 (Unaudited). Annual Report, (Ottawa: Goverment of Canada, 2013), p. 3.
29. Joseph T. Jockel and Joel J.Sokolsky, Canada and Collective Security: Odd Man Out. (New York: Praeger Publishers,1986), p. vii.
30. Department of National Defence. The Future Security Environment: 2013–2040. Strategy Paper, (Ottawa: Government of Canda, 2014), p. 88.
31. Jockel and Sokolsky, p. vii.
32. Department of National Defence. Audit of NATO Contributions. CRS Audit Report, (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2004), p. A1/1
33. Ibid.
34. Ivanov, p. 33.
35. Department of National Defence. Audit of NATO Contributions, p. 8/12.
36. Benjamin Zyla, “Years of Free-Riding? Canada, the New NATO, and Collective Crisis Management in Europe, 1989-2001,” in The American Review of Canadian Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1 (2010), p. 1 Benjamin Zyla is an Assistant Professor in the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa. Before coming to the University of Ottawa, he held a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Postdoctoral Fellowship, and was a fellow at the Europe Center at Stanford University, the Centre for International Relations at Queen’s University and the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa.
37. Kendry, pp. 6-7.
38. With kind permission of Lieutenant General (retired) Jo Godderij, NATO Defence College, 22 October 2014.

University of Washington engineers have developed a novel technology that uses a Wi-Fi router — a source of ubiquitous but untapped energy in indoor environments — to power devices.

The Power Over Wi-Fi (PoWiFi) system is one of the most innovative and game-changing technologies of the year, according to Popular Science, which included it in the magazine’s annual “Best of What’s New” awards announced Wednesday.

The technology attracted attention earlier this year when researchers published an online paper showing how they harvested energy from Wi-Fi signals to power a simple temperature sensor, a low-resolution grayscale camera and a charger for a Jawbone activity tracking bracelet.

The final paper will be presented next month at the Association for Computing Machinery’s CoNEXT 2015 conference in Heidelberg, Germany, on emerging networking experiments and technologies.

“For the first time we’ve shown that you can use Wi-Fi devices to power the sensors in cameras and other devices,” said lead author Vamsi Talla, a UW electrical engineering doctoral student. “We also made a system that can co-exist as a Wi-Fi router and a power source — it doesn’t degrade the quality of your Wi-Fi signals while it’s powering devices.”

PoWiFi could help enable development of the Internet of Things, where small computing sensors are embedded in everyday objects like cell phones, coffee makers, washing machines, air conditioners, mobile devices, allowing those devices to “talk” to each other. But one major challenge is how to energize those low-power sensors and actuators without needing to plug them into a power source as they become smaller and more numerous.

The team of UW computer science and electrical engineers found that the peak energy contained in untapped, ambient Wi-Fi signals often came close to meeting the operating requirements for some low-power devices. But because the signals are sent intermittently, energy “leaked” out of the system during silent periods.

The team fixed that problem by optimizing a router to send out superfluous “power packets” on Wi-Fi channels not currently in use — essentially beefing up the Wi-Fi signal for power delivery — without affecting the quality and speed of data transmission. The team also developed sensors that can be integrated in devices to harvest the power.

In their proof-of-concept experiments, the team demonstrated that the PoWiFi system could wirelessly power a grayscale, low-power Omnivision VGA camera from 17 feet away, allowing it to store enough energy to capture an image every 35 minutes.

It also re-charged the battery of a Jawbone Up24 wearable fitness tracker from zero to 41 percent in 2.5 hours.

The researchers also tested the PoWiFi system in six homes. Users typically didn’t notice deterioration in web page loading or video streaming experiences, showing the technology could successfully deliver power via Wi-Fi in real-world conditions without degrading network performance.

Although initial experiments harvested relatively small amounts of power, the UW team believes there’s opportunity for make the PoWiFi system more efficient and robust.

“In the future, PoWi-Fi could leverage technology power scaling to further improve the efficiency of the system to enable operation at larger distances and power numerous more sensors and applications,” said co-author Shyam Gollakota, assistant professor of computer science and engineering.

An international team of scientists in Australia and the United States has captured the first-ever images of a planet in the making. The accumulation of dust and gas particles onto a new planet – the process by which the planet continues to form and grow – has been directly observed for the first time.

None of the nearly 1,900 planets previously discovered and confirmed outside our Solar System (called exoplanets) are in the process of formation.

The findings of the scientists, led by University of Arizona graduates Steph Sallum and Kate Follette and including the University of Sydney’s Professor Peter Tuthill, are published today in Nature.

A star known as LkCa 15, located 450 light years from Earth, has been observed exhibiting all the trappings of an expectant parent: it is surrounded by a vast disc of dust and gas, making an ideal environment for planets to grow from; the dust shows distinct signs of disturbance – something within has eaten away part of the disc.

Co-author of the paper, Professor Tuthill, said the images provided unambiguous evidence. “This is the first time we’ve imaged a planet that is definitely still in the process of forming.”

The photo provided the proof: “The difficulty had been that when you have indirect evidence, there are always alternate explanations that might fit the data,” Professor Tuthill said.

Researchers are just now being able to image objects that were close to and much fainter than a nearby star, thanks to specialised instruments. These include the Large Binocular Telescope – the world’s largest telescope, located on Arizona’s Mount Graham – and the University of Arizona’s Magellan Telescope and its Adaptive Optics System, MagAO, located in Chile.

Capturing sharp images of distant objects was challenging, in large part because of atmospheric turbulence, said Professor Laird Close, Dr Follette’s graduate adviser.

“When you look through the Earth’s atmosphere, what you’re seeing is cold and hot air mixing in a turbulent way that makes stars shimmer,” Professor Close said. “To a big telescope, it’s a fairly dramatic thing; you see a horrible looking image.” The breakthrough was possible because the Large Binocular Telescope was purpose-built, incorporating a novel imaging technique to sharpen the images.

Meanwhile, Professor Close and Dr Follette used Magellan’s adaptive optics system MagAO independently to corroborate the discovery. Using MagAO’s unique ability to work in visible wavelengths, they captured the planet’s ‘hydrogen alpha’ spectral fingerprint, the specific wavelength of light that LkCa 15 and its planets emit as they grow.

When cosmic objects are forming, they get extremely hot, and because they are forming from hydrogen, those objects all glow a deep red, which astronomers refer to as H-alpha, a particular wavelength of light.

That single shade of red light was emitted by both the planet and the star as they underwent the same growing process, Dr Follette said.

“We were able to separate the light of the faint planet from the light of the much brighter star and to see that they were both growing and glowing in this very distinct shade of red,” she said.

Professor Tuthill said the results were only made possible because of the application of a lot of very advanced new technology to the business of imaging the stars.

“It’s fantastic to see these cutting-edge instruments now enabling us to make such exciting discoveries,” Professor Tuthill said.

By Obja Borah Hazarika*

The elections of November 8, 2015 were the first of its kind in 25 years in Myanmar. There were 30 million eligible voters out of which 80% turned out to vote. By November 15, 2015, the Union Solidarity and Development Party had won 41 of the 478 seats that have been declared so far. The National League for Democracy (NLD) won 387 seats, about 80% of the contested seats, with a few results yet to be announced.

The last country wide elections had taken place in 1990 when the NLD won 392 of the 492 parliamentary seats; but the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) disregarded the ballot and held Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for over 15 years and military rule continued until 2011. All signals from the military and the USDP this time around point to the fact that the ballot will be respected. However, despite such verbal assurances, the NLD has severe challenges before it.

Since the transition of power in 2011, Myanmar has been trying to transition into a democracy after more than half a century of military rule. There have been undoubted changes ushered in by the Thein Sein-led government in releasing some political prisoners, allowing some freedom of press among others However, the elections of November 8, 2015 has been thus far the most seemingly momentous of all changes allowed by the government of Thein Sein. Although the elections were a huge step forward for Myanmar, the riders which come with it, tarnishes much of the progress which it seems to have achieved.

Moreover the NLD, for which the electorate of nearly 30 million in Myanmar has largely voted, has its task cut out for it. The people of Myanmar undoubtedly, expect the handover of power to be smooth and governance to be effective, humane and people-oriented. The people also expect that the NLD would be able to end the human rights abuse and other highhandedness which became only too common in Myanmar during the past half century or so. The NLD having won the mandate now is faced with the hard task of fulfilling such expectations, and many a government in the past the world over has fallen due to the unmanageable burden of expectations. The NLD it is hoped will be able to deliver and meet the expectations of the people, and in case it fails the military would have the opportunity to grasp power.

Another major problem which mars the socio-ethnic-political-religious landscape of the country is with regard the Buddhist-Muslim clashes which have intermittently been erupting in various parts of the country. Suu Kyi’s silence on the human rights of the Rohingya Muslims has drawn flak from international media and human rights agencies. However, the Buddhist extremists see Suu Kyi as supporting the Muslims. Such tensions continue to simmer in the background of the elections as the Rohingyas were denied the vote in the elections as they do not have citizenship. Such communal tensions will also have to be dealt with by the new NLD government. The problem of armed ethnic groups also continues to simmer in large parts of Myanmar as major groups like the Wa and Kachin did not sign the ceasefire agreement, which was signed by most other ethnic groups in Myanmar recently. The NLD faces the tough challenge of bringing on board the ethnic armed groups which are still holding out on the ceasefire agreement.

The other challenges facing the NLD despite the overwhelming mandate it has received from its people are formidable. First, the constitution which was etched by the junta to ensure that the power of the military continues to be sacrosanct in many pressing matters in Myanmar, bars Suu Kyi from becoming president. Suu Kyi has already addressed this concern by stating very clearly that she will be above the president as leader of the winning party. The next president will only be chosen by next March, until which time political wrangling, uneasiness, bargaining, negotiating between the NLD and the military will mark the political landscape of Myanmar. The military leaders and members of the USDP have so far been supportive, and accepted of the mandate of the people. The new parliament will begin in January. The newly-elected lawmakers, along with the military bloc of 25%, will nominate three candidates for president and vote on them. The one with the most votes will win.

More worryingly, the constitution also ensures that the military or Tatmadaw’s nominees will have undisputed control of 25% of seats of the 664-seat parliament. This clause is extremely significant as the NLD will require at least one of the members of the military’s 25% nominees to vote along with it in order to effect changes in the constitution as it needs at least 75% of the votes to effect such a change. This implies that members or nominees of the military sitting in the parliament would have to break ranks in order to aid the change in constitution which seems quite unlikely, making the overwhelming majority received by the NLD near redundant.

Furthermore, the military will continue to have control of key portfolios like defense, home and border affairs. It will also be in control of its own budget. Both these powers of the military greatly curb the freedom to run affairs of Myanmar both internal and external by the NLD, and in effect limit the democratic essence of the elections of November 8 to a great extent. In addition, the military’s control over state institutions and security forces also needs to be severely reduced for the country to embark further on the path of democracy. The enormous economic holdings and the considerable social constituency of the military also needs to be reined in.

The most significant authority that the military retains with regard to the affairs of Myanmar apart from the above-mentioned powers is that the commander in chief of the military retains the right to take control of the government in emergencies, which effectively nullifies the control of the NLD whenever the military deems it fit to intrude into the affairs of the parliament and the country. The emergencies relating to national security and national unity under which the military can retake power from the civilian government have not been specified, giving the military enormous leeway in maintaining control over the civilian government.

Furthermore, the military will also continue to have control over the police, justice system and security services, thereby greatly reducing the role of the civilian government. In addition, the National Defense and Security Council of Myanmar, which is an 11-member body, six of whom are from the military, thereby a domineering group, sits above the parliament and government and continues to be the most powerful body in Myanmar, with the wherewithal to overrule any new law which the NLD may make.

Such conditions point to the fact that the changes which have been initiated in Myanmar, including the elections of November 8, have been very incremental, slow and wanting in several aspects. The overwhelming powers of the military, despite the elections, points to the limited sense in which the transition from military rule is taking place in the country. Democracy remains a distant dream, far into the future, and is still to come to Myanmar.

*Obja Borah Hazarika is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Dibrugarh University, Assam. She can be reached at: editor@spsindia.in

By Riley Walters*

Researchers are concerned over the strength and comprehensiveness of cybersecurity in the U.S., as companies across the country are being targeted in cyber attacks at an increasing rate of both occurrence and cost. Concerns continue to grow as both the number of attacks on companies’ networks and the cost to companies are increasing. The quantity and quality of information being hacked, stolen, destroyed, or leaked is becoming more of a problem for consumers and businesses alike.

The Ponemon Institute recently released its 2015 Cost of Cyber Crime, which analyzes the cost of all cyber crime for a variety of 58 U.S. organizations both public and private.[1] The U.S., in comparison with other nations in the Ponemon study, continues to rank highest in its cost of cyber crime at an annual average of $15.4 million per company.

Ponemon surveyed companies in the areas of finance, energy and utilities, and defense and aerospace—three of the most affected sectors—as well as communication, retail, and health care. The annual cost of cybercrime for these companies has more than doubled since 2010, which then averaged $6.5 million. Of the companies surveyed, the minimum cost to a company was $1.9 million while the maximum cost was as much as $65 million in 2015.

This year, companies saw an average of 160 successful cyber attacks per week, more than three times the 2010 average of 50 per week.

Every company surveyed was the victim of a Trojan, virus, or worm type of attack. Ninety-seven percent surveyed were reported to have been the victim of a malware attack and 76 percent were victim of a Web-based attack. Just as worrisome as hackers trying to get into a network system are those with malicious intent who already have access to a system. Forty-three percent of companies reported cyber attacks by malicious insiders and 36 percent of companies suffered attacks as the result of a stolen device.

This paper continues the “Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014” paper released last October.[2] The dates listed for each hack reflect the time when these attacks were released to the public and not the date of when the breach actually occurred.

November 2014

• Sony Pictures Entertainment (entertainment). In November, hackers linked to the North Korean government launched an attack on Sony Entertainment, allegedly over a movie depicting North Korea in a negative light. The hackers took terabytes of private data and released confidential information to the public as well as a number of Sony movies.[3]
• GoDaddy and Gigya (online). The Syrian Electronic Army—a group of hackers loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—claimed responsibility for an attack on a variety of news outlet Web sites such as CNBC, Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, PCWorld, and The Independent via the Gigya Domain Name Service from GoDaddy.com.[4] No personal information was affected.[5]

December 2014

• Las Vegas Sands Corp (gaming). In February 2014, the Sands Casino was hacked by a group out of Iran. The hackers brought the $14 billion operation to a standstill as they shut down PCs, servers, and wiped hard drives clean. The attack was suspected to be in retaliation for comments that Sands CEO Sheldo Adelson made about the Iranian government.[6]
• Chick-Fil-A (restaurant). In January 2014, Chick-Fil-A suffered a credit card breach at a number of restaurants, affecting around 9,000 credit cards. The breach is suspected to have occurred over a span of 10 months and could be related to a number of other point-of-sale system breaches that happened in 2014.[7]
• Staples, Inc. (retail). In another point-of-sale system breach, security experts from Staples detected malware at 115 different stores—1.16 million credit cards were reportedly affected. The breach occurred between July and September 2014.[8]

January 2015

• Morgan Stanley (finance). An employee was fired from Morgan Stanley after allegedly stealing data and account numbers from as many as 350,000 clients. The disgruntled employee was able to post some personal information online, but no money was lost and the personal data was removed promptly after being detected.[9]

February 2015

• Anthem, Inc. (health care). Health insurer Anthem, Inc., suffered a massive cyber attack that affected upwards of 80 million current and former customers. The compromised information included Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses, and employee information.[10] The information of anywhere between 8.8 million and 18.8 million customers of Blue Cross Blue Shield was also affected, having been stored on the same servers.[11] The breach has been accredited to the Black Vine cyber-espionage group by cybersecurity firm Symantec, which is also accredited with the later Office of Personnel Management hacks and numerous other breaches dating back to 2012.[12]
• Carbanak (banking and finance). Kaspersky Lab reports a group called Carbanak has, since 2013, attempted cyber attacks on 100 banking and financial institutions in almost 30 countries. The group is accredited with up to $1 billion in losses.[13]
• Uber (transportation). An Uber database was reportedly accessed in May by an unauthorized third party—compromising as many as 50,000 Uber drivers across America. Only the drivers’ names and license numbers were compromised.[14]
• Forbes.com (news and business). In late November, the cyber espionage group Codoso Team used the Forbes.com website as a watering hole (a cyber campaign that uses trusted Web sites to launch attacks) to target U.S. defense contractors and financial services companies.[15]

March 2015

• Premera Blue Cross (health care). In an attack that began in May of 2014, Premera Blue Cross fell victim to a cyber attack that exposed the medical and financial information of 11 million people, including their clinical records, bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, and birthdates. Also affected in the attacks were Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Vivacity, and Connection Insurance Services.[16]
• Github (online). The hosting site for two other sites, GreatFire and CN-NYTimes, used for circumventing Chinese state censorship came under a significant distributed denial-of-service attack—almost overwhelming Github with Internet traffic. Experts attribute the attack to China in what is being called the “Great Cannon”—referring to China’s “Great Firewall” of Internet censorship.[17]
• Register.com (online). Register, a site used for Internet domain registry, had its network accessed for about a year by hackers with stolen passwords. Some experts have suggested that the breach is connected to the Chinese military, which could possibly use the breach to redirect traffic in a further attempt to steal trade secrets and information.[18]

May 2015

• Penn State University (academia). The College of Engineering at Penn State University identified a breach that had been existent for about two years. Although the school claimed that there was no sensitive material taken, it did notify 18,000 students whose Social Security numbers could have been compromised. “The university estimates that it has spent roughly $2.85 million responding to the attacks.”[19]
• CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield (health care). Around 1.1 million current and former customers of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield were said to have had their username, real name, birthdate, and e-mail addresses compromised. The company made sure to mention that Social Security numbers and other medical and financial records were not compromised.[20]
• Adult Friend Finder (online). The adult Web site Adult Friend Finder announced that the names, e-mail addresses, and sexual preferences of 3.9 million customers were accessed by hackers. It is unsure where the attack came from, but new agencies in the U.K. have reported that the data obtained in the attack were being “circulated on various dark websites.”[21]
• Economic Espionage. Six individuals are charged with using their access to U.S. universities and technology development companies, such as ROFS Microsystems and Avago, to export proprietary trade secrets to China. The investigation goes as far back as 2006.[22]
• Beacon Health System (health care). The health care firm was the victim of a phishing attack in which employee e-mails and the personal information of 300,000 patients was reportedly affected.[23]

July 2015

• Ashley Madison (online). The adult Web site was hacked by a group calling themselves The Impact Team. After stealing the information of 37 million users, including banking information, addresses, and sexual fantasies, the group later began releasing droves of information online in large data dumps.[24]
• UCLA Health (health care). The personally identifiable information, including the Social Security numbers of 4.5 million users, was compromised. The hack began as early as May.[25]
• Medical Informatics Engineering (health care). The breach to this medical software company compromised 3.9 million of its users’ Social Security numbers, health records, and other personally identifiable information. The hack began May 7th and was detected May 26th.[26]
• United Airlines (transportation). Reportedly the victim of the Chinese cyber team Black Vine, United systems were accessed in May or early June, around the same time as OPM and Anthem. Airline records, including flight manifests, were taken.[27]

August (2015)

• Trade on the Market. In early August, a group of 32 U.S. traders and Eastern European hackers from Ukraine worked together to access unpublished press releases in an attempt to gain an edge on Wall Street. This information was traded on, bringing in “over $100 million in ill-gotten gains.”[28]
• American Airlines Group, Inc., and Sabre Corp. (transportation and booking). Also reportedly the victim of Chinese espionage group Black Vine, the airline and booking companies, while not disclosing the amount or type of information accessed, could reach into the millions.[29]

September 2015

• Excellus BlueCross BlueShield (health care). In another health insurer cyber attack the company Excellus had the financial and medical information of 10 million of its customers compromised. The hackers found their way around the encrypted data and were able to access names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, medical claims information, etc.[30]
• Trump Hotel Collection (hotel). Seven Trump hotels across the U.S. and Canada reportedly had their systems breached, affecting the information of customers who may have visited those locations between May 2014 and June 2015. While the malware collecting the information has been removed, it has been unconfirmed what and how much information was extracted.[31]
• WhatsApp (communications). The cross-platform messaging application reported that up to 200,000 of their Web-based service users are either at risk of a cyber attack or have already had personal information compromised. vCards—electronic contact information—were loaded with malicious code and sent to random users’ phone numbers.[32]

October 2015

• Experian (finance). Hackers recently attacked the servers of Experian, which stores the credit assessment data of T-Mobile USA, Inc., customers. The attack took the names, addresses, and Social Security Numbers of more than 15 million people.[33]
• Scottrade (finance). The names and addresses of up to 4.6 million users of the trade and investment firm were reportedly targeted between 2013 and 2014.[34]
• Bugat/Dridex Botnet. A large network of computers controlled by hackers was set to automatically steal confidential personal and financial information, including banking credentials and keystrokes (passwords). The FBI attributes up to $10 million in direct losses to the Bugat/Dridex Botnet.[35]

It should be noted this list is incomplete. A simple search through the Department of Homeland Security’s Daily Open Source Infrastructure Reports[36] or the Department of Health and Human Services’ Breach Portal[37] will show a greater number of breaches than recounted in this list.

In fact, health care services continued to see a large amount of smaller (fewer than 1 million people affected) breaches. Interestingly, a number of universities were also subject to cyber attacks this past year, possibly reflecting greater cyber-ability in their current students. Even though cyber breaches and attacks continually affect a wide variety of industries, there continues to be a pattern in the type of information targeted by these malicious actors.

Congress and the Administration should:

• Consider how regulations financially affect businesses. While asking businesses to focus more on cybersecurity is noble, policymakers will need to remember that businesses will focus only on as much security as fits into their business model. However, businesses (especially smaller businesses) will need to think about how cybersecurity breaches will affect their image and bottom line.
• Avoid minimum security standards. Setting obligatory cybersecurity standards for companies will not prevent breaches—in fact, it may worsen security. Telling companies to comply with a minimum set of regulatory standards for security is like asking companies to jump and then having both companies and hackers respond with “How high?” Avoid making companies commit funding to securing one or several aspects, when a hacker can simply attack or breach where funding was misallocated from.
• Increase cooperation with private businesses. As the backbone of the tech market and target of many of these cyberattacks, the private industry is working on best practices and collaborating to create the technology and workforce necessary to counter cyber threats. This includes companies in the U.S., as well as those with a global presence. Increasing cooperation with private business will allow government access to firsthand knowledge on emerging cyber threats, and vice versa will help private businesses prepare using whatever cyber information the government has to share.

Conclusion

Cyber attacks are on the rise and will continue to be of concern for the foreseeable future. It will be up to private industry to meet these concerns head-on and support the government in its ability to act lawfully against cyber criminals—so long as businesses lack the authority to fight back against those who threaten their systems.

About the author:
*Riley Walters is a Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] 2015 Cost of Cyber Crime Study: United States, Ponemon Institute, October, 2015, http://img.delivery.net/cm50content/hp/hosted-files/2015_US_CCC_FINAL_4.pdf (accessed November 4, 2015).

[2] Riley Walters, “Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4289, October 27, 2014, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/cyber-attacks-on-us-companies-in-2014.

[3] Timothy B. Lee, “The Sony Hack: How It Happened, Who Is Responsible, and What We’ve Learned,” Vox, December 17, 2014, http://www.vox.com/2014/12/14/7387945/sony-hack-explained (accessed November 4, 2015).

[4] Unknown, “Syrian Hacking Group Places Pop-up Message on Websites,” BBC News, November 28, 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30232899 (accessed November 4, 2015).

[5] Lucian Constantin, “Syrian Electronic Army Posts Hacking Message On Several News Sites,” CSO Online, November 30, 2014, http://www.csoonline.com/article/2853498/security/syrian-electronic-army-posts-hacking-message-on-several-news-sites.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[6] Ben Elgin and Michael Riley, “Now at the Sands Casino: An Iranian Hacker in Every Server,” Bloomberg Business, December 11, 2015, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-11/iranian-hackers-hit-sheldon-adelsons-sands-casino-in-las-vegas (accessed November 4, 2015).

[7] Zoe Szathmary, “Chick-Fil-A Warns Security Breach May Have Leaked Credit Card Details Of 9,000 Customers In Five States,” Daily Mail, January 1, 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2893614/Chik-Fil-says-looking-possible-payment-card-breach-affect-9-000-customer-cards.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[8] “Staples Provides Update on Data Security Incident,” Staples Inc., December 19, 2014, http://staples.newshq.businesswire.com/press-release/corporate/staples-provides-update-data-security-incident (accessed November 4, 2015).

[9] Michael J. Moore, “Morgan Stanley Fires Worker Accused of Stealing Client Data,” Bloomberg Business, January 5, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-05/morgan-stanley-fires-employee-accused-of-stealing-client-data.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[10] Robert Hackett, “Anthem, a Major Health Insurer, Suffered a Massive Hack. Here’s What You Need to Know,” Fortune.com, February 5, 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/02/05/anthem-suffers-hack/ (accessed November 4, 2015).

[11] Reuters, “Anthem Says at Least 8.8 Million Non-Customers Could Be Victims in Data Hack,” Fortune.com, February 24, 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/02/24/anthem-says-at-least-8-8-million-non-customers-could-be-victims-in-data-hack/ (accessed November 4, 2015).

[12] Jon DiMaggio, “Security Response: The Black Vine Cyberespionage Group,” Symantec, August 6, 2015, http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/the-black-vine-cyberespionage-group.pdf (accessed November 4, 2015).

[13] Carbanak APT The Great Bank Robbery,” Kaspersky, February 2015, http://25zbkz3k00wn2tp5092n6di7b5k.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/02/Carbanak_APT_eng.pdf (accessed November 4, 2015).

[14] Ibid.

[15] Stephen Ward, “Cyber Espionage Campaign Compromises Web Properties to Target US Financial Services and Defense Companies, Chinese Dissidents,” iSightPartners.com, February 10, 2015, http://www.isightpartners.com/2015/02/codoso/ (accessed, November 4, 2015).

[16] Jim Finkle, “Premera Blue Cross Hacked, Medical Information of 11 Million Customers Exposed,” The Huffington Post, March 17, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/premera-blue-cross-cybera_n_6890194.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[17] Eva Dou, “U.S. Coding Website GitHub Hit With Cyberattack,” The Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-coding-website-github-hit-with-cyberattack-1427638940?mod=trending_now_5&alg=y (accessed November 4, 2015).

[18] Gina Chon, “FBI Probes Possible Military Involvement in Cyber Attack,” Financial Times, March 18, 2015, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ab5d5736-cd24-11e4-b5a5-00144feab7de.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[19] Brian Donohue, “Penn State Offline Following Advanced Two-Year Cyberattack,” Threatpost.com, May 18, 2015, https://threatpost.com/penn-state-offline-following-advanced-two-year-cyberattack/112872 (accessed November 4, 2015).

[20] Andrea Peterson, “Cyberattack on CareFirst Exposes Data on 1.1 Million Customers in D.C., Md. and Va.,” The Washington Post, May 20, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/05/20/cyberattack-on-carefirst-exposes-data-on-1-1-million-customers-in-d-c-md-and-va/ (accessed November 4, 2015).

[21] “Hackers Access 3.9 Million Records of Adult Dating Website,” Circanews.com, May 22, 2015, http://circanews.com/news/hackers-target-adult-websites (accessed November 4, 2015).

[22] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Chinese Professors Among Six Defendants Charged with Economic Espionage and Theft of Trade Secrets for Benefit of People’s Republic of China,” May 19, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-professors-among-six-defendants-charged-economic-espionage-and-theft-trade-secrets (accessed November 4, 2015).

[23] Jason Krug, “Beacon Health System Alerting Patients of Security Breach,” wndu.com, May 26, 2015, http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Beacon-Health-System-alerting-patients-of-security-breach-304973591.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[24] Kim Zetter, “Hackers Finally Post Stolen Ashley Madison Data,” Wired.com, August 18, 2015, http://www.wired.com/2015/08/happened-hackers-posted-stolen-ashley-madison-data/ (accessed November 4, 2015).

[25] Jose Pagliery, “UCLA Health Hacked, 4.5 Million Victims,” CNN Money, July 17, 2015, http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/technology/ucla-health-hack/ (accessed November 4, 2015).

[26] Associated Press, “Medical Informatics Engineering Hack Exposed Data on 3.9 Million People,” NBC News, August 3, 2015, http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/medical-informatics-engineering-hack-exposed-data-3-9-million-people-n403351 (accessed November 4, 2015).

[27] Michael Riley and Jordan Robertson, “China-Tied Hackers That Hit U.S. Said to Breach United Airlines,” Bloomberg Business, July 29, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-29/china-tied-hackers-that-hit-u-s-said-to-breach-united-airlines (accessed November 4, 2015).

[28] “Hackers Allegedly Stole Insider Info To Make Big Trades,” Time, August 11, 2015, http://time.com/3992832/hackers-trading/ (accessed November 3, 2015), and Matthew Goldstein and Alexandra Stevenson, “Nine Charged in Insider Trading Case Tied to Hackers,” The New York Times, August 11, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/business/dealbook/insider-trading-sec-hacking-case.html?_r=0 (accessed November 4, 2015).

[29] Jordan Robertson and Michael Riley, “American Airlines, Sabre Said to Be Hit in China-Tied Hacks,” Bloomberg Business, August 7, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-07/american-airlines-sabre-said-to-be-hit-in-hacks-backed-by-china (accessed November 4, 2015).

[30] Lucian Constantin, “Cyberattack Exposes 10M Records at Excellus,” Computerworld.com, September 10, 2015, http://www.computerworld.com/article/2983026/cybercrime-hacking/cyberattack-exposes-10m-records-at-excellus.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[31] “Legal Notice of Potential Security Incident,” Trump Hotel Collection, https://www.trumphotelcollection.com/data-security-notice (accessed November 4, 2015).

[32] Arjun Kharpal, “WhatsApp Hack Attack Puts 200,000 at Risk,” CNBC.com, September 9, 2015, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/09/whatsapp-hack-attack-puts-200000-at-risk.html (accessed November 4, 2015).

[33] Chris Davies, “15m T-Mobile consumers Hacked: SSN and More Taken,” slashgear.com, October 1, 2015, http://www.slashgear.com/15m-t-mobile-customers-hacked-ssn-and-more-taken-01407526/ (accessed November 4, 2015).

[34] “Cyber Security Update,” Scottrade, October 1, 2015, https://about.scottrade.com/updates/cybersecurity.html (accessed November 5, 2015).

[35] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Bugat Botnet Administrator Arrested and Malware Disabled,” October 15, 2015, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bugat-botnet-administrator-arrested-and-malware-disabled (accessed November 5, 2015).

[36] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Daily Open Source Infrastructure Report, October 22 – November 5, 2015,” https://www.dhs.gov/publication/daily-open-source-infrastructure-report (accessed November 5, 2015).

[37] U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Office of for Civil rights, “Breaches Affecting 500 or More Individuals, 2009-2015,” https://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/breach/breach_report.jsf (accessed November 5, 2015).

A young man from the Gaza Strip has spoken of his shock after being falsely accused of being one of theIS militants involved in the Paris attacks on Friday, which killed over 130 people.

Sami Abu Rus, a journalism student at Al-Aqsa University, told Ma’an that he was shocked after seeing his image posted online by Islamic State media groups praising him as one of the “lions” who attacked Paris.

Abu Rus, who resides in al-Nuseirat refugee camp, said he has never left the Gaza Strip and only found out that his photo had been used after being told by friends.

He initially dismissed it as a joke, before his photo was also published by a site affiliated with IS.

The young man said his family was outraged that he was identified as one of the attackers and immediately denied the accusations and condemned the attacks, saying they had no relation to Islam.

“My family and I condemn terrorist attacks against civilians”, Abu Rus said.

One of the photos of Abu Rus appeared in the Egyptian al-Wattan newspaper and other Egyptian media, while IS-affiliated media published two of his photos.

He said he believes they were taken from his Facebook page, or another social media group.

The photos which appeared online did not say the name or nationality of the attackers, only that they had been identified as “lions of the Islamic State, perpetrators of the Paris attacks.”

Several similar photos falsely accusing innocent people of committing the Paris massacre have also appeared online, including a picture of a Sikh man posted in Spanish media sit La Razon which shows him wearing a suicide explosives belt and holding a Quran.

The image had been photo-shopped from the original, which in fact showed the Canadian citizen taking a selfie with his iPad in front of the mirror.

Around 500 fuel tanker vehicles transporting illegal oil from Syria to Iraq for processing have been destroyed by Russia’s Air Forces, the General Staff said.

“In recent years, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and other extremist groups have organized the operations of the so-called ‘pipeline on wheels’ on the territories they control,” Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov said.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel have been delivered to Iraq for processing by trucks and the revenue generated from these illegal exports is the one of the terrorists’ main sources of funding, he said.

The spokesman displayed images showing convoys comprised of hundreds of vehicles transporting oil to back his assertion.

“In just the first few days, our aviation has destroyed 500 fuel tanker trucks, which greatly reduced illegal oil export capabilities of the militants and, accordingly, their income from oil smuggling,” Kartapolov stressed.

The spokesman also said that the Russian military has begun developing proposals for joint military action with the French Navy against the terrorists in accordance with an order by President Vladimir Putin.

“This joint work will begin after the arrival of aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Syrian shores,” Kartapolov explained. Russia has been bombing Islamic State and other terror groups in Syria since September 30 at the official request of country’s president, Bashar Assad.

“This is a millstone today to see that the two parties from the government and South Sudan National Liberation Movement have signed a preliminary peace agreement to end the suffering of the citizens of Western Equatoria state”, said Monsignor Eduard Hiiboro, Bishop of the diocese of Tombura-Yambio with a key mediating role, defining the signing of a peace deal yesterday in Yabio County.

The government and South Sudan National Liberation Movement (SSNLM) committed to end fighting to allow the return home and to the fields of thousands forced to flee. The SSNLM gained consensus on a local level due also to violations and abuses committed by Juba’s military. The armed wing of the movement consists in units of “arrow boys”, which are based in the bush and forests.

“We did not leave our homes to enter the bush to fight the government but to draw the attention of the government to listen to our complaints and we are not fighting any tribe”, said Victor Wanga, a commanding officer of the SSNLM who signed the agreement.

Fighting and attacks in Western Equatoria, among South Sudan’s most fertile regions, displaced tens of thousands in just few months. The violence comes in the context of a wider civil conflict between loyalist forces of President Salva Kiir and rebels linked to his former deputy Riek Machar. Two years of war has forced over 2 million people from their homes, often also across the borders into Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.

By Rufiz Hafizoglu*

There is one hadith (the collection of the reports claiming to quote what the prophet Muhammad said verbatim on any matter) that says: “There will be a strife in Sham (Syria, Iraq and Lebanon) that begins with children playing, after which nothing can be fixed. When it calms down from one side, it ignites from the other.”

Apparently, that’s what comes true now.

The matter rests, of course, in the Syrian crisis and the Syrian refugees whose fate is in the hands of either the “promised Caliphate” or “long-awaited paradise”, Europe, as the Syrian refugees call European countries.

Military operations in Syria and the occupation of the territory of the country by global jihadists have led to an influx of refugees into the neighboring more stable countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and, of course, Turkey, which is currently home to more than 2.2 million refugees.

One can say that the Syrians have become a victim of the world powers, which go around clarifying their relationships on their native land.

Unlike Lebanon, the political and economic situation of which is unstable, other countries have created normal living conditions for Syrian refugees.

But irrespective of the efforts of the countries, which accommodated Syrian refugees, to create normal conditions for their living, the presence of refugees still causes a number of problems in these countries.

It was not stressed for nothing that the war changes people’s psychology.

A Syrian man, who has been previously known for his ability to trade in his country, is now begging in Istanbul.

More than 30,000 people were detained in nine provinces of Turkey as part of the recent operations against refugees-beggars.

A Syrian woman, who has been proud of her honor at home, becomes a victim of trafficking, which is prosperous in Turkey, as well as in Lebanon, Jordan and several other Arab countries.

According to official stats, nearly 107,000 women are living in Syrian refugee camps in Turkey. Over 20 percent of them are widows, and this plays into the hands of those who “supply live goods” to countries in Persian Gulf.

Syrian women, in search of a shelter, also agree to unofficial marriages in countries receiving them.

For instance, a second “marriage” with a Syrian woman in Turkey costs about 3,000 Turkish liras, or $1500.

The situation becomes even clearer, when taking into account the “hunt” of illegal organ traders on Syrian refugees. And today, this is a serious problem not only for the Syrian refugees beyond borders of Syria, but also for those inside the country.

There are also numerous cases when Syrian refugees sell their organs on their own, mainly in Turkey, Jordan and Iraq, to escape poverty. For each kidney, for example, such “volunteers” get $6,000.

That’s how Syrians live in their countries and beyond.

As for the “long-awaited paradise” – Europe, they will likely have the same fate in European countries as well.

In addition to all the problems they face in neighboring countries and in Syria, the refugees will also subject to racism in Europe.

Following a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, it is unknown whether the EU countries will accept the Syrian refugees or not. For example, after the terrorist attacks, the Polish authorities said they won’t let Syrian refugees in.

All these factors suggest that currently, the Syrian refugee issue is one of the most important problems.

As long as the world powers pursue their own interests in resolving the Syrian crisis, this issue will remain unresolved for a long time.

*Rufiz Hafizoglu is the head of Trend Agency’s Arabic news service, follow him on Twitter: @rhafizoglu

International and U.S. upstream oil companies wrote down $38 billion in assets in the third quarter of 2015, the largest for any quarter since at least 2008 for this set of 46 companies (Figure 1). Low oil prices continue to have a significant effect on the value of companies’ assets and future prospects as well as on current revenue.

Although the volume of total liquids output for this group of companies increased over third-quarter 2014, the fall in oil prices contributed to a year-over-year decline in revenue. Lower oil prices also contributed to a 33% decline in cash flow from operations in the third quarter from the previous year. However, companies reduced capital expenditures by 34% over the same period, and for the first time in a year, these 46 companies showed a surplus of cash from operations over capital expenditures. Large write-downs—also called impairments—as well as reduced cash flow suggest that investment spending will continue to decline absent a meaningful increase in crude oil prices.

The significant increase in impairment charges was an important factor many companies discussed in their third-quarter earnings releases. An impairment charge represents the decrease in value of assets a company owns, typically its amount of proved reserves. Proved reserves are estimated quantities of oil and natural gas that analyses of geologic and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. Because oil companies must publish the amount of proved reserves they own every year, an impairment charge reflects assets that have estimates of future net cash flows below what the company already spent to develop them. This situation could result from a combination of geologic and economic factors, but regardless is something that lowers the value of the company.

Impairments are nonrecurring reductions in asset values reflected on a company’s income statement but do not represent cash outflows. In the third quarter, impairments represented over 40% of the $85 billion in non-cash adjustments. This is higher than in 2011-13, when impairments averaged only 10% of all non-cash adjustments. Further, the increase in impairments contributed to negative net income for this set of companies for the fourth consecutive quarter (Figure 2).

One example of an impairment charge is Royal Dutch Shell’s announcement to discontinue a Canadian oil sands project, reducing its proved reserves by an estimated 418 million barrels, according to company filings. A different company, Whiting Petroleum, wrote down the value of some assets it acquired from Kodiak Oil and Gas when the two companies merged last year.

Large impairment charges represent acknowledgement by a company that some of its projects are no longer profitable and are being discontinued. While this adjustment reduces the investment expenditures that the company would incur, it also reduces the future estimated cash flow from these projects. Options for conserving cash include reductions in dividends to shareholders, elimination of share repurchase programs or increases in cash through share issuance, increasing debt, or sales of assets. Since 2014, these 46 companies reduced dividends by 16% and share repurchases by 92%. Impairments make increasing debt and selling assets more difficult. Lenders may be less willing to lend if a company’s assets declined in value, or may only be willing to lend up to a certain percentage of the value of a company’s proved reserves, which declined in value from impairments. Selling assets becomes difficult because they are typically sold at a lower valuation than when the company purchased them because of the impairment charge, raising less cash than otherwise would be expected.

U.S. average gasoline and diesel fuel prices decrease

The U.S. average retail price for regular gasoline decreased six cents from the previous week to $2.18 per gallon on November 16, 2015, down 72 cents from the same time last year. The Midwest price fell 13 cents to $2.09 per gallon. The Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountain prices each decreased five cents, to $1.93 per gallon and $2.14 per gallon, respectively. The West Coast price was down three cents to $2.64 per gallon, and the East Coast price decreased less than a penny to remain $2.16 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price decreased two cents from last week to $2.48 per gallon, down $1.18 per gallon from the same time last year. The Midwest price fell three cents to $2.49 per gallon, followed by the West Coast price, which was down two cents to $2.70 per gallon. The Gulf Coast and East Coast prices both decreased one cent, to $2.30 per gallon and $2.50 per gallon, respectively. The Rocky Mountain price did not change, remaining $2.49 per gallon.

Residential heating oil price decreases while propane price increases

As of November 16, 2015, residential heating oil prices averaged nearly $2.40 per gallon, 3 cents per gallon lower than last week and almost 99 cents lower than one year ago. The average wholesale heating oil price this week is $1.46 per gallon, over 11 cents less than last week and $1.14 per gallon lower than a year ago

Residential propane prices averaged slightly under $1.94 per gallon, 2 cents per gallon higher than last week’s price and almost 47 cents lower than one year ago. Wholesale propane prices averaged 49 cents per gallon, just shy of 4 cents per gallon lower than last week’s price and 51 cents lower than last year’s price for the same week.

Propane inventories gain

U.S. propane stocks increased by 0.5 million barrels last week to 104.5 million barrels as of November 13, 2015, 23.3 million barrels (28.7%) higher than a year ago. Midwest inventories increased by 0.4 million barrels and East Coast inventories increased by 0.2 million barrels. Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories increased by 0.1 million barrels while Gulf Coast inventories decreased by 0.2 million barrels. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 3.5% of total propane inventories.