More than 30 Kent State University students are spending seven weeks this semester investigating a zombie apocalypse right in their own backyard.  They’re enrolled in Zombie Outbreak, a new emergency preparedness and biohazard course taught by Health Policy & Management Assistant Professor John Staley, Ph.D., MSEH, and Environmental Health Professor Christopher J. Woolverton, Ph.D. The course is covering the emergency response system, what public health professionals do in a variety of disasters and individual responsibility for hazard preparedness.

On April 17, the class met with 10 City of Kent and Portage County officials to discuss appropriate courses of action in preparing for and responding to a virus-induced zombie outbreak.  The students learned who is responsible for hazardous materials, biological health threats, emergency preparedness and response, as well as how information is verified and communicated to the public during emergencies.  University and Kent city police and fire responders were represented as well.

Better funding and cooperation by the international community is needed to prevent a ‘zombie apocalypse’, argues a U.S. expert in the Christmas issue of The BMJ, a British medical journal based in London.

“For the past 20 years BMJ has been delivering a wide range of high quality, evidence based knowledge, best practice, and learning support to help improve the decisions healthcare professionals make every day. Our own technology platform conforms to industry standards and underpins these product websites, API and mobile delivery,” according to a press statement.

Associate Professor Tara Smith, from Kent State University in Ohio, says zombie-like infections have been identified throughout the world and are becoming more common and a source of greater concern to public health professionals.

And yet there has been little formal study of the infections that may result in zombification of patients. She therefore provides an overview of zombie infections and suggestions for research investment in order to prevent a zombie apocalypse:

Though the properties of zombies may vary, what unites many outbreaks is a disease that is spread via bite, explains Smith.

Of infectious causes proposed, the Solanum virus has been the most extensively studied. “It has a 100% mortality rate, and if exposed to fluids of an infected individual, zombification is certain.”

Non-viral zombie causes include a form of the Black Plague bacterium, Yersinia pestis, the cordyceps fungus, and a mutated strain of the prion infection, commonly known as “mad cow” disease.

Symptoms of infection during a zombie outbreak tend to be fairly uniform, regardless of the nature of the pathogen, says Smith. The incubation period is highly variable, with development of symptoms ranging from mere seconds to hours or days.

Other symptoms may include a shambling gait, tendency to moan, loss of dexterity and prior personality traits, and the eventual rotting of flesh, she adds. In rare cases, zombies may be highly intelligent and self-aware, and lacking in the typical bite-and-flesh-eating tendencies.

Due to the rapid onset of zombie outbreaks and their society-destroying characteristics, prevention and treatment is a largely unexplored area of investigation, notes Smith.

She also points out that “equilibrium with the zombie infection is rarely achieved” and believes that the documented rise of multiple zombie pathogens “should be a wake-up call to the international community that we need additional funding and cooperation to address these looming apocalyptic disease threats.”

The Zombie Survival Guide 2003 notes: “At this rate, attacks will only increase, culminating in one of two possibilities. The first is that world governments will have to acknowledge, both privately and publicly, the existence of the living dead, creating special organizations to deal with the threat. In this scenario, zombies will become an accepted part of daily life – marginalized, easily contained, perhaps even vaccinated against. A second, more ominous scenario would result in an all-out war between the living and the dead…”

The Fed’s decision to raise interest rates today is an unfortunate move in the wrong direction. In setting interest rate policy the Fed must decide whether the economy is at risk of having too few or too many jobs, with the latter being determined by the extent to which its current rate of job creation may lead to inflation. It is difficult to see how the evidence would lead the Fed to conclude that the greater risk at the moment is too many jobs.

While at 5.0 percent, the unemployment rate is not extraordinarily high, most other measures of the labor market are near recession levels. The percentage of the workforce that is involuntarily working part-time is near the highs reached following the 2001 recession. The average and median duration of unemployment spells are also near recession highs. And the percentage of workers who feel confident enough to quit their jobs without another job lined up remains near the low points reached in 2002.

If we look at employment rates rather than unemployment, the percentage of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) with jobs is still down by almost three full percentage points from the pre-recession peak and by more than four full percentage points from the peak hit in 2000. This does not look like a strong labor market.

On the other side, there is virtually no basis for concerns about the risk of inflation in the current data. The most recent data show that the core personal consumption expenditure deflator targeted by the Fed increased at just a 1.2 percent annual rate over the last three months, down slightly from the 1.3 percent rate over the last year. This means that the Fed should be concerned about being below its inflation target, not above it.

While wage growth has edged up somewhat in recent months by some measures, it is still well below a rate that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target. Hourly wages have risen at a 2.7 percent rate over the last year. If there is just 1.5 percent productivity growth, this would be consistent with a rate of inflation of 1.2 percent.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that workers took a large hit to their wages in the downturn, with a shift of more than four percentage points of national income from wages to profits. In principle, workers can restore their share of national income (the equivalent of an 8 percent wage gain), but the Fed would have to be prepared to allow wage growth to substantially outpace prices for a period of time. If the Fed acts to prevent workers from getting this bargaining power, it will effectively lock in place this upward redistribution. Needless to say, workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution can expect to see the biggest hit in this scenario.

One positive point in today’s action is the Fed’s commitment in its statement to allow future rate hikes to be guided by the data, rather than locking in a path towards “normalization” as was effectively done in 2004. If it is the case that the economy is not strong enough to justify rate hikes, then the hike today may be the last one for some period of time. It will be important for the Fed to carefully assess the data as it makes its decision on interest rates at future meetings.

Recent economic data suggest that today’s move was a mistake. Hopefully the Fed will not compound this mistake with more unwarranted rate hikes in the future.

Here in Kabul, over breakfast with Afghan Peace Volunteers, or APVs, we easily recalled key elements of the conflict resolution and peer mediation “train the trainers” workshops that Ellis Brooks, with Voices for Creative Nonviolence-UK, had facilitated a week ago.

Peer mediators make “promises” before beginning a session: We won’t tell you what to do, we won’t take sides, and we won’t talk about this session with anyone outside of our room. While pouring tea and breaking bread, we recalled the hand signals Ellis gave us to help remember each promise.

Children at the Borderfree Street Kids School were also taught the peer mediation skills. I’m guessing that the street kids who work to supplement their family income can easily recall what Ellis taught them. They played games to show the importance of listening, and they learned to avoid blaming, exaggerating and “mind-reading” when mediating a dispute.

I watched the little children work in small groups to assemble cartoonized images of two donkeys, tied together, pulling against each other while heading for two heaps of food located in opposite directions. Each group succeeded, working together, in arranging the images so that the classic yet timely story ended with the two donkeys having figured out that they could both approach each pile, both be satisfied and both feed themselves, first at one pile and then the other. To reinforce the story, Ellis called on Ali and Abdulhai, two of the APV teachers, to role play being the donkeys, using Ellis’s scarf as the tie to bind them. Hilarity filled the room as the children advised their beloved “donkeys” about how to achieve a win-win solution.

We laughed this morning, recalling the scene. But I can’t help but worry that most of our younger friends are not very likely to be chatting about the workshop while enjoying fresh, warm bread and a second round of tea in a relatively secure setting.

Many of them live in refugee camps. Their families don’t have money to buy wood for fuel, and they often share meals of stale bread and tea without sugar.

It’s troubling to see how easily the children identified with a scenario the APVs helped Ellis develop, which would become the grist for analyzing conflict resolution and mediation. The story, as told by one of the child disputants in the role play, presents a grievance: Every morning, Nargis, a little girl, begs for bread at a certain set of homes, and when she is done she usually has acquired about 10 pieces of bread. She accuses of Abdullah of going to those houses to get bread before her. She says that Abdullah stole her bread, that he is a thief and not to be trusted. Abdullah says that he had no idea that he couldn’t approach the same houses, and that he only got one piece of bread for his family. He says that Nargis is greedy and selfish, and that he would even have shared the bread if she didn’t shame him before others and for some reason call him a thief.

Ellis guided the children through efforts to tell the story without including any exaggeration, blaming or “mind-reading,” as a skilled mediator would do. Using the image of peeling layers of an onion, he helped everyone identify what happened, what the disputants thought, how they felt, and, so importantly, what they needed. The stark reality in the role-play was that both Nargis and Abdullah fear hunger and need bread.

They want to bring some measure of security to their families, and the idea of returning empty-handed can inspire anxiety, rage and even panic.

I felt a bit of relief in knowing that the 100 child laborers participating in The Borderfree Street Kids School are each given a donation of beans, flour, cooking oil and rice, once a month, to compensate for what they would have earned working on the streets of Kabul while they now attend school. It’s very good to know that each child has been given warm clothing to help them through the coming winter.

Yet it is estimated that there could be up to 60,000 child laborers in Kabul alone. What shall we conclude about the others?

What about their experiences of hunger, cold and insecurity?

Ironically, while Ellis was in Kabul, the U.S. Embassy had issued high level alerts warning westerners in Kabul to stay home because of an anticipated imminent attack. Ellis, tall and fair, could easily be spotted as a westerner, while walking the short distance between the APV live-in community and their Borderfree Center where APV gatherings are held. He acknowledged that some of his family and friends were highly fearful about his visit to Kabul. “Have you gone mad?” some asked.

But, during the workshops, the lively, engaging activities quickly displaced concerns about security and possible attacks. Ellis was paired with Dr. Hakim, whose translation and interpretation were superb. The two of them deftly gained respect and full cooperation.

Later in the week, as I began to learn about rising fear and insecurity following the attack in San Bernardino, California that killed 14 people, I wondered how Ellis’s guidelines could affect people in the United States. Suppose that media, educators, faith-based and civil society leaders cooperated to educate people about the dangerous harm caused by language that labels all Muslims as suspect, exaggerates the threat to people’s daily lives in the United States, and purports to read the minds of Muslims claiming that all of them harbor hatred toward the United States. Suppose that it was commonplace for people in the United States to ask what fears and needs inspire antagonism toward their country. Suppose the media gave daily coverage to the sobering reports of U.S. attacks against civilians in other countries, most recently in war zones where the civilians have been routinely bombed and maimed, destroying their homes and causing millions to flee the consequent breakdown of civil society.

Before leaving, Ellis thanked the APVs for welcoming him, even though interventions by his country and others have made Afghanistan less safe and less free. He said he had learned, while here, about a strong capacity not to give up on basic rights, especially the right not to kill, the right to care about the planet, and the right to seek equality between people.

“Thank you,” he told all of the students, “for being my teachers.”

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured the image of the first-ever predicted supernova explosion. The reappearance of the Refsdal supernova was calculated from different models of the galaxy cluster whose immense gravity is warping the supernova’s light.

Many stars end their lives with a with a bang, but only a few of these stellar explosions have been caught in the act. When they are, spotting them successfully has been down to pure luck – until now. On December 11, 2015 astronomers not only imaged a supernova in action, but saw it when and where they had predicted it would be.

The supernova, nicknamed Refsdal [1], has been spotted in the galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+2223. While the light from the cluster has taken about five billion years to reach us, the supernova itself exploded much earlier, nearly 10 billion years ago [2].

Refsdal’s story began in November 2014 when scientists spotted four separate images of the supernova in a rare arrangement known as an Einstein Cross around a galaxy within MACS J1149.5+2223 (heic1505 – http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1505/) [3]. The cosmic optical illusion was due to the mass of a single galaxy within the cluster warping and magnifying the light from the distant stellar explosion in a process known as gravitational lensing [4].

“While studying the supernova, we realised that the galaxy in which it exploded is already known to be a galaxy that is being lensed by the cluster,” said Steve Rodney, co-author, from the University of South Carolina. “The supernova’s host galaxy appears to us in at least three distinct images caused by the warping mass of the galaxy cluster.”

These multiple images of the galaxy presented a rare opportunity. As the matter in the cluster – both dark and visible – is distributed unevenly, the light creating each of these images takes a different path with a different length. Therefore the images of the host galaxy of the supernova are visible at different times.

Using other lensed galaxies within the cluster and combining them with the discovery of the Einstein Cross event in 2014, astronomers were able to make precise predictions for the reappearance of the supernova. Their calculations also indicated that the supernova appeared once before in a third image of the host galaxy in 1998 — an event not observed by any telescope. To make these predictions they had to use some very sophisticated modelling techniques.

“We used seven different models of the cluster to calculate when and where the supernova was going to appear in the future. It was a huge effort from the community to gather the necessary input data using Hubble, VLT-MUSE, and Keck and to construct the lens models,” said Tommaso Treu, lead author of the modelling comparison paper, from the University of California at Los Angeles, USA. “And remarkably all seven models predicted approximately the same time frame for when the new image of the exploding star would appear”.

Since the end of October 2015 Hubble has been periodically peering at MACS J1149.5+2223, hoping to observe the unique rerun of the distant explosion and prove the models correct. On December 11, Refsdal finally made its predicted, but nonetheless showstopping, reappearance.

“Hubble has showcased the modern scientific method at its best,” said Patrick Kelly, lead author of the discovery and re-appearance papers and co-author of the modelling comparison paper from the University of California Berkeley, USA. “Testing predictions through observations provides powerful means of improving our understanding of the cosmos.”

The detection of Refsdal’s reappearance served as a unique opportunity for astronomers to test their models of how mass – especially that of mysterious dark matter – is distributed within this galaxy cluster. Astronomers are now eager to see what other surprises the ongoing Hubble Frontier Fields program will bring to light.

Notes:
[1] The supernova has been nicknamed Refsdal in honour of the Norwegian astronomer Sjur Refusal, who, in 1964, first proposed using time-delayed images from a lensed supernova to study the expansion of the Universe.

[2] The W. M. Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea, in Hawaii, was used to measure the redshift of the supernova’s host galaxy (z = 1.491), which is a proxy to its distance.

[3] Hubble observed MACS J1149.5+2223 as part of the Grism Lens Amplified Survey from Space (GLASS – http://glass.physics.ucsb.edu/) and the Frontier Fields programme. Both surveys are exploiting the lensing properties of galaxy clusters to examine the dark matter within them and some of the most distant galaxies beyond them.

[4] Gravitational lensing magnifies the light from fainter, background objects, allowing Hubble to spy galaxies it would otherwise not be able to detect. The process was first predicted by Albert Einstein and is now being exploited by the Frontier Fields programme in order to find some of the most distant galaxies in the Universe.

By Holly Whitman

Even today, the September 11th terrorist attacks play a regular role in international travel. The events of that fateful day have had a measurable impact on the very culture of travel, to say nothing about the lasting changes the developed world has made to its security and screening procedures.

After the latest high-profile outburst of violence, this time in Paris, the world is experiencing similar shockwaves of cause-and-effect, though only time will tell how long-lived these effects will be.

The Global Economy

The first and most measurable impact of the Paris attacks is purely economic. It says a lot about the times we’re living in that stocks in airlines, cruise lines, and booking sites began reeling immediately after the events in Paris.

Major airlines, along with websites specializing in airfare, such as Expedia, were among the S&P’s worst performers on the first Monday after the attacks. In addition, growth in the euro zone crawled to a paltry 0.3% in the third quarter of 2015, which was well below analysts’ estimates.

Nevertheless, sharp changes in stock prices and currency values are usually a short-lived consequence of terrorist attacks. The longer-term impacts may be felt for quite some time, and they could manifest into longer-lived downturns in travel and immigration thanks to tighter borders across the world, longer waits at security checkpoints, and the general sense of shared fear and panic that accompanies any high-profile violent act.

Not Just about People

So let’s move past stock prices and focus for a moment on something fundamental to the efficient functioning of modern civilization — the travel not of citizens, but of trade goods between international borders.

The news there, at least so far, has been less than encouraging. Heightened security all across the globe, and particularly in Europe, has caused severe bottlenecks for goods traveling across pan-European trade routes. This has created an even worse-than-usual slowing of manufacturing output, which had already been reduced to a crawl in recent years. It’s not enough to cause meaningful shortages of essential products, but economists are taking note.

The State Department Responds

Back on US soil, the State Department was quick to address rising public fears surrounding international travel, providing a worldwide alert for US citizens warning of “risks of travel due to increased terrorist threats.” It’s a standing warning set to expire early next year on February 24th. Potential sources of danger called out in the message include theaters, sporting arenas, aviation facilities, open-air markets, and other entertainment and commerce venues.

But if that sounds like a pretty standard warning to you these days, you’re not alone. So to better understand the real-world risks following a known terrorist attack, the Washington Post reached out to Michelle Bernier-Toth, the managing director for the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.

Interestingly, she reported that most of the calls her department received were from American citizens letting them know they were safe. The more important course of action, though, according to Toth, is to call home first to let friends and loved ones know you’re out of harm’s way.

But in the course of the interview, Toth also highlighted a particularly telling sign of the times — something called the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), which sends out messages to travelers concerning threats and ongoing attacks.

This program isn’t new since Paris. Rather, it’s a symptom of the widespread culture of fear that’s managed to permeate society on a global level. In other words, it’s a service that didn’t exist just a few short years ago, and it’s one most people likely couldn’t have imagined would one day even be necessary.

A Muted Response

Even with all of the fear surrounding international travel and with experts and laypeople alike circulating their dos and don’ts about whether to travel or stay put, a remarkable thing is happening. Although September 11th represented probably the most significant downturn for the travel industry, subsequent acts of violence have elicited a much more muted response.

Demand for hotel rooms abroad, for example, dipped only slightly following this recent attack.

So the question before us is this: Are we becoming less fearful generally, or have we simply become desensitized in a world where shocking acts of violence are, if not more common, at least better televised? If the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear in a complacent world, then that same world seems to have responded with an attitude that says, “Carry on with business as usual, or the terrorists win.”

That kind of solidarity and willfulness is admirable, and it appears to demonstrate a general trend toward the acceptance of the fact that risk exists everywhere we look. We take our lives into our hands every time we slide behind the wheel of a car, for example.

Hope from Chaos

And yet, there’s one final aspect of international travel that will be feeling the consequences of Paris for a long time to come: the travel of refugees. Even if the average person seems to have made their peace with booking a spot at a Sandals resort or boarding a Delta flight, Americans — and the leaders they’ve chosen for themselves — are now looking at political and economic refugees with the kind of mistrust we haven’t seen for a generation.

Why? One of the attackers complicit in the Paris attacks, Ahmad Al Mohammad, purportedly arrived in France after posing as a Syrian refugee in Greece.

In any event, it’s clear that moving between international borders is an act that’s fraught with controversy, complications, fear, and mistrust — and yet, an unlikely ray of hope. At a time when it’s never been more important to come together as a species, even across lines drawn on a map, travel should be the one thing that gets easier — not harder.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

Canada’s yuletide welcome of 10,000 Syrian refugees (target 25,000 by February) continues to draw criticism. Originally, the criticism was from the Conservatives, arguing that a hasty infusion of thousands of Syrians would represent a security risk. One of the Paris bombers was reportedly carrying a Syrian passport. It turned out that the passport was a forgery (common practice among desperate immigrants everywhere), and all the alleged bombers were European citizens.

Nonetheless, Canada decided to limit Syrians to families, single women and children. This sounds like a human rights violation: discrimination against single men, on the pretext that they could be terrorists. Not fair, but understandable, given the Paris bombings and the need to be seen to act carefully. There are lots of women and children and married men still alive there to fill the quota.

But some vigilant and politically correct Canadians are raising a stink. Gay spokesmen have protested the exclusion of gay men from the list of preferred refugees. “We know, firsthand, from those types of countries, LGBT refugees are very vulnerable to violence and persecution,” said Pride Winnipeg’s Jeff Myall.

Wait a minute. Gays, so the conventional wisdom goes, have long been the much maligned minority, victims of quasi-racism. Since Stonewall, newly integrated into mainstream society, but always on the lookout for signs of homophobia. Now western gays (the term doesn’t even exist in the nonwestern world) are exporting their newly minted agenda of ‘equality, liberty, fraternity’ not only to Egypt, Iran and Russia, but of all places, Syria, joining the sympathy bandwagon, not just as disinterested citizens by as disinterested gay citizens.

Reaching Out Winnipeg, a group that helps LGBTTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer) refugees and asylum seekers get settled in the city, is preparing for the arrival of Syrian refugees. That is big-hearted of them, given Canada’s Syrian refugees are limited to women, children and families, clearly excluding gay men and women, but they are not happy, and want a reversal of the no-male policy to allow for self-proclaimed gay men (presumably they would want self-proclaimed lesbians to get the nod as well). They are okay about banning straight Syrians. But please, don’t discriminate against gentle gay guys. Only the straight ones.

Pride Winnipeg and Reaching Out were awaiting a response to this issue from Immigration Minister John McCallum. So what if McCallum caved? Wouldn’t that make Canadian policy sexist and heterophobic? 21st century political correctness continues to confound.

The tricks of getting in

The standard policy in Canada’s immigration service has long been to favor families, especially the post-WWII mom-pop two-little-kids families, where both parents speak English or French, are university educated, with five plus years of experience in hardcore professions like engineer, computers, and medicine. This makes sense from Canada’s point of view: they are not terrorist risks, are easily integrated, easily employable, and profitable. The issue of whether such a policy is just, or whether it is actually a major factor in the braindrain from the third world to the first world, is never broached.

Single males are already (unofficially) not allowed for various reasons. Unless highly skilled, they are not good economic prospects, will likely return to their original homeland with savings to live as kings, or maybe they are gay, and not as likely to make a major contribution to Canada’s economy or produce children. The only way a gay Egyptian, Costa Rican, etc, can emigrate to Canada is to marry a Canadian expat at the embassy and thus slip through the net. A handful formerly came as political refugees, but that works only if you are from a country out of favour with the West, like Iran, or have managed to enter as a tourist and then plead your personal case of discrimination at home, no matter how tenuous. Risky but done.

The new marry-a-gay-Canadian loophole is widely known, and encourages males, gay or straight, to abuse it. Counters Pride Winnipeg’s Jeff Myall: “With any type of scenario, there’s always the possibility that somebody’s going to try to break the rules. The main thing we fall back to is [that in] the culture that a lot of these people are coming from, being LGBTTQ is extremely taboo … If you’re caught at all by the wrong people, your life could be in jeopardy.” Not true. As immigration procedures are confidential, such a loophole would likely be used without risk by Syrians, especially straights, to take advantage of the current crisis and get the coveted invitation to Canada, whatever their legitimate claims as imperiled refugees are.

Canada should be accepting “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (whatever they might do in the bedroom), but that policy happened only briefly in US-Canadian history, in the 19th and early 20th century, when large numbers of (white) Europeans were needed to take over all the native lands, allowing all Europeans who wanted to, to come, making a white North America a fait accompli. Since then, immigration has been much more selective, fuel for the economic engine. And increasingly, now, regulated according to the new 21st century politically correct agenda.

The humanitarian nature of the Syrian deluge is not to be denied. It is a noble gesture by Trudeau, in fact, a kind of silver bullet against terrorism, along with Trudeau’s decisive phone call to Obama hours after his election as Prime Minister to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. The only way to fight ISIS responsibly is to “do the right thing,” and expose their policy of violence as bad for Muslims, bad for everyone. That means, in the first place, not follow the same policy of violence, and, just as important, through humanitarian policies, showing Canada’s goodwill.

Even the mercenary (sic) subtext of who is accepted does not deny the new lease on life for all immigrant families, and the positive return for their countries of origin that their future financial support of relatives left behind will provide.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Stephane Dion’s first statement heralded a new Middle East policy calling for reassessing the Harper pro-Israeli bias, making Israel “a nonpartisan issue”. “For us to be an effective ally we need to strengthen our relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region.” The refugee policy is also part of this. Insisting that the g word be part of official government policy in deciding which Syrians are welcomed is not. It will do nothing to improve things in Syria, and will only encourage lying, cynicism and even contribute to resentment of openly gay men there.

Pinkwashing politics

The gay issue is a thorny one, abused by individuals desperate to snag a ticket to the western dream, and by western governments to distract their own public from serious issues of international relations between states which don’t follow a western agenda, in the first place, Russia and Iran.

By interfering with other countries’ internal affairs, this actually does more harm to those who face discrimination in those countries. Whatever their intent, international gay activists paradoxically end up replicating and even strengthening in other cultures the very situation of repression they set out to challenge in their own countries, as Joseph Massad argues in Desiring Arabs (2007).

Today the civilising mission of the “Gay International” (as Massad provocatively puts it) is to pluck individuals out of their social setting, forcing them to define their very essence according to certain acts, and then endow them with universal personal rights to perform these acts and encourage others to perform these acts wherever they like, be it in Teheran, Mecca or New York. In pursuing this invasive policy, it continues the work of Christian missionaries, paving the way for the economic system that imperialism seeks to spread across the world, giving western forces more room to incorporate other societies into its domain, and in the process, rewriting history.

The current policy clearly discriminates against men, but is understandable. It should be ‘all or nothing’.

Source: http://ahtribune.com/human-rights/258-ban-straight-syrian-refugee.html

By Ross Harvey*

As a mining jurisdiction, South Africa’s score (relative global rank indexed out of a maximum of 100) on the Fraser Institute Investment Attractiveness Index has fallen from 56.1 in 2011/12 to 52.6 last year. The country ranked 64th out of 122 competitors, eclipsed by Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Madagascar and Côte d’Ivoire.

The index is constructed by combining the Best Practices Mineral Potential Index, which rates regions based on their geological attractiveness, and the Policy Perception Index, a composite index that measures the effects of government policy on attitudes towards exploration investment. An important caveat, however, is that respondents consistently indicate that policy factors account for only 40% of their investment decision.

This is often overlooked, especially as South Africa’s policy regime is regularly cited domestically as an explanation for declining exploration investment expenditure. However, in a commodity price downturn and global secular stagnation (a huge slump in total factor productivity growth in the world’s major consumer markets), it is this 40% that can make all the difference between attracting investment or not.

China, a major consumer of Africa’s raw minerals in the past decade, is shifting its economy away from export-led manufacturing into services and greater domestic consumption. While this is crucial for China to rebalance its overheated economy, it means demand for products such as coal and iron ore, in which South Africa is rich, will necessarily be on a new (lower) price trajectory.

But greater emphasis on consumption, strongly encouraged in China’s 13th five-year plan (2016-2020), will mean greater demand for products such as copper and bauxite, inputs into technology products such as tablets and smartphones.

By Carlos Malamud*

Mauricio Macri, Argentina’s new president, was the candidate standing for Cambiemos, the broad center-left and center-right coalition that defeated Cristina Kirchner in the recent elections. What Macri defeated above all was an ugly, black and white approach to politics that rejected bipartisan solutions and sought to foster polarization.

According to Ipsos Public Affairs, Cristina Fernández’s mandate came to an end with a 52% approval rating – not bad considering that everyone knows her family’s personal fortune multiplied 15 fold from 7 million to 100 million pesos in the course of three terms in office (two with her husband Nestor as the incumbent president and one with the widow at the helm).

Such a degree of positive recognition stems from the fact that “Kirchnerism” actually did some good things, especially in the earlier years when the main point of reference as perceived by Argentinians was the crisis of 2001 and 2002. Between 1998 and 2002 Argentina’s GDP fell by 18%, its currency lost 70% of its value and its per capita income in US dollars collapsed by around 68%.

According to the Kirchner governments’ official version (Néstor Kirchner, 2003-07, and Cristina Fernández, 2007-11 and 2011-15), the narrative of their years in power is that of the “saved decade.” The period is cast in a triumphal light, with significant successes at the outset fueled by favorable commodity prices and the expansion of the Chinese economy.

The reality today however, as President Macri takes over, is far more of a toxic than triumphal inheritance. The ‘saved decade,” it turns out, was more of a wasted opportunity disguised in statistical trickery and fake inflation figures.

The grand tragedy of the Kirchners’ era of governance is the failure to have exploited the tail wind of the golden years of booming commodity exports. A fair part of what was then accrued was subsequently dissipated in populist policies that failed to allow an increase in national savings or the accumulation of greater social capital for investment in the future, as shown by the exponential growth in the number of public employees and beneficiaries of state hand-outs.

Among the new government’s main economic problems is an inflation rate of over 25%, the second highest in Latin America after Venezuela. It stands in stark contrast to the “official” 14% reported by the National Statistics and Census Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censo or INDEC), proof of the government’s manipulated measurements. This is one of the leading points of disagreement between the Argentine government and the IMF, which prevented it over the past seven years from carrying out its annual updates. The IMF refuses to recognize Argentina’s official inflation data.

There is also the decline in the Central Bank’s reserves, dropping from a high of U.S. $52 billion in 2010 to the current U.S. $10 billion (although some speak of U.S. $5 billion or even less). To this should be added the restrictions imposed by the Kirchner regime on the acquisition of foreign currency for both companies and individuals, mostly affecting the U.S. dollar, which remains the Argentines’ preferred saving option. This is not to mention the pending negotiation with the so-called debt holdouts of foreign creditors presented by Fernández as an episode in the struggle against imperialism more than as a necessity brought about by government inaction.

Another no less important problem is the payment of subsidies, which consume a large volume of public income and have raised the budget deficit, which in 2015 accounts for 7.2% of GDP, the highest level since 1982, while subsidies themselves total more than 4% of GDP. In the budget approved for the coming year by the outgoing government, subsidies -mainly to the energy and transport sectors- total 179 billion pesos, 5% less than in 2015. Worse still, in large part they are directed at helping middle and higher segments rather than lower-income groups.

The new government’s inheritance is not only economic. Drug trafficking, corruption and public safety have become pressing challenges. A not unimportant contributing factor to the defeat of Kirchnerism, in addition to economic woes and the system itself running out of steam, has been the increase in crime rates and the feeling of vulnerability felt by the bulk of Argentine society.

As for foreign policy, a priority will be restoring a workable relationships with the country’s traditional partners -the US, the EU and other Latin American countries, including Colombia, Mexico and Peru- adversely affected by policies that favored new ‘friends’, such as Iran and Russia. Argentina’s international agenda was more in line with the recommendations of Hugo Chávez, who became a species of mentor for Fernández, than with the country’s own interests.

One of the Kirchner regime’s abiding traits has been its appropriation and colonization of the state. A striking example has been the outgoing President’s eleventh-hour attempt to retain her official Facebook, Twitter and Google accounts, something she looks unlikely to achieve. In her infantile tantrum of not taking part in the handover of power unless under her own conditions, Cristina Fernández went as far as to compare herself to Cinderella in her farewell address, which was more of a harangue to benefit her followers than an institutional speech marking the democratic transfer of power.

Macri’s arrival at the Casa Rosada will completely upend Argentine political life and the country’s style of government. Beyond the campaign of fear orchestrated by the Kirchnerists during the election campaign, a majority in Argentine society have decided to give a chance to the program advocated by Cambiemos. Mauricio Macri certainly does not have an easy job ahead and he can look forward to four very tough years. Hence the appeal, in his inaugural address, to dialogue and consensus. It would be desirable, for Argentina’s own good, over and above Fernández’s ambition of returning to power in 2019, that his term in office should be a success.

About the author:
*Carlos Malamud, Senior Analyst for Latin America, Elcano Royal Institute | @CarlosMalamud

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

By Elise Harris and Angela Ambrogetti

On Friday Pope Francis clarified a few points in his streamlined marriage annulment process and restored power to the Vatican’s main marriage court in order to prevent unnecessary procedural delays.

One of the key clarifications the Pope made was to reiterate that the new rules trump everything that came before them, including changes made during the pontificates of Pope Pius XI and John Paul II.

First announced in September, the new process went into effect Dec. 8, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and the launch of Francis’ Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy.

With the streamlined process, more of a role is placed on the local bishop, who now acts as the judge in the process, automatic appeals have been dropped, and the process has been declared free of charge.

The changes were initially published in two motu proprio – or letters – issued by the Pope “on his own initiative.” The documents were entitled “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus” (The Lord Jesus, a meek judge), which deals with modifications in the Latin Rite’s Code of Canon Law, and “Mitis et misericors Iesus” (Jesus, meek and merciful), which outlines changes for Eastern Churches who, although in full communion with Rome, have historically had a different process.

On Dec. 7, the day before the new process went into effect, Pope Francis signed a “rescript,” that is, a written answer to a question in which the primary subject of the question is clarified.

The move is a step in bringing the procedures of the Vatican’s main court, called the Roman Rota, in line with the new marriage annulment process.

According to the rescript text, the entry into force of the new process, which aims “to bring justice and mercy on the truth of the bond to those who have experienced the failure of their marriage,” requires, among other things, “the need to harmonize the renewed procedures for marriage annulment with the regulations of the Roman Rota, awaiting their reform.”

The new laws, it said, are “intended precisely to show the Church’s closeness to wounded families, desiring that the many who experience matrimonial failure are reached by Christ’s healing work through ecclesiastical structures.”

Francis affirmed the Rota’s jurisdiction as the ordinary court of appeal of the Apostolic See, and assured that it remains the point of reference in “safeguarding the unity of the jurisprudence,” as was laid out by St. John Paul II in his 1988 apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus.

With these two points in mind, as well as the desire to contribute “to the continuing formation of pastoral workers in the Tribunals of the local Churches,” Francis decreed that the new laws on annulment cases “repeal or waive any contrary law or regulation currently in force.”

The rescript also states that Pope Pius XI’s Motu Proprio “Qua cura” on regional tribunals in Italy is canceled.

In the text, the Pope clarifies that cases which reach the Roman Rota will now be judged according an old Latin formula: “An constet de matrimonii nullitate, in casu,” roughly translating as “Is there proof of the nullity of marriage in the case of…”

Basically, the formula allows the Rota to grant an annulment even if the grounds for doing so weren’t the ones originally specified.

For example, a person might seek an annulment on the basis that one of the parties didn’t believe in marriage indissolubility, that is, the fact that marriage is a lifelong commitment.

The court could rule that while that point couldn’t be proven, the marriage was obviously null for another reason, such as coercion, and declare it so.

This formula was previously used by the Rota, allowing them to grant an annulment on those grounds, however during his pontificate John Paul II required the court to judge the case only on the grounds originally specified, meaning that the person or couple seeking an annulment had to start the process over if their original claim was unable to be proven.

Francis’ move, then, can be seen as a continued effort to reach out to the Church’s “most fragile sons and daughters, marked by wounded and lost love,” as he said in the rescript text in reference to the most recent Synod of Bishops on the Family, which placed special emphasis on reaching out to divorced and remarried Catholics.

Of particular importance in the process is the principle of “generic doubt,” under which an a marriage can be declared null when the case off nullity is obvious, even without any specific grounds declared.

In the rescript, Pope Francis also clarified that “there shall be no appeal” against the decisions made by the Rota in matters of the nullity of sentences or decrees.

Under the new procedures, a first judgment is always made by the diocesan tribunal. However, if one or both of the spouses seeking an annulment disagree with the ruling, they may appeal to the Rota for a second judgment.

In the rescript, Francis established that if a cause of nullity arrives to the third degree of judgment, it cannot be proposed again “after one of the parties has contracted a new canonical marriage, unless the decision can be demonstrated to be manifestly unjust.”

It was also declared that the Dean of the Rota, then, “has the authority to dispense with the Norms of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota in procedural matters for a serious cause.”

Another aspect of the rescript, expressing the explicit wish of Eastern Church leaders, is that their local tribunals will now have jurisdiction over the “iurium,” or “human rights” aspects of marriage annulment cases that come before the Rota for an appeal.

This is particularly relevant for churches in the Middle East, where numerous countries have no civil law on marriage cases, and often depend on religious courts. This means that when cases arrive to the Rota from these areas, the court will also judge on questions such as alimony and child custody.

In his final point in the rescript Francis says that the Rota must offer to all “the principal of evangelic gratuity,” meaning that those seeking the annulment won’t have to pay the lawyer for the cause, but that the costs will presumably be absorbed by the Rota itself.

However, the Pope did say that wealthier parties have a “moral obligation” to make “a just contribution towards the causes of the poor.”

(RFE/RL) — Iran will not accept any limitations on its missile program, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said on December 16 after United Nations experts concluded Tehran had violated UN missile sanctions.

“We tested Emad to show the world that the Islamic Republic will only act based on its national interests and no country or power can impose its will on us,” Dehghan said on the ministry’s website.

Dehghan called Emad a “conventional missile,” repeating Iran’s contention that the missile was not designed to carry nuclear weapons and Iran does not intend to use it that way.

“Since the nuclear deal we have not stopped our [missile] tests, production and research even for a day, an hour or a second,” he added.

Iran insists a missile must be specifically “designed” to carry a nuclear payload, not simply “capable of” doing so, to be in violation of Security Council Resolution 1929, which prohibits Tehran from launching ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear weapons.

The Council’s panel of experts on Iran determined otherwise, however, concluding that Iran’s October 10 missile test violated the resolution.

The United States has vowed to push for enforcement of the sanctions, along with Britain, Germany, and France. Russia and China have been reluctant to enforce the missile sanctions, however.

Most U.S. Republican senators on December 16 cited the UN report finding Iran in violation as evidence of Iran’s “blatant disregard” for international obligations and said the United States should not lift economic sanction on Tehran next year as called for under a July nuclear agreement with world powers.

“It is a mistake to treat Iran’s ballistic missile program as separate from Iran’s nuclear program,” 36 of the U.S. Senate’s 54 Republicans said in a letter to President Barack Obama.

The senators said the ballistic missiles Iran is testing will enhance Tehran’s ability to target Israel and U.S. troops in the region. Iran has one of the largest missile programs in the Middle East.

A meeting in a Dutch town to discuss whether to build a new centre for migrants had to be abandoned amid rioting by some opponents, BBC News reports.

Protesters in Geldermalsen tore down fences and threw fireworks at police who responded with warning shots.

Local mayor Miranda de Vries said no one in the meeting hall was injured but tweeted she was sad “through and through”.

European countries are facing record numbers of migrants. The meeting in Geldermalsen was to discuss establishing a centre for 1,500 asylum seekers.

About 2,000 people joined the protests from the town of 27,000, Dutch national broadcaster NOS reported. Local police said they had made several arrests.

The migration crisis is expected to dominate a meeting of EU leaders later on Thursday, December 17.

By Mehmet Bildik*

NATO has been designing the military and strategic process in the Middle East since its establishment in 1949. Dwight David Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Alliance Force in Europe, supported Turkish and Greece membership to NATO in order to enforce the alliance’s southeastern flank. Eisenhower’s military and strategic approach contemplated the creation of an “advanced defense front” against the Soviet Union coming up through the southern wing with Turkey. Another important reason for the creation of the southern wing was preservation of the oil resources in the Middle East against Soviet threat.

The Turkish membership to NATO has pushed the alliance front further east, and because of that Britain has been considered insufficient security to protect the Middle East. Considering this point, right after Israel gained independence from Britain, the Alliance of the Periphery was formulated by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, and by Eliahu Sasson, one of Israel’s leading Middle East experts and one of the first Israeli diplomatic representatives in Ankara. The alliance called for Israel to develop a close strategic alliance with non-Arab states in order to counteract against pro-Soviet Arab regimes for the existence of the state of Israel.

The fact that, like Israel, Turkey, as member of NATO, maintained friendly ties with Washington and the west and had a long-standing conflict with Arab states helped to strengthen relations with Israel in the Middle East. The Israeli-Turkish strategic alliance, which was established in the post-Cold War dynamic and was aided by American-oriented domination, opened the way for the pro-American governments like Jordan and Egypt to create a new strategic block against Israel’s enemies .

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and American intervention in Iraq to fight against terrorism changed the whole international relations dynamics, and thereafter the Turkish-Israeli Peripheral Alliance has been transformed on a military level. Since the Syrian crisis erupted in 2011, NATO has been setting up a balance between Turkey and Israel by protecting the Middle East from its “Airspace and Sea” on a military level through PATRIOT Missiles-Mediterranean exercise. The Mavi Marmara episode remains to be a political standoff between Turkey and Israel and has been preventing NATO from using a ground coalition force, which has opened the way for DEASH terrorism in conjunction with YPG dominance in Northern Syria. This strategic limbo enhanced Iranian influence in the Middle East in terms of what is called an “ Iranian backed terrorism act” in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem.

Nowadays, Russia and Iran staunchly support the Assad regime in Syria against other sectarian alliances, namely, Saudi Arabia promoting radical salafism as well as Qatar aiding through financial assistance. The growing power of the jihadist idea based on extremism in the region is influencing Turkish foreign policy negatively. The Allepo Battle and Russian violation of Turkish airspace led to a huge influx of refugees to exodus to Europe through Turkey. On this point, the Russian presence in Syria changed regional geopolitics, and ISIS terrorism acts in Ankara have handed over the Kurdish issue to the Russian sphere of influence.

In this regard, NATO deployed aircrafts and airmen from the American Incirlik Airbase to the Turkish Diyarbakır Airbase in order to help the support the personnel recovery operations in Syria and Iraq. NATO’s Mediterranean exercise. Trident Juncture 2015 acted as a counterbalance to Russian presence, which suspended creating a “no-fly zone” for Arabs and Kurds.

The United States has deployed a dozen new warplanes to NATO’s Incirlik Airfield as a part of its ongoing fight against ISIS. A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack planes have arrived in Incirlik to replace F-16 jets as part of a regular rotation mentioned by Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook. The deployment of the A-10 Thunderbolt planes to Incirlik Airbase to fight against DEASH underscores the vital role of the aircraft.

On the other hand, Turkey started to lose its upper hand on Arab rebellion in terms of the fight against PKK terrorism after the suspension of the “no-fly zone,” which was put in place by NATO and the USA. Quickly following, the terrorist group PKK declared canton independence from the terrorist YPG groups and opened a party offices in Moscow. Therefore, Turkey started to its lose advantage against Assad regime and Turkey has accepted the “transitional process” with Assad, which was agreed upon during the Vienna Talks

As of November 20, the Russian military has launched a cruise missiles attack against DEASH positions in Syria from both the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. In addition to that, Russian-backed Syrian regime forces started an air operation targeting Turkmen villages where Bayır-Bucak Turkmens, live an area close to Turkey’s Yayladağ border gate.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a plan on November 23 to begin the transfer of the advanced S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran when he attended talks with leaders in Tehran. Thereupon, Turkish F-16’s shot down a Russian military jet along the Syrian border on November 24, sparking fury in Moscow. The Turkish strike marked the first time since 1952 that a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member has shot down a Russian warplane.

As an important actor in the region, the State of Israel can play mediator role between Turkey and Russia in regard to NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and Peripheral Alliance. Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon told the press on November 29 that “a Russian warplane had violated the Israeli border over Golan Hieghts, Russian planes do not intend to attack us, which is why we must not automatically react and shoot them down when an error occurs.” The Russian S-400 missiles deployment in Syria will create strategic depth for Israel against Iranian threats, as did NATO’s deployment of five PATRIOT batteries to augment Turkey’s air defenses on 4 December 2012 in order to defend the population and territory of Turkey against threats posed by missiles from across its border with Syria. Hereby, Israel and Turkey have protected military gains of NATO’s supplements to Turkish airspace.

France and Germany are strategically using strategic the Incirlik Airbase to deploy Tornado war planes, focusing on a surveillance mission with a total of 1,200 troops. The U.S. and NATO have given full support to NATO member Turkey not only in words, but also in practice by reinforcing their military presence close to Syria and in Turkey’s strategic Incirlik Air Base near the Syrian border.

Consequently, military cooperation within NATO countries fighting against DEASH by boosting up NATO force near Turkey’s border would strengthened relations between Israel and Turkey on the way of protecting the Leviathan and Mosul energy fields and will give maneuver room for Turkey to solve the Cyprus Issue in regards to Cyprus’ European Union bid.

Finally, Russian roulette in the Middle East will create an opportunity for Turkey and Israel to export Leviathan as over the Cyprus to Europe. The Turkish army, as a strong and powerful army of NATO, has already entered the Mosul province, and exporting gas from here will change all strategic calculations in the Middle East. Therefore, Turkey will get the upper hand against PKK terrorism by providing security for the Mosul petrols while developing diplomatic relations with Israel on Leviathan gas deals.

*Mehmet Bildik,Research Fellow on Military and Strategic Affairs by Minisitry of Foreign Affairs Turkey. He received his MA degree from the Bucharest National School of Political Science and Public Administrative Studies, Security and Diplomacy as a scholarship holder of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey.

The EU says it may retaliate if the US goes ahead with plans to impose visas for some members of the bloc who are currently part of the Visa Waiver Program. Brussels says it will not increase security and that US nationals may require visas to enter the EU.

A letter signed by the US ambassadors of 28 European member states was published in The Hill after Europe reacted furiously and with disbelief to plans by Washington to tighten-up the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which currently lets millions of citizens from the bloc travel to the US each year without a visa.

Last week, the US House of Representatives adopted a bill to reform the visa program that would ban certain EU nationals from entering the US without a visa if they had visited Iran, Iraq, Syria or Sudan after March 2011. Some US politicians want the legislation introduced to tighten security following the November 13 Paris terror attacks.

“A blanket restriction on those who have visited Syria or Iraq, for example, would most likely only affect legitimate travel by businesspeople, journalists, humanitarian or medical workers while doing little to detect those who travel by more clandestine means overland,” the letter signed by the 28 ambassadors stated.

At present, 23 of the EU’s 28 member states enjoy visa-free travel to the US, with the remaining five nations keen to join the VWP. The bloc says it is imperative to keep the visa waiver program intact for business and tourism purposes, while the current system does not mean that it is “a license to enter the US with nothing more than the wave of a passport of an allied country.”

The EU is also worried its citizens with dual nationality of the proscribed countries would be “disproportionately and unfairly affected.” It believes the added checks would do nothing to combat terrorism, but would instead hurt trade and could trigger “legally-mandated reciprocal measures.”

“What we want to see is intensified cooperation, and consequently greater security, for both the United States and its allies. We want to work with the US to improve information exchange regarding individuals subject of course to the appropriate constitutional protection,” the statement continued.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, a respected American-Iranian writer and independent researcher, told RT the bill “is a sort of bigotry” and accused the House of Representatives of “trying to follow in Donald Trump’s footsteps,” after the Republican candidate said all Muslim’s should be banned from entering the US.

“Frankly, many don’t even believe that these threats are well-founded. And the US thrives on fear, on having people beholden to fear. And so, as long as the American people are afraid and they fear terrorism or likewise, then the government has a free hand to do whatever it wants,” she said.

She also added that perfectly innocent citizens who had traveled to the countries on the US list would be targeted, and that the list would mean tarring everyone with the same brush.

“If you think about the implications of this bill, how will journalists who are European or who are part of this visa waiver program who have got to these countries – how will they be dealt with? How about all the…people that flocked to Iran in the hopes of the Joint [Comprehensive] Plan of Action being implemented…- how will they come to the US, how will they filter people out?” Sepahpour-Ulrich added when speaking to RT.

North Korea’s Supreme Court sentenced pastor Hyeon Soo Lim — born in South Korea, but a Canadian national — to life in prison with hard labour for what it called crimes against the state.

Lim pastors the Light Korean Presbyterian Church in Toronto, Canada. In February he was arrested while in North Korea and in July he publicly confessed to “subversive plots” against the Communist state. After entering on a visa for humanitarian activities, Lim was accused of gathering information to use abroad to push for the end of the regime.

According to his Light Korean Presbyterian Church, Lim made more than 100 trips to North Korea since 1997, contributing to the foundation of an orphanage and nursing home. His collaborators are now extremely concerned over the pastor’s fragile health condition.

North Korea last year released another pastor of South Korean origin, the US national Kenneth Bae, also convicted of “anti-state” crimes, two years into a 15-year sentence of forced labor.

This year, in June a North Korean lower court sentenced two South Koreans to life imprisonment with forced labor for espionage. A total of three South Koreans are currently detained in the North.

The war in Vietnam resulted in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans and more than 3 million Vietnamese. Twenty years ago, the United States and Vietnam normalized diplomatic relations in an effort to put the terrible legacy of the war behind them. But for the survivors—both Vietnamese and American—the war continues. About 5 million Vietnamese and many U.S. and allied soldiers were exposed to the toxic chemical dioxin from the spraying of Agent Orange. Many of them and their progeny continue to suffer its poisonous effects.

Agent Orange was a chemical, herbicidal weapon sprayed over 12 percent of Vietnam by the U.S. military from 1961 to 1971. The dioxinpresent in Agent Orange is one of the most toxic chemicals known to humanity.

Those exposed to Agent Orange during the war often have children and grandchildren with serious illnesses and disabilities. The international scientific community has identified an association between exposure to Agent Orange and some forms of cancers, reproductive abnormalities, immune and endocrine deficiencies and nervous system damage. Second- and third-generation victims continue to be born in Vietnam as well as to U.S. veterans and Vietnamese-Americans in this country.

There are 28 “hot spots” in Vietnam still contaminated by dioxin. These hot spots still affect the people who live there and eat the crops, land animals and fish.

On April 29, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee introduced HR 2114, the Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2015. This bill would go a long way toward remedying the humanitarian crisis among both the Vietnamese and U.S. victims of Agent Orange.

Representatives of the Vietnam Association for the Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA) have arrived in the U.S. to mark the official launch of HR 2114 on Thursday. VAVA is an organization of more than 365,000 Agent Orange victims and activists that works to achieve justice for the victims throughout the world.

One member of the VAVA delegation is Tr?n Th? Hoàn. Her mother was exposed to Agent Orange from a barrel of the chemical buried in her land during the war. Born without legs and with a seriously atrophied hand, Hoàn grew up in Peace Village II, the Agent Orange center at T? D? Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City. Hoàn is a college graduate and currently works as a computer science professional at the hospital.

In the U.S., VAVA’s sister organization, the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign (VAORRC), is educating the public about the ongoing problems caused by spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam and working to pass legislation to remedy these problems. VAORRC believes that the U.S. and chemical manufacturers such as Dow and Monsanto must take responsibility for the use of these chemicals to redress the harm they have caused and to heal the wounds of war. VAVA advocates for and provides assistance to victims in Vietnam, but Agent Orange victims need even more help. Through the work of activists in the U.S., Vietnam and internationally, the U.S. government has allocated some money for the cleanup of one hot spot, but has done little to alleviate the suffering of Agent Orange victims in Vietnam or to clean up the remaining 27 hot spots.

The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam constituted prohibited chemical warfare, amounting to a war crime. Yet the U.S. is still using chemical weapons, including white phosphorus gas, in its wars abroad. In addition to taking responsibility for and rendering assistance to Agent Orange victims, the U.S. government must also provide compensation to victims of recent and current wars who suffer from exposure to chemicals used by its military.

HR 2114, which has 14 co-sponsors, would:

• Provide health care and social services for affected Vietnamese, including medical and chronic care services, nursing services, vocational employment training, medicines and medical equipment, custodial and home care, daycare programs, training programs for caregivers, physical and vocational rehabilitation and counseling and reconstructive surgery.
• Provide medical assistance and disability benefits to affected children of U.S. veterans of the Vietnam War. The veterans fought for and won benefits for their Agent-Orange-related health conditions, but only the children of female veterans were covered for most conditions. This bill will equalize benefits to the children of both male and female American veterans.
• Provide health assessment, counseling and treatment for affected Vietnamese-Americans and their offspring through the establishment of health and treatment centers in Vietnamese-American communities.
• Clean up the lands and restore ecosystems contaminated by Agent Orange/dioxin in Vietnam.
• Conduct research into the health effects of Agent Orange/dioxin in the U.S. and Vietnam.

HR 2114 should be enacted into law. The refusal of the U.S. government to compensate the Vietnamese and U.S. victims of its chemical warfare would set a negative precedent for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who need similar help.

This piece first appeared at Truthdig.

By Eriks Selga*

On December 7, Laimdota Straujuma, the Prime Minister of Latvia, resigned. Although her resignation came into effect immediately, she will continue to lead the three-party coalition in a caretaker capacity until a new one is found.

Her resignation was submitted during a time of dissension within the coalition government. Though Straujuma cited the need for “new ideas and new input” as her immediate reason for resigning, her exit comes after a tortuous political period following Latvia’s successful presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2015.

Myriad internal struggles led to the resignation. There was significant tension among colleagues, as Straujuma confronted the Minister of Transport, alleging incompetence and asking for his resignation. Personnel conflicts were exacerbated by tumultuous negotiations over next year’s budget and by controversial discussions on whether to take in refugees. On top of the political intrigue common to coalitions, government was formed on the unsteady grounds bequeathed by the economic crisis. The ex-Prime Minister herself admitted that there was no guarantee the government could survive until the next political term.

The roots of the government schisms can be found in the current composition of parliament, which has a total of 100 seats. Since the 2014 elections, the ‘Concord’ party holds the most seats, at 24. The breakdown of the rest of the seats in the parliament as held by other parties is as follows: ‘Unity’ (23), ‘Union of Greens and Farmers’ (21), ‘National Alliance’ (17), ‘Latvian Regional Alliance’ (8), and ‘For Latvia from the Heart’ (7). Because any decisions require at least a majority vote to pass, a coalition is needed. The current coalition consists of Unity, Union of Greens and Farmers, and National Alliance, holding a total of 61 seats – and thus forming a majority force in parliament.

The minister positions, elected by parliament, are therefore held solely by members of the coalition, divided among the parties. This mutual dependency between the three parties guarantees their leaders in the executive government and promotes cooperation. However, it does not wholly dampen the ideological differences between the parties. This was showcased in the initial disagreement over whether to allow additional refugees into Latvia by using a quota regime. The National Alliance party stood staunchly against the quota, while the Unity party was for it. Though a compromise was reached, the situation showed how loss of support from any member of the coalition significantly reduces the government’s ability to function. This division of influence becomes a catalyst for power plays, and is one of the primary reasons for why the coalition dynamic sustains political intrigue to the extent that a prime minister may be pressured to resign.

With this background, the primary consequence for the nation from the resignation of the prime minister, domestically, is that the coalition parties will now begin a hectic process of vying to replace the prime minister. The structure of the coalition might see minor changes, though it is not yet clear how. Tension over issues between coalition parties may, in the most extreme case, lead to a party joining or leaving the coalition. However, the coalition itself is bound to remain intact. As for potential prime ministers, the most frequently discussed candidate is Solvita Āboltiņa, head of the leading coalition party – Unity. However, party support for candidates is still shifting. Internationally, Latvia’s foreign policy is unlikely to change. New leadership will take the place of Laimdota Straujuma, but it will undoubtedly be a candidate from the ruling coalition. The new leaders are also highly likely to follow the current policy course. With a new prime minister, Latvia is changing the wheel on its bike—not buying a new bike.

About the author:
*Eriks K. Selga is a current LL.M. candidate at Temple University. He has a wide range of research interests, recently focusing on the legal issues surrounding citizenship, and cyberwarfare issues in the Baltic States. Eriks holds an LL.B. from the Riga Graduater school of Law.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

On December 15, Saudi Arabia announced the formation of a coalition of 34 Muslim countries including Egypt and Turkey to coordinate a fight against “terrorist organisations”. In addition to Arab countries such as Qatar and the UAE, the coalition comprises of Middle Eastern, Asian and African states including Pakistan, Malaysia, Lebanon, Libya and Nigeria. While countries in the coalition all belong to the Jeddah-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), most are currently involved in counter-terrorism operations against the Islamic State (IS) militants or have been targeted by the group. The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) said 10 other “Islamic countries” had expressed support, including Indonesia.

The coalition was announced by Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi defence minister and deputy crown prince, who said the countries would work together to target “any terrorist organisation, not just ISIL” in countries including Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan. A press statement issued by SPA, said the alliance would be led by Saudi Arabia, which would also host a “joint operations centre” to coordinate efforts.

Military operations are on the menu of options with the coalition. These would be conducted in accordance with the local laws and in cooperation with the international community but it is not clear how, in practice, this would be possible in the IS-hit Iraq and Syria without the agreement of the respective domestic governments. The coalition military operations are expected to be supported by media and fuelled by information campaigns to counter the influence of the terror groups. Given the nature of coalition, it appears as of now that its campaign against terrorism will rely more on ‘media and information’ than the military.

Saudi Arabia’s regional rival, Iran, and its allies in Syria and Iraq were excluded from the alliance, despite sharing the common enemy, IS. The US welcomed the announcement of the anti-terrorism alliance while the Russian opinion suggests that the coalition will not be effective, or even feasible, without Iraq and Iran.

Alliance Dynamics

The initial assessment of the initiative by some analysts has been that it is a Saudi centric move aimed at checking the perception at home and abroad which ostensibly sees this country as responsible for the blossoming of Daesh (IS) in collusion with the West or otherwise. The announcement has been seen as a public-relations exercise with little to offer. It also comes at a time when there have been major developments in the Saudi neighbourhood in addition to Russian deployment to Syria, Iranian troops fighting Saudi backed anti-Assad forces and Iraq desiring a strategic defence and security agreement with Russia.

Firstly, much as most analysts had predicted, despite US support, Saudis along with the Emiratis find themselves bogged down in Yemen with no end in sight. While peace talks are on with the Houthi rebels in Vienna, al-Qaida and the IS have gained ground in Yemen.

Turkey, the only NATO member of this coalition has said it is set to assist anytime, anywhere the fight against terrorism. Saudis would feel that the Turks have stolen the march over them with regards to the leadership of the anti-Assad Sunni forces after the shooting down of the Russian fighter bomber. Turkey is also set to establish a military base in Qatar to station about 3000 troops to helping them confront “common enemies,” as a part of an agreement signed in 2014 and ratified by Turkey’s parliament in June this year.

Assessment

The Saudi-led coalition, which is basically a section of OIC countries, looks to cooperate on combating terrorism. However, it is straddling with two-points of unease. First is the sectarian fault-line which despite the inclusion of Shia-majority countries like Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain, remains. It is bound to cast a shadow on the coalition’s actions. Second is Saudi Arabia’s own actions in the past; these tendencies could influence simple issues like designating a dissenting faction as terrorist group for initiating coalition action. Saudis have said that the alliance would not focus only on certain groups such as Daesh, but confront terrorist operators across the world.

With the alliance in place, what needs to be seen now is how it will move to achieve its objectives. It could bring to the table measures to control the flow of resources to the IS- recruits, finances, business links, weapons. More importantly, it remains to be seen how it fares at the crucial battle of ideology to wrest the narrative on Islam from the IS; something that ought to be the main plank of its counter-terrorism strategy.

The coalition could serve to heal the divide amongst the Sunni Arab countries; the coming together of Turkey and Egypt could bring some positive influence to bear in countries like Palestine where cultural and sectarian rifts have influenced developments negatively. The coalition could even, to the relief of the West, address the refugee issue.

The coalition bypasses India with its sizeable Muslim population, but includes its two major neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Pakistan since the announcement denies being consulted while Bangladesh has confirmed its participation.

The South Asian participation comprises of three countries as members: Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives, and Afghanistan as the proposed area of intervention by the coalition. All the above-mentioned countries in the past have been under the Saudi influence. While Pakistan has a significant Shia population, Bangladesh has a small percentage of Shias and Ahmadiyyas; the percentage of Shias in Maldives is in single digits. India would be concerned about Afghanistan where sectarian conflicts induced by Taliban and ISIS are on a rise.

The Saudi anti-terrorism coalition is nascent and has some distance to travel before it makes any impact across the globe. Till then, the statement by the government of Jordan, “This is our war and the Muslims’ war,” would best describe the coalition’s raison d’être.

*Monish Gulati is the Associate Director (Strategic Affairs) at the Society for Policy Studies. He can be reached at: mgulati@spsindia.in, this article was published at South Asia Monitor.

Libya’s Tobruk and Tripoli-based parliaments on Thursday finally signed a UN-sponsored peace deal following extended talks in Morocco, Associated Press reports.

Supporters of the deal are eager to implement a ceasefire following the agreement.

The goal of the UN-brokered deal is to establish a government with a national unity in order to restore stability and security to the war-torn country, especially in light of the imminent threat of Islamic State (Daesh).

According to experts from the United Nations, there are between 2,000 and 3,000 members of Daesh in Libya.

Following the news, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed the signing of the Libya political agreement.

“I welcome the signature of the Political Agreement by the Libyan actors in Skhirat today. This is a significant step on the road to bring peace and stability to the people of Libya,” Stoltenberg said, adding, “I look forward to its implementation and to the formation of an inclusive national unity government.”

Original article (Edited to add NATO comments)

By Divya Kumar Soti*

The Ufa Joint Statement issued by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan had envisaged a preliminary framework to address the issues of terrorism, ceasefire violations and to find out “ways and means” to expedite the 26/11 trial underway in Pakistan. At least some progress was to be made on these issues before India got ready to reopen the long-suspended composite dialogue. And then there was a red line repeatedly drawn by New Delhi that when Pakistan’s representatives visit New Delhi for bilateral talks, they should not meet the Hurriyat separatists.

But when the two National Security Advisors finally met in Bangkok on December 7, they discussed much more than terrorism, though their conclusions or what Pakistan promised to deliver on the issue of terrorism was not made public. There is still uncertainty over whether Pakistan has finally agreed to abide by the Hurriyat red line or Bangkok was chosen as the meeting venue to avoid discomfiture to both sides. At least Pakistan has not committed to the Hurriyat red line in public, and in the last few months Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has written letters to Hurriyat leaders promising support. Clarity on this point would have been beneficial from the Indian viewpoint given the fact that Pakistan’s representatives are likely to reciprocate External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Islamabad in the coming days, as opening of the composite dialogue has been announced by both sides.

It is also not clear how India has been able to capitalize upon Nawaz Sharif’s recent statement of “unconditional talks” with India given the fact that the NSAs discussed many things, including Jammu & Kashmir and not just terrorism, and the composite dialogue has been reopened — which inadvertently leads to the connotation that Nawaz Sharif was basically declining to agree to the Indian position of “Let’s talk terror first”.

Ufa was a milestone for the fact that for the first time Pakistan was made to agree in writing to a framework which required it to first address Indian concerns over terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil before any meaningful composite dialogue can happen.

But now the Narendra Modi government seems to have concluded that either it is not feasible to enforce the Ufa framework or it is not in the larger national interest, given the larger regional geopolitical scenario to try to rigorously enforce that strict framework as that may inevitably mean no engagement with Pakistan.

There are understandably many reasons for this conclusion: Firstly, Prime Minister Modi has to visit Pakistan next year for the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit. SAARC’s progress has always been dismal and India-Pakistan tensions have been a key reason for that. And this time there are India-Nepal tensions too. It is no coincidence that New Delhi has also started some proactive efforts to cool down the Nepal situation.

Secondly, Pakistan has got at east two shots in the arm during the latest US visits of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief General Raheel Sharif. The Barack Obama-Nawaz Sharif Joint Statement bestowed upon Pakistan the accolade of “regional strategic stabilizer”. General Raheel Sharif during his self-invited visit to the US was pampered by the Obama administration, and it took care not to nudge the Pakistan’s military boss on anything. Despite figuring out Pakistan’s evident double games in the past as well as its glaring inabilities and unwillingness to stabilize the democratic regime in Afghanistan, US policy makers have not been able to figure out any new approach to the Afghan conundrum except repeating the pandering rituals before the real rulers of Pakistan, who also happen to be the real trouble makers in Afghanistan. This exceptional but seemingly unending US perplexity gives elbow room to Pakistan to do what it aims to do in the region by keeping Kabul and Washington on the tenterhooks through its proxies and affecting change in Indian policies towards it by capitalizing upon the US “reliance” on it for wishful stabilization of Afghanistan. In the coming days, the new fallout of all this may be that Pakistan will find it more easy to leverage its nuisance value at SAARC.

This leaves the Modi government with no option but to work on a hyphenated Af-Pak policy, given the fact that Af-Pak is now setting up the dynamics of China-US equations more than ever before. Before India opened up composite dialogue with Pakistan in the backdrop of the Heart of Asia summit to contemplate upon the future of Afghanistan, it also started to make operational the bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan, which in the coming days will involve transfer of sophisticated lethal weapon systems to the Afghan military which is now fighting not just Taliban but also the local Daesh (IS).

The Unending Endgame

The Murree process in which the Obama and Ashraf Ghani administrations invested a lot of hope due to guarantees from Beijing collapsed within days as news of Mullah Omar’s killing in 2013 by the Mansour faction broke, and three leaders at the helm of Taliban’s political office in Qatar staged a revolt. The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) tried to restore the balance of power within the Taliban by introducing Sirajuddin Haqqani as second-in-command, but now there are multiple reports of Mullah Mansour being injured in internecine fighting to take revenge for the killing of a key dissident commander by his men. This latest internecine fighting erupted within days of Prime Minister Sharif’s announcement to re-launch efforts to broker peace between Kabul and Taliban. But the irony that haunts credibility of Pakistan is that when Taliban happens to be strong, ISI tries to have the whole cake in Afghanistan through Talibani terror campaign and tries to deliver it to the talks table when there is internecine fighting.

What is worse in all this is that Pakistan does not ensure even a lull in big attacks by the main faction led by Mansour and Haqqanis, though it happens to be in full control as it proclaims its peaceful intentions about Afghanistan. During Heart of Asia summit, where Pakistan again promised to deliver this main Taliban faction to the talks table, it attacked Kandahar airport killing many civilians. So rattled was the security establishment in Kabul over this Pakistani double game that the Afghan Intelligence Chief Rahmatullah Nabil went public criticizing President Ghani’s rapprochement with Pakistan, before resigning from his post.

Given the churning within Taliban, there are lots of chances the ISI will try to do damage control within Taliban by affecting closer synchronization with the Haqqani network and introducing more disciplined groups like Jamaat ud Dawah into Afghanistan. For instance, last month, 41 boys from Pakistani tribal areas were killed fighting for the JuD and Al Badr in Afghanistan. This month the Afghan government officials in Nangarh province alleged that local Islamic State militants are getting order from Pakistan. This increased dependence of ISI on groups like JuD increases the terror threat to India in Afghanistan as well as back home.

At this point, India should encourage the Ghani administration to open channels with Taliban leaders based in Gulf nations and Iran who want an Afghan-owned peace process. India may find support in these efforts from Gulf countries who are not happy with Pakistan over its refusal to participate in the Yemen conflict. While Gulf monarchies and Iran are on opposite sides in the Yemen conflict, both sides have allowed Taliban factions to operate from their territories. Further, as Iran and Russia are coming closer than ever before, both have interest in checking the growth of Islamist groups in north and west Afghanistan. India should explore all these avenues to the maximum. While the Mansur faction is still the largest, in view of increasing infighting even if a few key leaders can be won over by Kabul that will have a great symbolic effect.

So far, Pakistan has failed to deliver peace in Afghanistan. It will not do anything to strengthen the elected Afghan government which is now struggling against the dual threat of Taliban and Islamic State. This legitimizes India increasing its role in Afghanistan — from being a reconstruction partner to a long-term nodal sustainer of democratic regime as the West cannot perpetuate its military presence for all time to come. In immediate terms, this is further justified by the fact that India has opened composite dialogue with Pakistan despite no progress on terror related issues to help promote larger regional stability.

From a bilateral viewpoint, squandering away gains of Ufa is a big price for India. The sustainability and final outcome of the new composite dialogue with Pakistan are as uncertain as those of previous ones. However, if India can capitalize upon opportunities in the larger Af-Pak scenario, it will still be a gainer in the long term.

*Divya Kumar Soti is a national security and strategic affairs analyst based in India. He can be contacted at writing2divya@gmail.com

By C Uday Bhaskar*

On December 16 Pakistan observed the first anniversary of the cold-blooded killing of its children in the Peshawar school massacre. As many as 132 children were killed in a terrorist attack that was carried out by the TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) and this dastardly act was seen at the time as the defining moment that would stiffen Pakistan’s wavering resolve to eliminate such forms of domestic terror.

However, as cynical Pakistani observers point out that country has had many ‘defining’ moments but the impact has been short-lived and the status quo of a selective approach to terror groups prevails. Is the Peshawar moment following a similar trajectory? This is a critical question when the global community is still internalizing the more recent Paris terror attack of November and the California, San Bernadino attack – both of which have been linked to the Daesh or Islamic State (IS).

Pakistan’s post Peshawar catharsis has a distinctive relevance for India – more so after the surprise visit to Islamabad by Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj last week – and the resumption of what is now being described as a ‘Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue.’ After the roller-coaster kind of highs and lows in the bilateral relationship, it may be concluded that at the diplomatic plane, the Modi government is at the post Agra phase of the NDA I government led by then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The nettlesome policy question is whether to engage with Pakistan and if so – what are the contours of the framework and how will the support to terror by the Pakistani deep state of which the Inter Services Intelligence ( ISI) is a part be addressed?

It would be fair to aver that from the days of PM P.V. Narasimha Rao, successive Indian governments have been trying to square this circle – with very limited success. Will the Modi government prevail where others have not? The current global anxiety about state support to the ideologies that ultimately lead to terror acts is now manifest in the global response to the Islamic State and the unfolding violence in West Asia.

Pakistan is cognizant of the manner in which it is seen as the cradle of terror and the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) in Islamabad has become synonymous with this corrosive indoctrination and its impact on impressionable young children – some as young as seven and eight years of age. One may conjecture that strong messages have been conveyed to Pakistan – and it’s Army Chief General Raheel Sharif – by benefactors such as the USA (and perhaps China?) That Rawalpindi will have to ‘desist’ from supporting terror groups and this in turn may have set the stage for the Bangkok meeting between India and Pakistan at the NSA-Foreign Secretary level.

It may be recalled that a similar commitment was made to India in January 2004 in an agreement signed between PM Vajpayee and General Musharraf and this unraveled in the terrorist mayhem that ravaged Mumbai in November 2008. The deep state in Pakistan continued to invest in terror groups and these in turn were seen as part of the ‘strategic depth’ that Rawalpindi (HQ of the Pak GHQ) had acquired in relation to India and Afghanistan. Thus the favored status accorded to groups such as the LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) that acted against India, and the Haqqani group and its affiliates in Afghanistan by the Pakistani security and intelligence establishment.

Will the Peshawar experience compel the deep state in Pakistan to carry out a rigorous review and sever all links with ALL terror groups? This would be in keeping with the spirit of what Ms. Swaraj had conveyed to the Indian parliament in a suo moto statement regarding her visit to Islamabad, wherein she indicated that both nations are now committed to “eliminate” all forms of terror.

My own assessment as a security analyst and student of Pakistan is that this is unlikely to happen in a swift and determined manner. The eco-system that nurtures the jihad terror constituency in Pakistan and by extension in Afghanistan is a combination of stakeholders in Rawalpindi (Pak GHQ), Muridke (seat of the Jamat-ud-dawa and the LeT) as also the Red Mosque in Islamabad and its many clones across Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The history of the Red Mosque in 2007 and the manner in which it triggered the end of the Musharraf era in Pakistani politics is instructive and a reminder about the deep support that the ideology of jihad has in the larger demography of Pakistan many of who are impoverished and find their solace in religion. Politicians such as Imran Khan find their support in this base and many of these Pakistani citizens are also part of the military, para-military and local police. Will the Pakistani state be able to quarantine this constituency in an effective manner as part of the post Peshawar resolve?

The Musharraf experience suggests that the rhetoric notwithstanding, even the leadership of the Pakistani military is ambivalent and would prefer pursue the selective approach outlined by Generals Ashfaq Kayani and Raheel Sharif. This translates into a firm military action including the use of drones and US support to destroy the TTP and such groups but allow the more favored terror groups to continue their activities.

If Pakistan is truly serious about cleaning its jihadi stables – a useful starting point would be to revise its school text books and remove the many references that urge and extol the ideology of violence against the ‘infidel’. Furthermore, regulating the curriculum of the thousands of madrassas of which the Red Mosque is representative would be yet another metric to assess the sincerity with which Pakistan is tackling the poison that led to the Peshawar school massacre.

At that time in December 2014 the Indian parliament observed a two-minute silence to extend their support to Peshawar and share the grief of the parents and families who had lost loved ones. The world was agreed that the smallest coffins are the heaviest to carry. Perhaps the Pakistani legislature and the GHQ in Rawalpindi ought to introspect in silence about the earnestness and integrity of purpose that they have brought to bear over the last year in first quarantining and then eliminating the malignancy that led to the massacre.

*C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at cudaybhaskar@spsindia.in