By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Prime Minister Dahal tendered his resignation to the President on 24th May. Dahal said that he is doing it in pursuance of a commitment he made to the Nepali Congress ten months ago.

It is now for the Nepali Congress to elect a leader to oversee the second phase of local body elections and also the elections at the provincial and national levels. Most probably Sher Bahadur Deuba who had been prime minister thrice before will take over. Deuba had proved in the past to be a colourless, indecisive and inefficient chief and it is not going to be different now. Nepal is soon to be condemned to be led by another inadequate leader as Prime minister.

It is not that the Nepali Congress is devoid of able administrators. There are many among the younger lot too. But the problem is, that it has too many factions and in satisfying different factions merit is the casuality. For Deuba, the first and foremost problem will therefore be internal.

PM Dahal in his televised address to the nation said that he wanted to “break the culture of breaking political promises.” While the media has listed many of his achievements as Prime Minister, one cannot but concede that his biggest achievement was in going through the first phase of local body elections despite heavy odds. He displayed extreme patience and understanding of both the Madhesi groups and the main opposition- the arrogant UML in pushing through the elections and also set the ball rolling on the constitutional amendments.

Dahal has come a long way from his insurgency days and later in his first stint as prime minister. He made the foolish mistake of resigning from the post on the issue of sacking his then army chief.

Dahal 2.0 appears to be a different person and today stands tall over all other political leaders. I had said once before when G.P. Koirala was alive that he was only second to GP in his charisma and statesman like qualities to lead Nepal. He did not then rise above his local party politics and failed to emerge as a national leader. He has done it this time.

2n Phase of Local body elections:

The Election Commission is all set to conduct the second phase of elections on June 14th as planned. Unfortunately the delayed decision of the government to create 22 additional units in the southern plains has created a problem for the commission.

The Election Commission (EC) has so far refused to accommodate the new local units for the coming elections, chiefly for want of time. They have a genuine problem. The ballot papers and voter ID cards have already been printed. Polling personnel have already been deployed on the ground. The Commission is also yet to receive the names of the new units to be added. Maps delineating the units are also not available either.

Dahal before resigning had requested the commission to think of other options like deferring the polls by a few days. But it is not going to be easy.

Meanwhile the newly formed Madhesi alliance RJP N., is still undecided about participating in the elections. There appears to be many hardliners who still want to continue on the path of agitation. It is hoped that better sense will prevail and the Terain (Madhesi) groups decide to go for the elections no matter whether the constitutional amendments are gone through or not.

Election Results So far:

The consolidated list of winners is yet to be released. But the results announced so far indicate the following trends.

First: While both the Nepali Congress and the UML are leading almost with equal numbers, the Maoist Centre led by Dahal has come out as a distant third.

Second: The UML has gained considerably thanks to its anti Indian – ultra nationalist platform, though it did not sweep the polls as predicted by some.

Third: The combinations- the Maoist centre going with the Nepali Congress and the RPP of Kamal Thapa with the UML have not succeeded. Both the Maoist Centre and the RPP fared poorly.

Fourth: The new found hill/plains combination of Dr. Bhattarai and Upendra Yadav did not also succeed well at the polls. One good result has been that the political clout and the influence of the Madhesi leader Upendra Yadav is diminishing. It is good for Nepali politics.

Finally, what is significant is that Nepal is getting ready to be a truly federal democratic republic.

By Kazi Anwarul Masud*

Often storm of debates take place, particularly when political leaders in positions of authority visit other countries, whether the country’s national interest has been upheld or sacrificed during the leader’s visit, in talks with the host political leaders and agreements signed with the host country. Such debates used to take place in developing countries with weak institutions where the government could be destabilized or overthrown by extra-constitutional forces.

But these days’ debates on safeguarding the national interest are also taking place in developed economies with old democracies in which a section of the people feel threatened that their identity is being lost by large scale immigration of people from other countries.

Analyzing the emergence of identity crisis in the nation states of Europe and North America John Rex (University of Warwick) observed “Faced with increasing immigration of culturally relatively alien minorities and with absorption into a larger European entity, French social scientists asked two questions: ‘Do the new identities presented by immigrants challenge French national identity?’ and ‘Will the new immigrants, through their trans-national organizations, seek to deal directly with supra-national organizations, undermining the sovereignty of the French state?”

The recent Presidential elections held in France ultra-right candidate Marine le Penn asked for a ban on immigration from basically Muslim countries who, she argued, was diluting French identity though Muslims over 18 years old represent 6% of the population and voting population would be far less. Luckily for the French, Europe and the world Marine le Pen lost the elections to Emmanuel Macron who is pro-Europe and believes that immigration is good for France.

In the United Kingdom Brexit has become a fact of life though pending the negotiations with EU the actual results of the divorce from the European Union remain to be seen. Though Scotland and Northern Ireland had voted to remain with the EU England largely voted to opt out because they felt that the English are losing their jobs to the immigrants and culturally, the Muslims in particular, were vastly different from the mainstream Britons.

In Holland anti-immigration party lost out to Prime Minister Mark Rutte who is pro-Europe and Centre-Right in his policies while in Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to win the coming elections. Yet only a few years back Angela Merkel like Giscard D’Estaing of France and Berlusconi of Italy had lost hope in multiculturalism because of the refusal of the immigrants to be totally assimilated with the mainstream population of the host country.

Little attention was given to the legitimate grievances of the immigrants of discrimination faced by them in every sphere of life. The majority population had forgotten that the immigrants were invited by the host country to help rebuild the war ravaged economies of Europe and that the second and third generation immigrants had rarely visited the country their forefathers had come from. These generations of immigrants were born and brought up in their “host” countries which legally and effectively were their own country. This sense of deprivation has been used by the recruiters of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. One, however, must be clear in his mind that no argument of deprivation can justify the brutalities perpetrated by the terrorists the most recent being the massacre at Manchester where 22 people, mostly teenagers and children were killed by the suicide bomber who allegedly was a recruit of ISIS.

The question that arises is whether sense of deprivation alone can lead a suicide bomber to kill so many innocent people who have nothing to do with the “deprivation”? Or can one look for another reason, for example, the perceived threat to the terrorists’ religion by the dominant religion and consequent loss of identity. But then this fear of losing identity and to try to take a people to the sixth century is a denial of modernism and progress that defines the improvement of living conditions through scientific innovations coupled with establishment of law and order in the society.

The developed West not only beat the East in developing science and technology but also in establishing law and order that ensured freedom for all people in a particular defined area. One, however, should not gloss over the period of colonization by the West through force of arms and consequent transfer of riches from the colonies to the metropolis. History of colonization has been brutal exploitation by the West of the colonies defies description. Slave trade from Africa to North America has been one of the facets of colonialism.

The colonized world for generations was reduced to search for their identity because the soft power of the West, after the period of colonization was over, and even now many of the colonies have split personality. Some in the developing world still try to ape the Western way of life leaving their own culture and tradition ignorant of centuries old wisdom handed down to them. It is not being suggested that everything western is to be avoided. Far from it the developing world has benefitted immensely by the innovations and technological progress of the developed economies. These days to the western academic institutions droves of students go every year for higher education.

China, for example, is reported to have the largest number of Chinese students nearly a quarter million in the American universities. There is the constant argument of brain drain from developing to the developed world. But this appears to be a tenuous argument for preventing bright boys and girls from going to the western institutions of learning.

So we are faced with a disconnect between those who would like to go to the western schools and colleges for higher studies and a small group of people who in the name of maintaining “purity of religion” would become terrorists and commit unspeakable atrocities. The downside of brutality practiced by ISIS and al-Qaeda variety of terrorists has produced influential intellectuals like Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis, Christopher Caldwell, to name a few, who have injected in the minds of powerful people and ordinary westerners the vitriolic propaganda that “danger is Islam, the villains are Muslim immigrants, the terrain is the West, and the outcome is certain defeat for European culture—unless the tide of Muslim immigration, which threatens to become a tsunami, can be stemmed” as Bruce Lawrence of Duke University has written in his critique of Caldwell’s book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West.

It has now dawned to people including President Donald Trump that military solution cannot solve the great divide between the developed and developing countries as the divide will not disappear within different social strata in the same country. Very recently Donald Trump speaking to the assembly of Muslim leaders on his first visit to Saudi Arabia as President urged them to destroy “violent extremism” from their midst and indeed from the face of the earth. Eric Trager in an opinion column in Daily News on 21 May pointed out that President Trump did not link violent extremism to “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims,” or to the “Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies,” or to “modernity and globalization” that “led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam,” as Obama did in his 2009 Cairo address. Nor did Trump link terrorism to the absence of democracy or freedom within the Muslim world, as former President George W. Bush did repeatedly in the years that followed 9/11.

Indeed, Trump’s speech did not include the words “freedom” or “democracy” anywhere. Such reticence was logical as the venue of his speech was in an autocratic kingdom where women still are denied many of their fundamental rights and rulers are not democratically chosen but are the sons of King Abdul Aziz, the founder of al-Saud dynasty. Besides there is democracy regression in many Muslim countries.

But of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation majority of the Muslims live under some kind of democratic rule. But the Muslims are put in the dock again and again for the terrorism committed by a handful of renegades who have declared war in the name of Islam on the rest of the world including the Islamic countries who they think have been weaned away from the “true spirit” of Islam. Consequently more Muslims have been killed by these terrorists than non-Muslims.

The point being made is not a comparative value of the life of a Muslim with that of a non-Muslim because any life lost to terrorism is far too many. And hence ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram or any terrorist have to be eliminated. But the war against terrorism will not be won even if the terrorist strongholds are eliminated. Because the suicide bomber who killed dozens of people in Manchester was British born of Libyan origin. It is quite possible that when ISIS and the others lose control of their territory their adherents may return to their countries with training and expertise to create havoc in their host countries which are mostly in the West. To deny them such opportunities they have to be denied entry into their countries of birth. Whether such denial of entry based on suspicion will be legal remains to be seen.

Donald Trump tried to ban entry of Muslims through executive orders but failed to convince the American courts of the legality of the executive orders. Intelligence and law enforcing agencies have to be more intrusive into the suspected circles of terrorists so that acts of terrorism can be unearthed before such acts are committed. One, however, has to be cautious that in the zeal to fight Islamist Extremism the Muslim Diaspora in the West do not feel further alienation and marginalized in their countries of birth.

Contrary to common belief fundamentalism does lie in Islam alone. Walter Russell Mead of the US Council of Foreign Relations (God’s country—Foreign Affairs—September/October 2006) has described the US, the only super power in the world today, as a nation where religion shapes its character, helps form America’s ideas about the world, and influences ways Americans respond to events beyond its shores. Russell Meade is not far off from the observation of Alexis de Tocqville who was struck by the religious aspect of the country on his arrival in the United States in the 19th century. Contrary to his experience in France Tocqville found in America spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching together in unison and not in conflict. He wrote in Democracy in America “Religion in America … must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it”.

The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibited the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

As Western societies developed and became more tolerant of the views of others the separation of the church and the state became more pronounced. German philosopher Jorgen Habbermas thinks that the current state of the world as passing to a post-secular state, a period in which modernity is perceived as failing and at times morally unsuccessful leading to a state of peaceful coexistence between spheres of faith and reason. In Europe and in the US to a lesser degree (before the election of Donald Trump) religion is now playing an important role in politics and immigration is now being used as a popular tool by the legislators.

In the Indian subcontinent religion is the raison d’être in Pakistan while in India Muslim community feel persecuted and discriminated against. For India where the Muslim population is estimated to be 170 million and Christian population is about 28 million (2011 figures) governmental rules disfavoring infraction of Hindu rites (accounting for 80% of the population) in the social life of followers of other religions may be politically sound for the Hindu belt but in the long run may give rise to feeling of subordination in the minds of followers of other religions.

Unfortunately it has become increasingly undeniable that religion now plays a significant role in the socio-economic and political life of the people of the world. Aberrant groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and inter-sectarian Shia and Sunni conflicts among Muslims have found breeding grounds due to inter-faith intolerance in many parts of the world. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the political leaders holding positions of power to encourage their followers and detractors alike to consider religion as a personal matter and not to let religion dictate peoples’ day to day life. At the same time global war against ISIS and terrorists of al-Qaeda variety should be fought on all fronts till they are totally eliminated.

*The writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh.

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

One narrative that is all too prominent in the second Union Peace Conference- officially called the 21st century Panglong Conference is the role of China and its proxies before and during the Conference.

In answering a question whether the Peace process relies on China, the Spokesperson of the Burmese State Counselor’s office U Zaw Htay admitted frankly that China plays an “important part” in the peace process.

What is noticed is the “behind the scene” activities of China which appears to be intent on steering the entire peace process away from the influence of UN, Japan and Western powers and take full control of the process. At the same time China is continuing to declare its neutrality in the whole process!

One important development has been that the hitherto passive pro China UWSA is taking a leading role in dealing with the government and in beginning a parallel peace process from the government-sponsored route of National Cease fire agreement and dialogue thereafter.

This process of active intervention of the Chinese proxy UWSA (United Wa State Army) is seen to have begun in February this year almost three months ahead of the Peace Conference at Napithaw, when it backed the offensive of the norther alliance consisting of the Kokang, the Ta’ang National Liberation Army, the Arakan Army and most importantly the second most powerful ethnic group the KIA in the North East close to the Chinese border.

This offensive though provoked by the Tatmadaw’s (Army) earlier, has been intensified by the alliance with the declared objective of seeking an alternative route from the National Cease fire agreement formally initiated by the government and supported by the United Nations and other western countries.

In backing the offensive, the UWSA formed a new seven party alliance, calling itself “Federal Political and Consultative Committee” marking a paradigm shift from bilateral cease fire to one of taking a leading role in the whole peace process. This shift could not have occurred without Chinese blessings. It is well known by now that the UWSA whose area with Pangshang as Hqrs it close to the Chinese border is the biggest ethnic insurgent unit with over 30,000 fighters supported and equipped by China with modern weaponry. It is said that the Wa territory is a “no go” area and even Tatmadaw will have to inform the UWSA before entering their territory.

Parallel to this development is the unconfirmed report that the KIA/KIO has left the UNFC (United National Federal Council) thus making this organization irrelevant to the entire peace process. Another ethnic unit the Shan State Progressives party has also left the UNFC. Thus the UNFC which had boycotted the second peace conference has become considerably weaker in the absence of the two dominant groups and may no longer be relevant to the peace process.

What will now be relevant to the peace process will be the weak patch work pro government -8 parties who signed the National Cease-fire agreement in October 2015 and the newly formed alliance led by UWSA that has called itself the Federal Political and Consultative committee and had suggested an alternate route to the peace process. This group which is powerful with the coming together of the UWSA and the KIO has other units like the Shan State Progressive party/Shan State Army -North, Tang National Liberation Army, the National Democratic group the Mongla, the Kokang and the Arakan Army in the alliance.

The Tatmadaw had earlier justly opposed the inclusion of the last three- Kokang, TNLA and the AA in joining the peace process without first surrendering their arms as they had sprouted only after the cease fire agreement of 2015.

Chinese intervention was responsible in forcing the Burmese Army and the government with its chief negotiator to relent and invite the three armed groups as “special guests’ to the conference. What is more, the State Counselor was to meet the groups for talks during the conference- a change from total exclusion to one of legitimization with the Counselor herself talking directly to the groups.

The Chinese ambassador to Myanmar- Hong Liang is also said to have attended the closed door meeting of the northern groups with the government’s peace negotiating team.

The Irrawady of 23rd May reported that the Chinese Special Envoy Sun Guoxiang met Suu Kyi, Army Chief Ming Ang Liang and the government’s chief negotiator on behalf of the new groups and to get them invited as special guests. The Press had also reported that the leaders of the three groups- the Kokang (who are still fighting in the north), the TNLA and the AA were kept ready in Yunnan province to be flown immediately to Napithaw once the invitation for the conference was made by the government.

So much for the declared policy of China of non interference in the internal affairs of another country. When Xi Jinping mentioned to Suu Kyi at the OBOR summit that China would provide necessary assistance to Burma’s peace process- what he meant was that the process will hereafter be between the Chinese supported groups and the Myanmar government to ensure peace and stability of the region to the exclusion of other countries.

This means that the parallel peace process now initiated by Chinese proxies with the backing of China may take the centre stage and peace process will now become one with “Chinese Characteristics.”

By Dr Subhash Kapila

China’s strategic calculus imperatives dictate that South Korea never achieves reunification with North Korea and hence the futility of any of South Korea’s episodic “Sunshine Policies”.

Addedly, China’s destabilising forays in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea closer home to South Korea should provide future pointers to South Korea of Chines overall designs in North East Asia. Can South Korea ignore these danger signals?

Within a year of Communist China’s monolithic and authoritarian regime emerging in Beijing, China militarily intervened in the Korean War not only to ensure that its Communist buffer and proxy state of North Korea survives as a buffer state but also as a major military offensive to bring the whole of the Korean Peninsula under a Communist regime. Hence Communist China’s military push all the way to the southern-most Pusan perimeter. The tide was turned by General MacArthur’s militarily historic and epic landings at Incheon completely outflanking the Communists drive to the Southern tip of South Korea.

This forced Communist Chinese forces to recoil and further pushed by General MacArthur-led UN Forces to virtually all the awry upto the Yalu River. General MacArthur‘s plans to cross Yalu River were negated by USPresident Truman who relieved General MacArthur of command. History would have been different today. Be as it may, the fact still remains that South Korea figures even more critically in Chia’s strategic calculus today as China wishes to establish its hegemony.

South Korea is the sheet-anchor of the United States security architecture in the Western Pacific along with Japan. In fact South Korea scores over Japan in one sense that its hosting of US MilitaryForces both US Army and US Air Force of over 40,000 strong provides the United States with a strong foot-hold on Asian mainland proper. Further, that this nucleus of US Forces permanently in location in close proximity of North Korea and China also provides the opportunity of being reinforced by additional US military intervention forces should North Korea attempt military adventurism against North Korea.

South Korea should not forget that its stupendous economic growth was and is being made possible by the security cover being provided by its American security linkages against constant North Korean destabilising moves initiated against it. Notable is also the fact that China even at the height of South Korea’s “Sunshine Policies” of the past made no substantial moves to restrain its proxy state of North Korea from its disruptive acts against South Korea.

China resorted to clandestine build-up of North Korean nuclear weapons and missile forces so that its Communist proxy state not only achieves deterrence against the United States but also provides China with strategic bargaining leverages against the United States. In the process China has made possible a constant Damocles Sword hanging over South Korean security.

South Korea today stands as a shining bulwark of a military power in its own right and as a vibrant economy built in the initial stages with massive US and Japanese FDI. To this, when added, United States solid security commitments to South Korea, the picture becomes greatly militarily disadvantageous for China.

China’s strategic calculus on South Korea therefore has been driven by twin aims of either weaning away South Korea completely from the United States security orbit or at a very minimum weakening and diluting South Korea’s security linkages with the United States.

China’s welcoming therefore of the episodic “Sunshine Policies” by different South Korean Presidents is stimulated by the above strategic aims. South Korea’s “Sunshine Policies” essentially aim at peace and reconciliation with North Korea.

South Korea needs to ask a few questions to itself in this direction (1) Is North Korea amenable for peaceful reconciliation with South Korea without a Chinses approval (2) Will China ever concede a peaceful reconciliation of the Korean Peninsula where South Korea with its economic strengths and comparable military strengths with North Korea would be the dominating partner (3) Can South Korea by weakening its security ties with the United States be able to stand alone and tall against the combined might of North Korea and China, and (4) Is China ready to give primacy to South Korea’s security imperatives over Chines strategic calculus blueprint end-aims?

The resounding answer to all of the above questions is is in the negative given the contemporary geopolitical churning taking pace.

South Korea would be well-advised to forsake its episodic ‘Sunshine Policies’ initiated by different Presidents on assuming office. The last “Sunshine Policies” episode did not bring any political or strategic gains for South Korea and nor will a new one.

Concluding. It needs to be stressed that South Korea’s best political, strategic and economic interests and future are best served by its security linkages with the United States and further a complete rapprochement with Japan to provide a strong counterweight to the menacing China Threat in the Region.

By Maia Otarashvili*

(FPRI) — The European Union has taken a major step in its long-lasting struggle with Russia for hegemony over Eastern Europe. In a highly anticipated decision, the EU granted visa-free travel to Georgia in February of this year, and is getting ready to seal the same deal for Ukraine later this summer. The true value of the visa-free travel deal is found in its geopolitical implications, in form of its symbolic, rather than literal, meaning. The visa-liberalization process puts Georgia and Ukraine alongside Moldova, which is celebrating the three-year anniversary of its own visa-liberalization deal with the EU. All three countries are now more deeply embedded into the European orbit and further from Russia’s sphere of influence.

Expansion without Overcommitment

The future of EU expansion is a hotly-debated subject. Debate continues about whether or not the EU should have offered membership to at least three of the 11 post-Soviet states into its borders at such a fast pace. The question of Bulgaria’s and Romania’s EU membership still comes up as an example of why the EU should expand at a slower pace, or not expand at all. Frustration with rapid expansion has been exacerbated by the recent experiences of democratic backsliding in Hungary, and now in Poland. The traumatic experiences of the Eurozone crisis, which left Greece, Italy, Spain, and other European economies in shambles, worsened “expansion fatigue.” When it comes to EU expansion, a popular narrative suggests that the EU should focus on internal issues rather than its foreign policy. Some experts go as far as calling the Union a “failed project.” But Europe can’t ignore foreign policy when the rules-based union of democratic European states faces Putin’s Russia which challenges the very post-World War II order that created the EU as an institution.

With these challenges in mind, the EU leadership has devised a policy to expand its reach in a non-traditional way. Through its Eastern Neighborhood Policy (ENP), the EU has identified its six Eastern Neighbors with whom it has established special ties. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are a part of the joint policy initiative launched at the Prague Summit in May 2009. Geographically, these countries represent the next logical frontier for EU expansion, though they aren’t membership candidates for a wide array of reasons, including the EU’s hesitation to expand much further, and some of these countries’ lack of readiness, willingness, or failure to follow democratic standards. Nevertheless, the Eastern Neighborhood Policy allows the countries that are eligible and willing to embark on a path toward EU integration.

At the center of this neighborhood policy framework is the EU Association Agreement (AA). These agreements are a means for the EU to help bring ENP countries up to EU standards, essentially preparing them for a possible EU membership down the road. Association agreements consist of four general chapters: Common Foreign and Security Policy; Justice and Home Affairs; the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA); and a fourth chapter covering a range of issues including the environment, science, transportation, and education.

The EU’s Association Agreements became famous during Ukraine’s Euromaidan protests in 2013-2014, as the country’s then-president Viktor Yanukovych had to flee the country after he chose not to sign it. Vladimir Putin’s efforts to keep Ukraine away from the European orbit influenced Yanukovych’s decision. As an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, Russia offered Ukraine a large loan if it joined the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), an organization created as an alternative to the EU, which currently counts Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia as members. Armenia, too, was set to sign the Association Agreement back in 2013, but after Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan travelled to Moscow for a meeting with Putin, Sargsyan announced that Armenia would instead become an observing member of the Eurasian Economic Union. Armenia formally joined the EEU in 2014. This move was seen as a strategic U-turn for the country, a decision that ended Armenia’s path towards EU integration, and constituted “surrendering to Russia.”

Signing the Association Agreement, and following its guidelines, can put a country on an almost-irreversible path towards EU integration. This is why the Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych for rejecting the Association Agreement, and why Putin’s Russia has been trying so hard to counteract it. The length of this path, however, depends on how well the country fulfills its Association Agreement commitments, and how much the EU is prepared to expand. To incentivize good performance, the EU offers bonuses like highly coveted visa-free travel.

For Georgia, this incentive could not have come at a better time. Georgia signed the Association Agreement in 2013 as scheduled, and began implementing the prescribed reforms immediately. The reforms proved difficult to swallow, and the economic, political, and security crises that broke out in the Black Sea region as a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, helped to push Georgia into a currency crisis, and it experienced overall stagnation. The road to visa-liberalization has been a long and tiresome one for this country surrounded by authoritarian neighbors. Its people needed a reward for resilience amid the continuously unstable conditions of the region, and its government needed a reminder that sticking to a democratic path pays off.

Tipping the Scale

Per Freedom House’s democracy measurements, of the six Eastern Neighborhood Policy countries, three are either fully or partly consolidated authoritarian regimes. The other three—Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine—are considered hybrid or transitional regimes. This categorization also symbolizes the fine line between democracy and authoritarianism, or between Europe and Russia, that these countries have been treading for years now. More investment from the West, in form of incentives such as visa-liberalization, has the potential to tip that scale in favor of democracy. Visa-liberalization shows the Georgian people that supporting pro-democracy reforms brings tangible benefits such as greater access to and inclusion into the West.

Russia has tried to counteract the expansion of EU influence using familiar methods. As soon as the news of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s forthcoming visa-free deal with the EU hit the press in December 2016, Mr. Putin offered Georgians and Ukrainians visa-free travel to Russia. For many months prior to the EU visa-free travel deal, Georgian society faced a major anti-EU disinformation campaign from Russia. Russian-linked outlets falsely claimed that EU-integration meant being forced to legalize gay marriage, a controversial step for a nation of mostly conservative, Orthodox Christians. Another false narrative claimed that Georgia would only be granted visa-free travel if it set up refugee camps in order to relieve some of the European countries of their Syrian refugees.

Georgians’ pro-EU and pro-Western sentiments haven’t changed as a result of this disinformation campaign. Eighty percent of Georgians still want to join the EU. One reason for this failure to change minds is that Georgians still remember the 2008 war with Russia, and they consider the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be occupied by Russia. Moreover, polls show that 63% of Georgians consider Russia their biggest national security threat.

Another reason for high EU approval ratings in Georgia is the effective EU public relations campaign. This campaign focused on educating Georgian citizens and politicians about the terms of the EU Association Agreement and visa-liberalization. This campaign included two major aspects. The first part was encouragement by EU leaders of Georgia’s progress in form of visits to Georgia, public statements of support, and videos congratulating Georgians on their important Association Agreement milestones even used the Georgian language to increase their reach. A second key step was to make all EU-related information readily available for all Georgians. While Georgia’s relevant ministries and public service offices offer this information to Georgian citizens online and in their physical offices, the EU itself has created a “Europe for Georgia” website, which can be viewed in English, Georgian, and Russian. The website houses all AA-relevant information and is organized in a user-friendly way. As a result of this campaign, an April 2017 poll showed that only two months since the visa-free travel deal was activated, 92% of Georgians were aware of the deal, and 64% felt that they were well educated about its terms.

The Georgian government also sees visa-liberalization as an opportunity to resume relations with its breakaway territories. As soon as visa-liberalization was approved by the EU in February, the Georgian State Ministry of Reconciliation and Civic Equality published information about visa-free travel to Europe in Abkhazian and Ossetian languages, and the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published instructional videos on its Facebook page in both languages as well. The Georgian government has made clear that anyone holding a biometric Georgian passport can travel to the EU visa-free. Abkhazians and South Ossetians who have accepted Russian passports for the sake of convenience have the option to give up those passports and obtain Georgian ones in order to access the EU.

One major limitation is that visa-free travel is intended for those who wish to travel to the EU’s Schengen countries for trips of up to 90 days. It does not allow travelers to work in Europe. The Georgian government has taken on the responsibility of tracking down those who stay beyond the 90-day mark. Moreover, the EU has included a suspension mechanism into the deal, which can be activated if a large number of asylum-seekers enter Europe from Georgia. Another challenge to the success of the visa deal is that the Abkhazian government has already declared Georgia’s offer to share the visa-liberalization benefits as “the Georgian government’s crude effort to put Abkhazians under the Georgian economic and justice systems.” In a statement on Facebook, Abkhazia’s de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs added that “this is the Georgian government’s yet another attempt to lure Abkhazians into Georgia, which like all previous attempts, will fail miserably.”

Still a Long Way Ahead

Georgia still has a long way ahead on its path of European integration. It also has many problems to fix at home, including addressing its territorial integrity, reforming its troubled judicial system, ending assaults on media freedoms, and stabilizing the economy. However, Georgia has proven to be one of the few countries in the region where Western investment still pays off. Despite its daunting domestic challenges, Ukraine, too, will greatly benefit from EU visa-liberalization. Through their revolutions, Georgia and Ukraine have shown that they are certain of their European choice. The EU is right to grant them visa-free travel.

About the author:
*Maia Otarashvili is a Research Fellow and Program Manager for FPRI’s Eurasia Program.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

By Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. and Ardian Shajkovci, Ph.D*

Most experts agree that the most successful counter-messaging campaigns against ISIS are the ones that utilize the voices of insiders: the voices of ISIS victims and ISIS cadres themselves who have first-hand knowledge of the group’s brutality, corruption, religious manipulation, and deception.

In this regard, we at the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE) have spent the last two years interviewing ISIS defectors, ISIS prisoners, and returnees from the Syrian and the Iraq conflict in Western Europe, Turkey, Iraq, Central Asia, and the Balkans. Their stories are captured on video and edited down to short clips, interspersed with actual ISIS video footage and pictures, illustrating their stories to turn back against ISIS.

Using formers to talk back to terrorism is a well-established practice. Mubin Shaikh is a good example of someone who nearly joined al-Qaeda and imbibed deeply of the jihadist ideology before turning away and infiltrating a Canadian terrorist cell to help take it down.[1] Usama Hasan, a former radical Salafi extremist and mujahidin in the Afghan jihad against the country’s communist government in the early 90s, is another example of someone who has turned against Salafi-jihadi ideology and is dedicated to fighting violent extremism in the United Kingdom. [2]

Using formers is rife with problems, however. Those returned from ISIS were often psychologically unhealthy before they joined and are deeply traumatized upon their return. Some do not want to speak about their experiences while others fear retribution from ISIS if they speak out against the group. Some of them fear further prosecution and social stigma. Others are unstable, reverse their positions frequently, or are not good role models. Often, they are not easily accessible and reachable.

In April of 2017, we spoke to an ISIS “emir” (high in military command) in a prison in Sulaymaniyah, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

Dressed in an orange jumpsuit and wearing a black mask over his face, Abu Islam is brought into the faux wood-paneled room of the Special Forces Security compound in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq. His hands are cuffed and feet shackled together.

There are five of us in the room: me, Ardian, Alice, a Kurdish handler, and our Peshmerga interpreter, Alaz.[3] I am seated at the front corner of the desk with my laptop unfolded. Ardian is seated to my side. Alice and our handler sit behind the desk. Alaz takes the hooded Abu Islam from the prison guards and guides him gently to the center chair in front of the desk next to me, where he gently lifts the mask from his face as he takes his seat as well. Abu Islam’s dark, wavy hair and medium length curly beard and burning brown eyes are revealed as his eyes dart quickly around the room taking everyone in. His dark eyes focus briefly on me, burning momentarily into mine and then dart back again to Alaz, as he waits to begin. They know each other. Alaz has already repeatedly interrogated him.

Only in his mid-twenties, Abu Islam has been heavily hunted for two years by the Peshmerga forces who credit him with running a network of cells of suicide bombers, sending some as young as twelve to explode themselves in suicide missions. He is credited with either directly or indirectly organizing attacks that killed over 250 victims, although some of the high-ranking Peshmerga counterterrorism officials we spoke to believe that number to be at 500. “He’s a guy we chased for more than two years,” stated the head of Kurdistan’s Zanyari intelligence service in a recent interview with journalist Robin Wright. “To pick him up and realize that we finally got him, it was a big catch for us,” he explained. [4]

Born as Mazan Nazhan Ahmed al-Obeidi, Abu Islam is the second oldest in his family. He is the oldest male and has eight siblings. His father served in Saddam’s army. He describes his childhood as both “safe” and “nice.” Growing up in the oil-rich area of Kirkuk, Iraq, Abu Islam first finished high school and then pursued university studies in shariah (Islamic law) at the local university. With only one year left to go before graduation, in 2014 Abu Islam abruptly left his studies to join the so-called “Islamic State.”

“I wasn’t Salafi growing up,” Abu Islam explains. The legs of his orange jumpsuit are rolled up to mid-calf—Salafi style—to match the dress worn by the Companions of the Prophet Muhammed. He is also bearded. “I got that mentality in university when I read the book Tawhid by Wahhab. It convinced me,” he adds.

Abu Islam is referring to Kitab at-Tawhid (The Book of the Unity of God) by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, an 18th century Saudi religious reformer who worked to purify Islam by turning back to following the original practices of the Prophet and his Companions. The violent followers of Wahhab, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, interpret his teachings to justify killing those who do not follow their strict interpretation of Islam. ISIS, and groups like ISIS, practice of Takfir—that is, an extreme extension of Wahhabi-Salafi doctrine that sanctions violence against both Muslims and non-Muslims who are deemed as infidels (non-believers). This is the type of Islam and ideology that Abu Islam had already embraced in his university studies, thus he was ready for ISIS when they came to Iraq and established their so-called Islamic State.

“I got into the brotherhood at the mosque,” Abu Islam explains. “They were against Islamic State, but for me I saw that the Islamic State was living by shariah law. They were throwing homosexual people from high buildings. If you steal, they cut your hand. They are really living it.”

When asked where he saw this, Abu Islam answers, “It was on social media, YouTube. It made sense for me. I watched a lot of their videos.” As we listen to him speak, we become aware of ISIS’ powerful online presence and online propaganda machine that recruits youth via the Internet here in Iraq as well. Even in Iraq, ISIS propaganda videos reached a university student, persuading him of their righteousness, “I was convinced and made up my mind.”

“They were on the streets also. They had a territory twice the size of Great Britain. At the time I joined, I was 22 or 23. A lot of my relatives were in the area they [ISIS] took over, and some of my cousins and family members were already in [ISIS]. It was easy to join. I got a recommendation,” Abu Islam explains, referring to the ISIS practice of trusting their potential recruits based on the recommendation of another ISIS member. “They knew I don’t drink or smoke and that I’m a shariah student. That made my CV look really good,” he explains while smiling enthusiastically.

“I didn’t take shariah training,” Abu Islam answers proudly when asked about ISIS’ known practice of putting new recruits through two weeks of sharia training to learn the basics of Islam as they preach it and to take on their “hear and obey” philosophy.[5] “I became the teacher because of my background,” he continues. He also bypassed military training since they needed shariah teachers to train the others, “They didn’t teach me weapons. In the beginning, they asked me if I knew how to use an AK, and of course, I did.” The knowledge of assault rifles is common among Iraqis, notes our Peshmerga interpreter.

“I gave lessons in shariah.” This is how Abu Islam initially describes his role in the Islamic State.

Compared to Syria, it appears there are not large camps for the Cubs of the Caliphate in Iraq, where hundreds of youth are gathered, trained, and taught to fight—with some being trained and prepared to become suicide bombers—after they graduate.[6] In Iraq, it seems the Cubs are gathered into smaller groups. Individuals like Abu Islam appear to serve as their itinerate preachers, traveling from one group to another.

“Sometimes there were four to five or six to seven [individuals]. It depended. I’d go to the villages and teach them. I moved from place to place to give shariah lessons,” Abu Islam explains. “It was mostly fiqh [Principles and understanding of Islamic practices]. How to pray properly. How to fast. How to help other Muslims, how to pay zakat [obligatory charity], and about the Islamic State.”

In Syria, ISIS defectors interviewed in our ISIS Defectors Interview Project described their shariah trainers as “shining charismatics” and were heartened by learning “true Islam” from them.[7] I ask if the Iraqis already knew their religion or were also gladdened by these teachings. His answer, “They didn’t know the right way. We taught them the right ways. We talked about what it could [Islamic State] be. Hopefully, we’ll expand our territory. According to our beliefs, we can’t say we are definitely doing it. Instead, we say, inshallah [by God’s will] we will expand our territory. Open the walls. Take down Europe.”

Abu Islam tells us that there were “young fighters from foreign places,” in his classes, but “they didn’t understand much Arabic,” which reminds us of an Albanian I interviewed in Kosovo who also recalled taking ISIS shariah training in Arabic—it all went over his head.

We are in Iraq this trip having just spoken at the Prime Minister’s conference titled, “Education in Iraq Post Daesh-ISIL Territory.” The conference brought together both local and international experts to address the issue of the 250,000-500,000 youth that the government of Iraq estimates lived and served under ISIS over the past three years in the Nineveh and the Mosul regions of Iraq. Universities were closed under ISIS. Libraries were burnt to the ground. Textbooks, even for the very young, were replaced by texts that taught them how to behead and indoctrinated them from the earliest of ages into Islamic State’s barbarity and refusal to recognize anyone else’s views as legitimate but their own. At the conference, we viewed the exhibit of some of these captured ISIS textbooks. Picking them up and handling them gave each of us a chill down the spine—touching the same books ISIS cadres had handed out to children under their control.

The schools in the area continued to run even when ISIS took over, Abu Islam explains, adding, “They used to study English. It was good for us—knowing English—but we denied books that we didn’t like. After a while, we denied all the existing books. We changed all the books over to our mentality.”

“How did you talk to the kids who are going on suicide missions?” I ask, going back to his role as a shariah trainer. “What did you teach them to persuade them to go on suicide missions?” I ask, already knowing from our interviews with Syrian ISIS defectors that ISIS leaders fill the children’s minds with bright visions of Paradise and promise them they will feel pain when they push the button to explode themselves—that they go instantly to Paradise. The feint-hearted ones are even offered a sedative, and in many cases, the youngest do not even realize they are about to die. All this I already know from our Syrian defector interviews.[8]

“We used to tell them,” Abu Islam begins but then quickly detours into denial. “It was not my job exactly.” He hesitates and then continues, “Study and learn your future. We want to expand our territories and put shariah over the whole earth. Most of the time they came as volunteers, self- motivated.” Remembering how the kids chose themselves as “martyrs,” he gains confidence again, “They have read the book. We make the way for them. We never told anyone they have to go. It’s voluntary. It’s never forced. I didn’t see anyone forced, ever.”

So, when you prepared young children to take “martyrdom” missions—driving explosive-laden cars or wearing vests into enemy lines or checkpoints—what did you teach them? How did you prepare them?” I ask, having already learned from Peshmerga counterterrorism officials that he sent them as young as 12-years-old on suicide missions.

Abu Islam exudes disagreement with how the question was asked and explains that ISIS never takes children into its ranks: “In Iraq, you have to be 18 to sign up for the Army. We [ISIS] don’t have any age limit. Instead we believe that when a man’s semen develops, then he’s considered a grown-up man. We only take them when they get to that point. They were never children. They were men.”

Cynical about how he answered the question, I further probe: “How old were these men according to your criteria?”

“A fully-grown man has to have his semen,” Abu Islam reiterates. “This is according to sharia.” The translator interjects by explaining that, according to Abu Islam’s definition, a young boy who begins with wet dreams is already a man ready for battle and mature enough to sign his life over for a “martyrdom” mission.

While Abu Islam denies there was any pressure in ISIS for children to become “martyrs,” we know from ISIS defector interviews that in the Syrian training camps youth are heavily pressured into driving explosive-laden cars into enemy lines and lied to about the painfulness of their deaths—sometimes failing to even tell them their mission involves death. “There is an office. If anyone volunteers… ‘I want to my give my bayat [pledge] then he signs up for a martyrdom mission at the same time. It’s like a regular recruiting process, ”Abu Islam explains.

He is further asked about the training camps and how they have a steady stream of explosive-rigged cars being made to put the children in and send them to their deaths at checkpoints and the frontlines.

“There is a training camp they take them to and teach then how to set up and use these cars,” he explains. “It’s a regular camp they tell them…” he hesitates again. “The car manufacturing is in a different place,” he detours.

“But what do they tell these children?” I push.

“They instruct them. They know what will happen. They’re happy. It’s like a kid on Christmas. You know how happy they are? Calmly happy, knowing something good is going to happen,” Abu Islam explains as we realize he truly embraces this sickness.

“Is there any ritual to go with this?” I further ask, wondering exactly how they send a kid off to his horrific death.

“They [the ISIS senders] have a list of serial numbers and names. If I’m set to go next, then I’m next. If something changes the order and they aren’t sent, they start crying. If they are the next one, they actually cry and get angry, and even complain, ‘My name is set to go!’ I’ve seen this with my own eyes,” Abu Islam explains, as his eyes appear to shine in admiration for their zeal.

“What happens right before you go?” I ask again.

“There is nothing special they do.”

“Pray? Wash? Celebrate? Make a video?” I press as in the past I have sat with relatives of bombers who have seen the videos of their children wrapped up in explosive vests or jammed into explosive-laden vehicles, with some crying and others seemingly jubilant about going as “martyrs.”

“There is nothing special. They wash up to be clean. Everyone prays. Everyone says goodbye. There are tears of joy. We make a video,” he admits but again adds a denial, which is possibly self-protective given he is in prison and does not want to incriminate himself. “I didn’t make the videos. I sent them to Kirkuk,” he explains.

“Do they receive a sedative?”

“No sedative, ever.”

“What’s the usual way to go? Car or belt?”

“Both,” he answers. “They wear the belt wear in the car just in case one goes down,” he adds.

“What are their instructions?” I further ask. “Kill as many as possible?”

“Yes.”

“Any special conditions? What if there are women and children at a checkpoint?” I probe.

“In the front line, everyone is an enemy. Everyone is a target,” Abu Islam intones, but quickly adds, “In cities, we tell them to try avoid targeting the markets and civilians, and they have specific targets—military and government targets.”

“And you?” I ask about his recent arrest in which he was wearing, but did not detonate, his suicide vest. “I didn’t sign up to be one. I did fight.” He goes on to say that he has fought in all three ISIS tactical military formations, including in the very front line where the fighters go in wearing vests and “martyr” themselves if overtaken, killing everyone around them to avoid capture. He was never one of those cadres, yet he states, “I always had my suicide belt on. We jump into the [Peshmerga] helicopters and explode ourselves. There is no surrender. No surrender. Just push the button.”

“But you did surrender?” I press. “You wore the belt. Did you have it in your mind, when captured?”

“You didn’t have time to detonate or didn’t want to do it?” inquires Alaz, our Peshmerga translator, while explaining to us how he never had the chance to ask him this question and would like to know the answer as well.

“I didn’t want to die. I wanted to live, so I didn’t do it,” Abu Islam states matter-of-factly, despite the fact that he has sent plenty of others to do just that. “I wanted to finish the project, spreading sharia,” he adds.

“Were you scared?” I ask.

“Yes,” he admits. “I was scared. Every human being is scared.”

I ask Abu Islam about ISIS’ policy toward captured women, a question that instantly grabs his attention. He is in his element spouting out shariah law on the rights of ISIS cadres with regards to captured women. “It becomes a right,” he says, while looking around the room in which three out of five present in the room are women, waving his arm to bring us all into his sweeping gesture. “If I dominate everything in this room, then it becomes mine. I do as I want. It all becomes the property of the Islamic State,” he adds.

While we are usually capable of listening to anything without having much of a reaction during the interview, we felt suddenly sickened imagining how close to Mosul we have been in the past days—barely an hour’s drive—and how this mindset has been a harsh reality for so many captured women, whether they be Yazidis, Christians, Shia, or Sunni women alike.

Abu Islam denies that he had a sabaya [sex slave]. He also explains that very few Iraqis had them. He can think of only one man in their area of ISIS, Dr. Mahavia, who had one. This is likely similar to the Syrian experience where married Iraqis who served from home are not seen by ISIS leadership as needing to be supplied with a woman. Yet, we will hear next from an unmarried Iraqi who took full sexual advantage of the enslaved women held in this region of Iraq.

As we continue interviewing Abu Islam, though calm, I feel increasingly agitated and irritated at how he is able to justify the brutal and inhumane practices of ISIS and offer arguments in support of their activities. Just before my next question, I decide to show him one of our ICSVE-produced videos denouncing ISIS. I open my computer and ask if he would be willing to watch the video of another ISIS cadre (a defector) speaking on this subject. I inform him that it is a short video—only four minutes—and with his agreement, I begin to play it. Abu Islam watches intently as a Syrian former ISIS cadre explains his horror and posttraumatic stress after being the guard for 475 Yezidi, Shia, and Sunni sex slaves, including his role in taking part in organizing mass institutionalized rape.

Abu Islam’s eyes dart along the pictures in the video taken from ISIS, taking in faces and places he may recognize, just as the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighter Huthaifa Azzam did when we showed him the same video.[9] “He is an Iraqi speaking,” Abu Islam comments. I tell him no, this is a Syrian, but he has got a similar accent as he is from Deir ez-Zor. The video plays as Ibn Ahmed (the ISIS defector in the video) paints a grim picture of rape and horror for young captured women separated from their men and children. As more horrifying images of Yazidi and other women abused by ISIS appear on the video, Abu Islam’s gaze falls to the floor. Suddenly, he is silent and stunned to see his version of his glorified ISIS described in this graphic manner.

“How do you feel watching this video?” I gently ask.

“I was against that idea,” he says. His voice appears flat by what he has just viewed. “It doesn’t matter. When I see this video…this is the outcome of this practice—this video. It’s not the proper way to turn you to Islam. It’s not a good way to spread our beliefs.” Referring back to the rapes, he adds, “Not everyone listens [to objections]. They just go with it. There are more that like it [raping of captured women] than are against it.”

“How about the beheadings?” I ask.

“It was a law,” he answers. We cannot help but see discomfort in his face as he patiently awaits his next question.

“Is it not it the same thing? Does it not also spread a negative view of Islam?” I further push.

“I got convinced,” Abu Islam answers defensively.

“How do you feel now?”

“It’s not right,” he says gazing down at his hands, and adds, “We were wrong.”

“Is there a way to get there without all this violence?” I ask softly, knowing he harbors the dream of spreading shariah and making a utopian world where Islam reigns above all else.

“Yes, of course.” a decade of sectarian killings that ISIS was born and embraced by the Sunni population in Anbar province.

“Why did you sign up to violence?” I ask, although I know that the U.S. and the U.S.-led coalition security blunder in Iraq that led to the ousting of Saddam Hussein’s senior military and intelligence officials, coupled with more than a decade of sectarian killings, gave birth to ISIS.

“I believed back in that time,” Abu Islam explains. “I got convinced,” he adds..He explains about how ISIS appeared as a righteous and Islamic answer to sectarian power struggles and security issues: “I didn’t know it was going to be that way.”

We ask Abu Islam if he is willing to watch another ICSVE-produced video. When he agrees, we show him our four-minute video clip of a fifteen-year-old Syrian boy describing his time in the Cubs of the Caliphate and how the leaders sent children as young as six-years-old in explosive-laden vehicles to their deaths—many having no idea they were about to die. There are pictures of children younger than eight in the film. Abu Islam watches this clip intently as well, again studying everything in it. At the end, the boy denounces ISIS, calling them kafirs [unbelievers] and infidels.

“He [the boy] is calling you the kafir. How do you feel about that?” I ask after we view the clip. “These are little kids. Do these children have their semen? Are they men?” I challenge feeling angry with his denials.

Abu Islam is stunned into silence as he again begins to stare at the floor.

“How do you make this right between you and Allah?” I ask softly, wondering if he will open up more.

“Allah will accept everything—If you admit it,” he answers back, and continues to stare at the floor.

“Did you make a mistake?” I ask.

“Yes.” “We were mistaken,” are his last words.

We end our interview. The guards come into the room, and Abu Islam’s black mask is once again placed back over his face as he lets them guide him blindly out of the room.

Abu Islam is by no means rehabilitated from watching two counter-narrative videos. That being said, capture, interrogation, and imprisonment have all begun to work on him. After being challenged with the harsh realities of ISIS and other ISIS cadres denouncing the group, he admits to not knowing whether ISIS was right. After all, joining ISIS has not worked out that well for him. Arguably, once confronted with other former ISIS cadres telling the truth, he is unable to keep up his false bravado and unquestioned beliefs in ISIS’ interpretation of shariah law. His arguments fall flat. He is backed into submission, as evidenced through his responses after watching the videos.

We have focus tested the Breaking the ISIS Brand videos in the Balkans, Central Asia, Western Europe, and the Middle East, and overwhelmingly they have hit their mark. No one we spoke to questioned their authenticity or viewed the message as being wrong. Many are sobered by them, including the ISIS emir we discussed in this article.

If you want to support ISCVE’s Breaking the ISIS Brand—ISIS Defectors Counter-Narratives Project, please contact us at info[at]ICSVE.org or donate on our webpage www.icsve.org.

Reference for this Article: Speckhard, Anne & Shajkovci, Ardian (May 29, 2017) Confronting an ISIS Emir: ICSVE’s Breaking the ISIS Brand Counter-Narrative Videos, ICSVE Research Reports, http://www.icsve.org/research-reports/confronting-an-isis-emir-icsves-breaking-the-isis-brand-counter-narrative-videos

(*) Ardian Shajkovci, Ph.D. – is the Director of Research and a Senior Research Fellow at the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE). He has been collecting interviews with ISIS defectors and studying their trajectories into and out of terrorism as well as training key stakeholders in law enforcement, intelligence, educators, and other countering violent extremism professionals on the use of counter-narrative messaging materials produced by ICSVE both locally and internationally. He has also been studying the use of children as violent actors by groups such as ISIS and how to rehabilitate them. He has conducted fieldwork in Western Europe, the Balkans, Central Asia, and the Middle East, mostly recently in Jordan and Iraq. He has presented at professional conferences and published on the topic of radicalization and terrorism. Prior to joining ICSVE, Ardian has spent nearly a decade working in both the private and public sectors, including with international organizations and the media in a post-conflict environment. He is fluent in several languages. He holds a doctorate in Public Policy and Administration, with a focus on Homeland Security Policy, from Walden University. He obtained his M.A. degree in Public Policy and Administration from Northwestern University and a B.A. degree in International Relations and Diplomacy from Dominican University. He also holds several professional certifications in the field of homeland security as well as a professional designation for his contributions to the field of homeland security and homeland security efforts in general. He is also an adjunct professor teaching counterterrorism courses.

About the authors:
*Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University in the School of Medicine and Director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE). She is the author of Talking to Terrorists, Bride of ISIS and coauthor of ISIS Defectors: Inside Stories of the Terrorist Caliphate; Undercover Jihadi; and Warrior Princess. Dr. Speckhard has interviewed nearly 500 terrorists, their family members and supporters in various parts of the world including Gaza, West Bank, Chechnya, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and many countries in Europe. In 2007, she was responsible for designing the psychological and Islamic challenge aspects of the Detainee Rehabilitation Program in Iraq to be applied to 20,000 + detainees and 800 juveniles. She is a sought after counter-terrorism experts and has consulted to NATO, OSCE, foreign governments and to the U.S. Senate & House, Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, CIA and FBI and CNN, BBC, NPR, Fox News, MSNBC, CTV, and in Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post, London Times and many other publications. Here publications are found here: https://georgetown.academia.edu/AnneSpeckhard Website: http://www.icsve.org

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Notes:
[1] Anne Speckhard and Mubin Shaikh, Undercover Jihadi: Inside the Toronto 18-Al Qaeda Inspired, Homegrown Terrorism in the West (McLean, VA: Advances Press, 2014) and Morten Storm, Tim Lister, and Paul Cruickshank, Agent Storm: My Life Inside al Qaeda and the CIA (New York City, NY: Grove Press, 2015).

[2] See Quilliam, “Usama Hasan,” URL: https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/staff/usama-hasan/

[3]The names of participants other than the authors’ and Abu Islam have been changed to protect them.

[4] Robin Wright, “Face to Face with the Ghost of ISIS,” The New Yorker, March 24, 2017; URL: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/face-to-face-with-the-ghost-of-isis

[5] Anne Speckhard and Ahmet S. Yayla, ISIS Defectors: Inside Stories of the Terrorist Caliphate (McLean, VA: Advances Press, LLC, 2016).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Anne Speckhard and Ahmet S. Yayla, ISIS Defectors: Inside Stories of the Terrorist Caliphate (McLean, VA: Advances Press, LLC, 2016).

[8] Anne Speckhard and Ahmet S. Yayla, ISIS Defectors: Inside Stories of the Terrorist Caliphate (McLean, VA: Advances Press, LLC, 2016).

[9] Huthaifa Azzam Interview, Amman, Jordan, 2016.

A three-year survey of the California Current System along the West Coast of the United States found persistent, highly acidified water throughout this ecologically critical nearshore habitat, with “hotspots” of pH measurements as low as any oceanic surface waters in the world.

The researchers say that conditions will continue to worsen because the atmospheric carbon dioxide primarily to blame for this increase in acidification has been rising substantially in recent years.

One piece of good news came out of the study, which was published this week in Scientific Reports. There are “refuges” of more moderate pH environments that could become havens for some marine organisms to escape more highly acidified waters, and which could be used as a resource for ecosystem management.

“The threat of ocean acidification is global and though it sometimes seems far away, it is happening here right now on the West Coast of the United States and those waters are already hitting our beaches,” said Francis Chan, a marine ecologist at Oregon State University and lead author on the study.

“The West Coast is very vulnerable. Ten years ago, we were focusing on the tropics with their coral reefs as the place most likely affected by ocean acidification. But the California Current System is getting hit with acidification earlier and more drastically than other locations around the world.”

A team of researchers developed a network of sensors to measure ocean acidification over a three-year period along more than 600 miles of the West Coast. The team observed near-shore pH levels that fell well below the global mean pH of 8.1 for the surface ocean, and reached as low as 7.4 at the most acidified sites, which is among the lowest recorded values ever observed in surface waters.

The lower the pH level, the higher the acidity. Previous studies have documented a global decrease of 0.11 pH units in surface ocean waters since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Like the Richter scale, the pH scale in logarithmic, so that a 0.11 pH unit decrease represents an increase in acidity of approximately 30 percent.

Highly acidified ocean water is potentially dangerous because many organisms are very sensitive to changes in pH. Chan said negative impacts already are occurring in the California Current System, where planktonic pteropods – or small swimming snails – were documented with severe shell dissolution.

“This is about more than the loss of small snails,” said Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. “These pteropods are an important food source for herring, salmon and black cod, among other fish. They also may be the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ signifying potential risk for other species, including Dungeness crabs, oysters, mussels, and many organisms that live in tidepools or other near-shore habitats.”

Previous studies at OSU have chronicled the impact of acidified water on the Northwest oyster industry.

Chan said the team’s observations, which included a broad-scale ocean acidification survey via ship by NOAA, did not vary significantly over the three years – even with different conditions, including a moderate El Niño event.

“The highly acidified water was remarkably persistent over the three years,” Chan said. “Hotspots stayed as hotspots, and refuges stayed as refuges. This highly acidified water is not in the middle of the Pacific Ocean; it is right off our shore. Fortunately, there are swaths of water that are more moderate in acidity and those should be our focus for developing adaptation strategies.”

The researchers say there needs to be a focus on lowering stressors to the environment, such as maintaining healthy kelp beds and sea grasses, which many believe can partially mitigate the effects of increasing acidity.

Further, the moderately acidified refuge areas can be strategically used and managed, Chan pointed out.

“We probably have a hundred or more areas along the West Coast that are protected in one way or another, and we need to examine them more closely,” he said. “If we know how many of them are in highly acidified areas and how many are in refuge sites, we can use that information to better manage the risks that ocean acidification poses.”

Managing for resilience is a key, the researchers conclude.

“Even though we are seeing compromised chemistry in our ocean waters, we still have a comparably vibrant ecosystem,” Chan said. “Our first goal should be to not make things worse. No new stresses. Then we need to safeguard and promote resilience. How do we do that? One way is to manage for diversity, from ensuring multiple-age populations to maintaining deep gene pools.

“The greater the diversity, the better chance of improving the adaptability of our marine species.”

Chan, a faculty member in the College of Science at Oregon State University, was a member of the West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Panel appointed by the governments of California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.

Researchers at The Jackson Laboratory, Cyteir Therapeutics and collaborating institutions have found a way to protect beta cells from destruction — achieving a longtime, elusive goal that could lead to therapies preventing type 1 diabetes (T1D).

In healthy people, white blood cells make antibodies against pathogens or other invaders. In the pancreas, pancreatic beta cells produce insulin, the hormone that provides fuel to the body’s cells by transporting glucose. Another type of white blood cells — B cells or B lymphocytes — plays a major role in activating the autoreactive T cells (T lymphocytes) that then destroy the pancreatic beta cells leading to type 1 diabetes.

These damaged cells fail to carry glucose into cells; instead glucose builds up in the blood and can damage nerves, blood vessels and organs unless insulin is administered.

“So there has been a lot of interest in the diabetes research community: If you can target those antigen-presenting B-cells, that could be potentially a very effective disease intervention,” says JAX Professor David Serreze, Ph.D., lead author of a highlighted study published in the Journal of Immunology. “Our approach targets an appropriate population of the B cells among the white blood cells, resulting in inactivation of the cascade of autoimmunity against the insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells, and hence subsequently blocking diabetes development.”

The researchers used a gene manipulation approach to identify a potential metabolic target that would eliminate the B cells that initiate the whole diabetes-inducing process.

They demonstrated that non-obese diabetic (NOD) mice treated with a specific (AID/RAD51) pathway inhibitor had larger populations of certain B cells that were capable of suppressing diabetogenic T cell responses, and greatly reduced T1D development, compared with untreated controls.

Serreze says the research team “borrowed a playbook” from a new approach to treating B-cell lymphomas. Study coauthor Kevin Mills pioneered the approach as a JAX investigator and then cofounded Cyteir Therapeutics to bring the cancer therapy to clinical trials.

In the process of antibody production, B cells turn on the gene known as activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), which acts as a sort of molecular scissors that cut the chromosomes within the B-cell. In some cancers this process goes wrong, with AID acting out of control and creating mutations and chromosome rearrangements that make the tumor more aggressive. Mills has identified molecules that block the DNA repair action in these tumors, causing the cancer cells to die.

“To combat T1D,” Serreze says, “we’re taking out this whole pathway to block autoreactive cells. But on the flip side, you may want to keep this pathway active if you want to keep antitumor immune responses in place.

“Ultimately,” he says, “this approach could potentially be applicable to any autoimmune disease that has a B-cell component.”

Hunting as an outdoor activity is underrated in how it helps nature and society to regulate problem animal overpopulations. Such is the case for Europe’s wild boar Sus scrofa, according to Spanish researchers from the IREC institute (UCLM and CSIC), and Principado de Asturias, published in Springer’s European Journal of Wildlife Research.

Recreational hunting in particular is increasingly perceived by the ever-growing urban population as an unsustainable and debauched extractive activity. This perception has an influence on the number of active hunters, and on the recruitment of new ones to the sport.

To investigate how this has an influence on the growth in wild ungulate numbers, Quirós-Fernández and his colleagues focused on the wild boar population, which according to a 2015 review is growing by 20 percent each year in Europe.

The research team focused their attention on Spain’s northwestern province of Asturias, where hunting is essentially non-commercial and is still traditional among rural inhabitants. The team investigated annual wild boar hunting bag data collected from game reserves and hunting estates, and the influence that temporary hunting bans in six of these estates had on population numbers. Hunting bag statistics that reflect the quantity of game killed during a hunting season were used, as these provide a reliable index of the relative abundance of wild boar, and are often used to monitor population sizes over long periods of time.

The findings reflect marked differences in the number of wild boar hunted annually from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014. The total wild boar hunting bag for the area grew each year by 5.63 percent during the study period. The annual hunting bag size after a hunting ban was lifted was much larger than that of the pre-ban period, and grew by 40.33 percent in the season following its lifting. This difference indicates that hunters are able to reduce and regulate wild boar numbers.

“Recreational hunters contribute towards regulating the population growth of problem species such as the wild boar,” the authors say. “In this context, it is important to note that we advocate preventing wild boar population growth and eventually balancing high densities, while we do not propose the suppression of an ecologically important native species”.

The mean annual increase of 5.63 percent in the wild boar hunting bag suggests that current hunting practices alone are not able to control the population. In fact, during this time only half of the quota of animals allowed were hunted. According to this study, recreational hunters should therefore be encouraged to attain higher wild boar hunting bags, because of the economic and ecological advantages to doing so. “This is especially relevant because of the declining number and ageing population of hunters throughout Europe. Future research should also focus on how hunting, diseases and predation have an influence on wild boar population dynamics”.

For a century or so, U.S. universities have been an adornment of American culture, and indeed of world culture, but, with notable exceptions, only in the sciences. Bright people have flocked to the USA from all parts of the world to study, research, and teach in physics, chemistry, biology, other physical and life sciences, and related fields such as medicine, mathematics, and engineering. The products are all around us, from life-saving drugs to the Internet, smart phones, GPS guidance systems, and countless other marvels.

But in the humanities and social sciences, the story has been different, especially during the past forty years, as Marxist-spawned doctrines such as Critical Theory and Multicultural This and That have proliferated, destroying disciplines such as English, history, sociology, anthropology, and even in large part economics and replacing them with tendentious dogmas cum jihads such as black studies, gender studies, and LGBT studies.

Moreover, aggressive administrators and zealous faculty adherents of these doctrines have now begun to extend their gaze toward and their interventions in the STEM fields, threatening to destroy the last bastions of what was glorious and truly progressive in the universities. For a long time the faculty in the substantive fields tended to ignore the crazies in the humanities and social sciences, being satisfied to be left alone to do real work. But whether they will be able to continue in this strategy seems now to be in serious question. Pusillanimous administrators have been easily swayed, if they did not in fact lead the way, in favor of the bullshitization of the U.S. universities, turning institutions away from understanding and scholarship toward ideological crusades and identity politics.

If the worthwhile parts of the U.S. universities are to continue to thrive, or even to survive as serious endeavors, it would seem that a parting of the ways must come. The STEM fields must separate themselves from the bullshit parts of the universities. The latter can then go their own way to fester in their nonsense until the general public awakens to the need to cease supporting such activities altogether. This divorce cannot come too soon. Scientific and technical progress is too important to mankind to allow it be be taken hostage by practitioners of anti-rational, mumbo-jumbo-talking, ideological zealots.

This article was published at The Beacon.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is calling on Georgian authorities to explain how Afgan Mukhtarli, an Azerbaijani journalist living in exile in Georgia, was abducted and taken back to neighboring Azerbaijan, and calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to free him at once.

In a disturbing development for the dozens of other Azerbaijani dissidents living in Georgia, Mukhtarli resurfaced yesterday in Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, in the custody of Azerbaijan’s state border agency. He had gone missing in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, the previous evening after leaving colleagues and setting off for his nearby Tbilisi home.

Georgian authorities must explain

“The Georgian authorities must immediately explain what happened to Afgan Mukhtarli and provide security guarantees for the other Azerbaijani exiles in Georgia,” said Johann Bihr, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk.

“Whether Mukhtarli was kidnapped by foreign operatives or whether the Georgian security forces were accomplices to the Azerbaijani regime’s persecution of its critics, this is a very grave incident that cannot remain without consequences.”

According to Elchin Sadygov, a lawyer who managed to visit Mukhtarli in detention yesterday evening, he bore the marks of blows to his face and he thought one of his ribs was broken.

Mukhtarli said he was grabbed near his home, bundled into a car, tied up and beaten. His abductors put a bag over his head after they left Tbilisi. They changed car twice and then stuffed 10,000 euros into his pockets at the Azerbaijani border so that he could be charged with smuggling, crossing the border illegally and resisting police.

He said those who abducted him seemed to be Georgians but the passengers in the final two cars spoke Azeri. His lawyer requested that a doctor examine Mukhtarli and that the border post surveillance camera recordings be added to the case file.

Mukhtarli in danger

Bihr added: “We demand the immediate release of Afgan Mukhtarli, who is now exposed to the possibility of torture and mistreatment. Bringing trumped-up charges against independent journalists is standard practice in Azerbaijan. President Ilham Aliyev’s regime has yet again just showed that it can cause trouble beyond its borders. It is high time to respond with all the required firmness.”

An investigative journalist and activist, Mukhtarli fled Azerbaijan in 2014 to escape a crackdown on the country’s civil society and had been working for Meydan TV and IWPR from Tbilisi.

He recently told the media that he was being closely watched and that he was concerned for his safety and the safety other Azerbaijani exiles in Georgia. In early May, he was named by an Azerbaijani pro-government website that described Tbilisi as a centre of hostile agitators.

Reacting quickly, Georgian civil society representatives demonstrated today outside government headquarters in Tbilisi to demand explanations. The Georgian interior minister today announced that an investigation had been opened into Mukhtarli’s “illegal abduction” and that it would be raised with the Azerbaijani authorities.

Ranked 64th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index, Georgia had until recently been regarded as the natural refuge for journalists fleeing persecution in Azerbaijan, which is ranked 162nd.

Not content with crushing all forms of pluralism in Azerbaijan, President Aliyev has been waging a relentless war against his remaining critics since 2014. At least 15 journalists, bloggers and media workers are currently detained in connection with the provision of news and information.

President Donald Trump signed on Thursday a waiver that delays moving the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

In a Presidential memorandum to the Secretary of State, Trump said that the decision was, “necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b),” of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act is a law passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995 aimed at initiating and funding the relocation of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all claimed a presidential waiver for the move, citing national security interests.

The White House was quick to say that Trump’s decision should not be interpreted as the President backing off earlier promises to relocate the US embassy.

“While President Donald J. Trump signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance,” the White House said in a statement.

According to the White House, “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests.”

The statement concluded that Trump remains firm in his intention to move the embassy. “The question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Having roots in Pakistan, a country that was once upon a time a British Colony and a member of Commonwealth for a long time, I believed that Britain was the oldest democracy. However, this belief has been shattered after hearing that its ex-prime minister Tony Blair could steer the country out of the turmoil.

In my opinion, Blair should have been punished for committing war crimes, the worst being his support for the Iraq invasion on the premise of having weapons of mass destruction. Ideally, Blair should be hiding his face, because tendering an apology could not save him from the ultimate fate.

In the recent past, I was engrossed with other topics that included Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, facing disqualification, the US president not behaving in the desired manner and his visit to Saudi Arabia, elections in Iran and the ongoing war in my country’s neighborhood, Afghanistan. I confess that I missed the statements by Tony Blair saying that he plans to become more involved in the debate surrounding Britain’s departure from the European Union because of the harm it would cause the country.

The 63-year-old, who was speaking on the 20th anniversary of his landslide win over John Major in the general election of 1997, told the Daily Mirror, “I am going to be taking an active part in trying to shape the policy debate and that means getting out into the country and reconnecting. This Brexit thing has given me a direct motivation to get more involved in politics. You need to get your hands dirty, and I will.”

I believe Britishers should not pay any heed to his uttering.

I regret that the British, who are the custodians of democracy and good behavior have given Blair a chance to resurface, whereas he should have been completely dumped for bringing the worst disgrace to them. I will even ask a question, are the politicians incapable of bringing the country out of the turmoil?

My question regarding Tony Blair is this — if he is such an ardent supporter of Britain remaining in the European Union (EU), why did he keep his country out of the euro common currency? I understand that somewhere in the back of his mind was that if Britain joined euro, it would then become subservient to Germany and France.

At this juncture, both Germany and France are adamant at punishing Britain out of the EU or be ready to pay a huge cost to stay a member. If Tony Blair committed a mistake by becoming a spokesman of warmonger George Bush and is now living in isolation, Britain also faces isolation for its decision to quit the community. Even if the new parliament wishes to reverse the process, it would only be at the stringent conditions of the EU.

The world became slightly more peaceful since last year, according to the 2017 Global Peace Index (GPI), produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace.

While this is a positive trend, the Index reveals an increasingly complex world. This improvement comes despite severe ongoing conflict and humanitarian crises in many of the least peaceful countries of the world.

This year’s Global peace Index (GPI) data captures a paradoxical situation in global affairs – 2016 saw the continuation of several negative trends from ongoing conflict in Syria, Libya, Iraq, South Sudan, Yemen and Afghanistan, not to mention the increased instability in the United States – yet, the global average peace score showed a slightly more peaceful world. While this is a positive trend, it also reveals an increasingly complex and divided world.

Three major factors explain the immediate positive trend in 2016. (1) Many more countries made relatively slight improvements in peace compared to those that deteriorated – 93 countries improved versus 68 that deteriorated. The sum of these many improvements was simply greater than the deteriorations. (2) The indicators measuring nations’ Societal Safety and Security and Militarisation improved, with key indicators measuring the homicide rate and political terror improving in many countries. (3) While devastating ongoing conflict continues in many of the least peaceful countries in the world, many of these conflicts plateaued in their intensity or were restricted to moderate escalations from their already high levels of violence.

Despite this positive result, the 2017 GPI measures a significantly less peaceful world than in 2008. The last ten years have seen increases in conflict deaths not seen for 25 years and historic increases in the number of refugees and displaced people, the levels of terrorism, as well as several new conflicts that even in the most optimistic scenarios will take many years to solve and rebuild from.

On several of these key measures, the 2017 data show only moderate plateauing of these devastating numbers. There was a slight ten per cent reduction in deaths from terrorism, a moderate fall in conflict deaths from 167,000 to 157,000, but a further increase in the number of refugees and displaced people to 63.9 million people –almost one per cent of the global population.

This reveals a major underlying and unreported global trend, which is growing – the phenomenon of peace inequality and a more divided world than before. This is not so much a story of the ‘rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer’ but rather one whereby the most peaceful are generally maintaining their levels of peace and the 20 least peaceful nations are becoming dramatically more violent and insecure. The data show ongoing-armed conflict and the widespread use of terrorist tactics is further eroding the peacefulness of these 20 least peaceful countries, which is home to almost one billion people.

This is in stark contrast to the situation for the 4.8 billion people who live in the 93 countries that improved in peace over the last year. In many of these countries, rates of everyday interpersonal violence are improving, with the indicator measuring the homicide rate recording improvements in 67 per cent of the countries in the GPI. Given homicide still accounts for the great majority of lethal violent death, this is a profoundly positive development.

Furthermore, despite concerning and notable increases in political violence in major countries such as the Philippines, Burundi and Turkey, many more countries improved on the indicator measuring political terror. Based on data from the Amnesty International Human Rights report, US State Department Human rights report and Human Rights Watch report, 42 per cent of countries in the Political Terror Index improved on the extent of state-sponsored violence and terror, the levels of imprisonment without trial, extent of political suppression, extra-judicial killings and torture. This too is an important achievement and sign of progress.
Largely, many of these positive developments have been obscured in the context of the United States’ notable deterioration in peace. Importantly, the changes in two major indicators driving the US’s deterioration occurred in 2016. There was an increase in the homicide rate from 4.4 to 4.9 per 100,000, reflecting the uptick in violence in several major American cities, and an increase in the extent of internal conflict due to increased violent demonstrations and new levels of political polarisation from the long Presidential Election campaign.

During the eighties, Nepal experienced some optimistic moments in manufacturing sector; Nepalese woolen carpet shops across the streets of Frankfurt and other European cities were subject of major attraction. Nepalese garment export to USA was contending with other major garment exporters of the world. And export of Nepalese products to India including edible oil (Vanaspati ghee), acrylic yarn, copper products, zinc oxide etc. had also given good impetus by that time. During 2000, share of manufacturing sector to GDP was around 10% and industries were supporting satisfactorily to export and import substitutions. But unfortunately, it could not be sustained longtime and manufacturing sector shrunken in a dramatic manner and share to GDP continuously fell, currently to 6%.

Causes of setback

Many factors were responsible for this breakdown – export of low quality woolen carpet produced both in Nepal and India branding as standard Nepalese carpet, export of machine made sub-standard Pashmina shawl branding as handmade product of Nepal, cancellation of United States special trade preferences and duty-free tariff benefits to Nepalese products and quota restrictions and non-tariff barriers imposed by India on major Nepalese exportable products were key elements for the crumble of Nepalese manufacturing.

Moreover, Maoist insurgency, political instability, power crisis and labor problems were equally responsible for descending this sector. Thus, numerous Nepali factories were either shut down or slashed output. The tiny and primary industrial base of Nepal could not bear these external as well as internal shocks and the economy became ailing after those intolerable frights.

Likewise, public sector industries were sold without proper evaluation only to acquire valuable lands and properties of the industries by the individuals and failed to run these industries even in the earlier conditions. This happened even though Nepali industries cannot compete with the goods produced in India and China, both of which have economies of large scale.

Investors in manufacture sector do not feel secure to invest as they continue to be stymied by militant trade unions, instability, power shortage, weak infrastructure, strikes, red tape, policy change and lack of long term tax incentives and financial supports. There is negligible protection for both export oriented and import substitution industries in Nepal. Industrial growth from 8.7 percent has come down to 1.8 percent in ten years.

Neighboring factor

Due to open border and easy accessibility of Indian currency, it has been impossible to control smuggling of Indian goods in Nepal. Moreover, dumping of cheap goods has killed off budding domestic production both from India and China.

Export of Nepalese manufacturing items are highly dependent with Indian market, which accounts more than 60% of Nepal’s total export volume and exporting to countries other than India are not cost effective; they must pass by only transit route through Indian sea port and vice versa while importing raw materials for the industries. Indian market for Nepali product is highly fluctuated; it changes its policy course violating trade transit treaty with Nepal and imposition of different tariff and non-tariff barriers if Nepalese export started to increase in Indian market. Only Indian multinational industries in Nepal can easily export their products to India. Establishing industries is thus a risky venture in Nepal and it cannot compete with the neighboring products.

Challenges

The manufacturing sector employed just 6.6 percent of the total work force. The competitive performance of Nepal as measured by the Competitive Industrial Performance Index (CIP) is very low (119th out of 135 countries). The cost of export and import in Nepal is very high and excessive costs has been also challenge to develop industries.

This sector is small and is not dynamic, can’t be expected to play a strong role in mitigate economy-wise imbalances. Due to decline nature of productive sector, there is very low opportunity of jobs inside the country. Thus, millions of young people are working abroad as cheap and unskilled laborer.

Even after six decades of planned economy, this sector is still retreated towards basic and primary industries with continuous decline in productivity and production are indication of its ailing nature.
Inadequate infrastructures are causing problems to open new industries. Moreover, lack of skilled manpower, lack of modern technology, lack of diversification of export and high labor intensive are some other challenges for the development of this sector.

Opportunities

FDI is open in most of the sectors in Nepal. There is equal treatment to foreign and local investors. Government ensures legal protection to foreign investment against nationalization and expropriation and allows repatriation of proceeds from sales of shares and profit. Significant investment incentives exist.

Recently the United States legislation authorized special trade preferences for Nepal by granting duty-free tariff benefits for up to many Nepali items, including certain carpets, headgear, shawls, scarves, and travel goods, is authorized for ten years.

Now with the Agreement on Transit Transport in place, Nepal might not only gain access to Chinese ports, roads and train connections to and from Central Asia and Europe through Chinese territory. It will certainly support for trade diversification and would decrease dependency with India.

The biggest investment summit held in Nepal in years concluded on March 3, 2017, drawing investment commitment of record $13.5 billion (approximately Rs 1,444.5 billion) from six countries, with China leading the pack.

The government is in process fast track to update industrial and labor laws, foreign currency regulations and other related laws to support industrial development. To protect domestic industries, Nepal must think seriously in separate way about imposing systematic non-tariff barriers, anti-dumping duties and quantitative restrictions on the import of some products in which it is self-reliant. Lat but not least, the end of load shedding in power sector has also shown some positive indications in manufacturing growth,

*The author was Under secretary under Ministry of Finance Nepal and associated with United Nations Development Program in Africa. He has written a book – The Violent Nile: A Novella on East Africa.

Thousands demonstrated in northern Morocco for the sixth straight night Wednesday as protestors demanded the release of the leader of a popular movement in the neglected Rif region.

The area has been shaken by social unrest since the death in October of fishmonger Mouhcine Fikri, 31, who was crushed in a rubbish truck as he protested against the seizure of swordfish caught out of season.

Initial protests in the fishing port of Al-Hoceima triggered a wider movement demanding more development and railing against corruption, repression and unemployment.

Nasser Zefzafi, who has emerged as the head of the grassroots Al-Hirak al-Shaabi, or “Popular Movement”, was arrested on Monday after three days on the run.

On Wednesday around 2,000 protestors once again took to the streets of Al-Hoceima, shouting slogans such as “We are all Nasser Zefzafi” and “corrupt state”.

“Arrest us, we are all activists,” read one banner.

The mainly ethnically Berber Rif region has long had a tense relationship with Morocco’s central authorities, and was at the heart of Arab Spring-inspired protests in 2011.

Anti-riot police were at the protest, following clashes between demonstrators and security forces over the weekend, but the crowd dispersed at around midnight without incident.

Zefzafi was detained along with others on Monday morning for “attacking internal security”, after a warrant for his arrest issued Friday sparked turmoil in Al-Hoceima, a city of 56,000 inhabitants.

State media outlets and politicians have remained largely silent on the events, but the local branches of three parties including the ruling Justice and Development Party (PJD) issued a joint statement warning of a “serious situation” and criticising the state’s response.

Out of around 40 people authorities say they arrested Friday, including core members of Al-Hirak, 25 have been referred to the prosecution.

Their trial began Tuesday but has been pushed back to June 6 at the request of their lawyers, who have complained their clients were ill-treated during their detention.

Seven suspects were released on bail while another seven were released without charge.

Original source

Some travelers seeking admission to the US are being handed a new form, requiring them to disclose biographical information going back 15 years and social media handles going back five. The temporary measure was fast-tracked by the Trump administration.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new supplemental questionnaire on May 23, according to Reuters.

The form requests visa applicants to list information about their employment, place of residence, and foreign travel over the previous 15 years, as well as user names for any social media platforms “used to create or share content” for the previous five years.

The new form, designated DS-5535, appears to be a temporary measure. The OMB granted it emergency approval for six months, rather than the usual three years, and the forms carry the expiration date of November 30, 2017.

Consular officials will use the questionnaire when they determine “that such information is required to confirm identity or conduct more rigorous national security vetting,” a State Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.

Critics of the proposal have argued that the new questionnaire would be burdensome for the applicants, lead to delays in processing visas, and discourage international students and scientists from coming to the US.

“The United States has one of the most stringent visa application processes in the world,” Babak Yousefzadeh, president of the Iranian American Bar Association, told Reuters. “The need for tightening the application process further is really unknown and unclear.”

The additional vetting would apply to visa applicants “who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities,” the State Department said, according to Reuters.

Filling out the form is voluntary, though applicants may be rejected if they decline to provide information or deliberately lie.

An explosion has occurred at Taiwanese-owned Formosa Plastics Group’s steel mill in central Vietnam’s Ha Tinh province, one day after the facility came online for the first time since causing a catastrophic toxic waste spill in April 2016.

The official Tuoi Tre News quoted vice-chairman of the Provincial People’s Committee Duong Tat Thang as saying the incident occurred at around 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday when congestion in the dust filter system of a lime kiln at the steel mill led to an increase in pressure, causing the blast.

“The incident didn’t result in any casualties and is not related to the operation of the blast furnace,” Thang said.

Tuoi Tre cited “terrified witnesses” who said they heard a loud noise and saw a large volume of smoke.

Reuters quoted Chang Fu-ning, an executive vice president of Formosa Ha Tinh Steel, as saying the explosion at the mill in the Vung Ang Economic Zone, in Ha Tinh’s Ky Anh district, was caused by the combustion of fine dust particles in the air as a result of an equipment malfunction.

“There was no fire, damage or casualties as a result,” he said, adding that test-runs are ongoing.

A statement from the Ha Tinh provincial government said Formosa had confirmed it would fix the problem and check equipment to ensure a safe test run within 15 days, Reuters reported.

The U.S. $11 billion steel plant began a six-month test-run on its No. 1 blast furnace and auxiliary facilities Monday after the government said Formosa had effectively rectified an April 2016 toxic waste spill that killed an estimated 115 tons of fish and left fishermen jobless in four coastal provinces.

The environment ministry last month cleared Formosa to start testing its steel mill after conducting a three-day inspection of the plant and concluding that Formosa had addressed 52 out of 53 operating violations that led to the spill, polluting more than 200 kilometers (125 miles) of Vietnam’s coastline.

Formosa has voluntarily paid U.S. $500 million to clean up and compensate coastal residents affected by the spill, but slow and uneven payout of the funds by the Vietnamese government has prompted protests that continue to be held more than a year later.

Environmental activist Nguyen Chi Tuyen told RFA’s Vietnamese Service that residents are even more concerned over Formosa’s operations after Tuesday’s blast, and want the company out of Vietnam.

“The state says [the blast was not a problem] because it is still determined to produce steel,” he said.

“I expect Formosa will create [environmental] problems, because the company uses outdated technology that is typically associated with risks and hazards … [Saying they] operate and produce steel safely does not mean they will be environmentally friendly.”

Anti-Formosa sentiment

Earlier this month, after Formosa received approval to start test runs of its blast furnace, residents of Ky Anh told RFA that the government was not acting in the interest of the people and expressed frustration that their concerns are not being taken into consideration.

They said few people believe Formosa had addressed the problems that led to last year’s spill.

Several members of the Catholic clergy and other activists have faced harassment and arrest by authorities for speaking out against Formosa and the waste spill in recent months.

On May 15, authorities detained activist Hoang Duc Binh, 34, for “opposing officers on duty” and “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe on the interests of the state” under Articles 257 and 258 of Vietnam’s penal code after he organized anti-Formosa protests. The activist will be held for 90 days.

Binh’s arrest drew condemnation Tuesday from local activists, as well as from international rights groups.

Phil Roberston, New York-based Human Rights Watch’s deputy Asia director, told RFA that the government should be investigating Formosa instead of investigating the people who are demanding it take action against the company.

“What we have seen is a greater level of oppression coming against those activists who are demanding that Formosa take responsibility,” he said.

“That is unfortunate because what it shows is that the government is more concerned about trying to control its people and to repress their freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful public assembly than it is about making a foreign company that was completely irresponsible and caused massive destruction to the environment … accountable.”

Reported by RFA’s Vietnamese Service. Translated by An Nguyen. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

Imagine being a scuba diver and leaving your oxygen tank behind you on a dive. Or a mountain climber and abandoning your ropes. Or a skydiver and shedding your parachute. That’s essentially what humans are doing as we expand our footprint on the planet without paying adequate attention to impacts on other living things, according to researchers from the University of Minnesota and McGill University. Because we depend on plants and animals for food, shelter, clean air and water and more, anything we do that makes life harder for them eventually comes around to make life harder for us as well.

But, reporting with colleagues from around the world in this week’s special biodiversity issue of the scientific journal Nature, the researchers also note that all is not lost, and offer specific strategies for turning that tide before it’s too late.

Forest Isbell, of University of Minnesota’s College of Biological Sciences, McGill biologist Andrew Gonzalez and coauthors from eight countries on four continents provided an overview of what we know and still need to learn about the impacts of habitat destruction, overhunting, the introduction of nonnative species, and other human activities on biodiversity.

In addition, they summarized previous research on how biodiversity loss affects nature and the benefits nature provides — for example, a recent study showing that reduced diversity in tree species in forests is linked to reduced wood production. Synthesizing findings of other studies, they estimated that the value humans derive from biodiversity is 10 times what every country in the world put together spends on conservation today — suggesting that additional investments in protecting species would not only reduce biodiversity loss but provide economic benefit, too.

“Human activities are driving the sixth mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that diversity of life enhances many benefits people reap from nature, such as wood from forests, livestock forage from grasslands, and fish from oceans and streams,” said Isbell, who served as lead author the paper. “It would be wise to invest much more in conserving biodiversity.”

“Biodiversity plays a big role in the UN Sustainable Development Goals that aim to ensure human wellbeing in the long-term” said Gonzalez. “Attaining the UN SDGs will require action to conserve and restore biodiversity from local to global scales”.

By Cheryl Pellerin

The Defense Department’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes nearly $4.8 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative to enhance deterrence and defense and improve the readiness of forces in Europe, the U.S. European Command director of strategy, plans and policy said Thursday.

Air Force Maj. Gen. David W. Allvin held a telephone briefing with reporters, speaking from Eucom headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

ERI funding for next fiscal year is up $1.4 billion over fiscal 2017, he said, noting that the funding increase will support the deterrence of future Russian aggression and malign influence through increased joint air, sea and land force responsiveness and expanded interoperability with combined multinational forces.

“This is one of our nation’s commitments to Europe, and it demonstrates our strong dedication to the trans-Atlantic bond and the defense of our allies,” Allvin said.

After Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the United States authorized ERI at $985 million in 2015, $789 million in 2016 and $3.4 billion in 2017. Operation Atlantic Resolve, funded partly by ERI, demonstrates to NATO allies and the world the ‘U.S. intent to fulfill NATO treaty commitments to respond to threats against allies.

ERI Focus Areas

Allvin said ERI’s main focus areas include:

• Increased presence. “We’re proposing a more robust U.S. military rotational presence throughout the theater that is capable of deterring and, if required, responding to any regional threats,” he said. The ERI 2018 budget funds this at $1.7 billion, according to the budget document.
• Exercises and training. Eucom is increasing the training tempo to improve overall readiness and interoperability with U.S. allies and partners, the general said. This is funded at $218 million.
• Enhanced pre-positioning. “This is a strategic placement of equipment throughout the theater that supports our steady-state activities while also enabling us to rapidly deploy forces into theater if required,” he added. This is funded at $2.2 billion.
• Improving infrastructure. This is funded at $338 million.
• Building partnership capacity. The general said this strengthens the ability of allies and partners to defend themselves and enables their full participation with U.S. operational forces. This is funded at $267 million.

The fiscal 2018 ERI budget request also includes $150 million to continue train, equip and advise efforts to build Ukraine’s capacity to conduct internal defense operations to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity and support institutional transformation efforts, according to the fiscal 2018 budget document.

“As we continue to address the dynamic security environment in Europe,” Eucom Commander Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti said in a news release this week, “ERI funding increases our joint capabilities to deter and defend against Russian aggression. These significant investments will further galvanize U.S. support to the collective defense of our NATO allies and bolster the security and capacity of our U.S. partners.”

Allvin said that ERI facilitates Eucom’s capability as a warfighting command “that’s ready with assets, equipment and experience to confront aggression.”

Specific Actions

According to the Eucom news release, in fiscal 2018 the U.S. Army will continue its rotational armored brigade combat team and combat aviation brigade presence.

The Army also will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or ISR, capability; enhance integrated air and missile defense efforts; continue enhanced interoperability and deterrence exercises; and enhance its prepositioned stocks unit sets of equipment.

The Air Force will increase ISR processing, exploitation and dissemination activities with European allies, continue supporting missions such as NATO air policing and theater security, and enhance pre-positioning of contingency air operations equipment. The Air Force also will improve airfield infrastructure and preposition air operations equipment and enablers in NATO ally countries.

The Navy will increase theater anti-submarine warfare support and pre-position anti-submarine warfare equipment. It also will increase surface mine-countermeasure assets, and plan and design for infrastructure improvements in NATO ally countries related to theater anti-submarine warfare and joint reception and staging onward movement and integration.

The Marine Corps will increase its rotational presence throughout the theater and increase pre-positioning assets.

The Defense Department will support NATO and multinational exercises and Eucom’s Joint Exercise Program, participate in NATO very-high-readiness joint task force exercises, and fund multinational information-sharing capability.