By Paritosh Kanti Paul

Bangladeshi militants were behind a bomb-blast last month at a Buddhist pilgrimage site in northeastern Bihar state while Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, was visiting the area, in a plot to avenge violence against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Indian police said Friday.

Two suspected members of Neo-JMB, a faction of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), were arrested by the West Bengal police’s Special Task Force on Thursday and confessed to their involvement in the low-intensity explosion in Bodh Gaya on Jan. 19, task force chief Muralidhar Sharma said. No casualties were reported.

The blast occurred near the Kalachakra grounds just minutes after the Tibetan spiritual guru completed a workshop there. Police said they could not confirm whether the bombs were intended to target the Dalai Lama, 82.

“We had recently detained some people from West Bengal and Assam whose interrogation led to the arrests of these two men. They have confessed they belong to Neo-JMB and that they were involved in the Bodh Gaya attack. They said the attack was meant to retaliate against atrocities committed against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar,” Sharma told BenarNews.

The police recovered “50 kilograms [110.2 pounds] of ammonium nitrate, some other chemicals, electronic devices, gloves and some objectionable literature,” he added.

Neo-JMB is the group that authorities in Bangladesh blamed for a terrorist siege that killed 29 people, including 20 hostages and five gunmen, at an upscale café in Dhaka in July 2016. The extremist group Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack.

Bangladesh shelters about 1 million Rohingya refugees, including 688,000 who fled from Myanmar’s Rakhine state since late August 2017, amid a brutal crackdown by the military and police. It followed attacks on security outposts carried out by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army insurgents.

Nearly 4,400 Rohingya were killed in atrocities allegedly committed by the Myanmar security forces and Buddhist militias, according to a partial list compiled by Rohingya refugee leaders in southeastern Bangladesh and obtained by BenarNews.

On Thursday, Yangee Lee, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, told reporters the violence against the Rohingya minority bore “the hallmarks of a genocide.”

More bombs found

The two suspects arrested this week in West Bengal were identified as Indian nationals Mohammad Paigambar Sheikh, 24, and Jamirul Sheikh, 31, both residents of the state, police said.

Sharma said the two accused men had “planted eight bombs” near the Kalachakra grounds where foreign Buddhist pilgrims were camping to celebrate the month-long Kalachakra festival, but only one went off.

A day after the explosion, officials with the National Investigation Agency (NIA), India’s top counter-terror unit, recovered and defused two unexploded bombs from the site. The NIA, which is investigating the Bodh Gaya attack, will interrogate the suspects, an official told BenarNews on condition of anonymity.

Paigambar, who was trained in 2012 by Bangladeshi handlers, was in touch with JMB chief Salauddin Salehin, Sharma said.

He said raids were continuing across West Bengal to arrest more suspected members of the Bangladeshi terror outfit who were believed to have crossed into India following the attack at the Holey Artisan Bakery café in Dhaka on July 1, 2016.

“Neo-JMB is the party that nurtures Islamic State’s ideology and is responsible for recent atrocities,” Monirul Islam, the chief of Bangladesh’s counter-terrorism and transnational unit, told BenarNews last year.

Since the 2016 siege, Bangladeshi forces have killed dozens of suspected militants in anti-terror raids, Islam said, adding that some Neo-JMB leaders had fled to India.

Bangladeshi militant groups were taking advantage of cultural and linguistic similarities in Indian states including West Bengal, according to Nirmal Dutta, a former Indian intelligence official.

“Ever since the Bangladeshi government began cracking down on terror following the Dhaka attack, Bangladeshi terrorists have taken refuge in West Bengal, where they are actively recruiting Indians to carry out clandestine operations,” Dutta told BenarNews.

While a couple of glasses of wine can help clear the mind after a busy day, new research shows that it may actually help clean the mind as well. The new study, which appears in the journal Scientific Reports, shows that low levels of alcohol consumption tamp down inflammation and helps the brain clear away toxins, including those associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

“Prolonged intake of excessive amounts of ethanol is known to have adverse effects on the central nervous system,” said Maiken Nedergaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., co-director of the Center for Translational Neuromedicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) and lead author of the study. “However, in this study we have shown for the first time that low doses of alcohol are potentially beneficial to brain health, namely it improves the brain’s ability to remove waste.”

The finding adds to a growing body of research that point to the health benefits of low doses of alcohol. While excessive consumption of alcohol is a well-documented health hazard, many studies have linked lower levels of drinking with a reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases as well as a number of cancers.

Nedergaard’s research focuses on the glymphatic system, the brain’s unique cleaning process that was first described by Nedergaard and her colleagues in 2012. They showed how cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is pumped into brain tissue and flushes away waste, including the proteins beta amyloid and tau that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia. Subsequent research has shown that the glymphatic system is more active while we sleep, can be damaged by stroke and trauma, and improves with exercise.

The new study, which was conducted in mice, looked at the impact of both acute and chronic alcohol exposure. When they studied the brains of animals exposed to high levels of alcohol over a long period of time, the researchers observed high levels of a molecular marker for inflammation, particularly in cells called astrocytes which are key regulators of the glymphatic system. They also noted impairment of the animal’s cognitive abilities and motor skills.

Animals that were exposed to low levels of alcohol consumption, analogous to approximately 2 ½ drinks per day, actually showed less inflammation in the brain and their glymphatic system was more efficient in moving CSF through the brain and removing waste, compared to control mice who were not exposed to alcohol. The low dose animals’ performance in the cognitive and motor tests was identical to the controls.

“The data on the effects of alcohol on the glymphatic system seemingly matches the J-shaped model relating to the dose effects of alcohol on general health and mortality, whereby low doses of alcohol are beneficial, while excessive consumption is detrimental to overall health” said Nedergaard. “Studies have shown that low-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a lesser risk of dementia, while heavy drinking for many years confers an increased risk of cognitive decline. This study may help explain why this occurs. Specifically, low doses of alcohol appear to improve overall brain health.”

By Elise Harris

Cardinal Kevin Farrell has reportedly barred several speakers set to address an annual women’s event inside the Vatican over concerns about their LGBT positions, prompting organizers to find another venue.

First held in 2014, the “Voices of Faith” (VoF) event has taken place inside the Vatican’s Casina Pio IV, headquarters of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, every March for the past four years.

Established in 2014, the event is scheduled each year to coincide with the March 8 celebration of International Women’s Day, and typically draws speakers from various backgrounds to give testimonies and speak on a specific theme.

Organizers have relocated the 2018 conference, titled “Why Women Matter,” to another location outside Vatican grounds, after two high-profile speakers didn’t meet the Vatican’s approval: Mary McAleese, former president of Ireland, and Ssenfuka Juanita Warry, who runs a non-profit advocating for LGBT Catholics in Uganda.

According to Chantal Gotz, founder and managing director of VoF, the list of speakers required approval from Cardinal Farrell before the conference could be planned. When he returned a list of approved names, McAleese and Warry were not included.

Farrell heads the Vatican Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, the office in charge of organizing the World Meeting of Families this August and the 2019 international World Youth Day in Panama. Given the topic of this year’s Synod of Bishops, which will reflect on “Faith, young people and the discernment of vocation,” Farrell’s office is also a key player in organizing that event.

It is reported that Farrell made the decision because of the proposed speakers’ opposition to Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

According to a Feb. 2 press release from VoF, as the former president of Ireland McAleese “is no stranger to the Vatican, having held the highest position in public office in a predominantly Catholic country.”

“She is known for her staunch support for gay and women’s rights and has often spoken publicly about her frustrations with her Catholic faith.”

McAleese has previously advocated for same-sex marriage, accusing the Catholic Church of “hypocrisy” for its stance on marriage. She has also publicly advocated for the ordination of women to the priesthood, in opposition to the teachings of the Church expressed in Pope St. John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Warry is also an active campaigner on issues related to homosexuality.

Gotz told CNA she was “stunned” by Farrell’s decision, as, she says, similar issues were not raised as a problem in the past.

She said the conference has previously invited speakers who hold opposing views to the Church’s teaching on major issues such as abortion, contraception and women’s ordination. Some of them have spoken openly about their positions during the event.

According to the press release, the purpose of the VoF event is to “empower and advocate for Catholic women to have a seat at the table of decision making in the Catholic Church.”

The conference, Gotz said, “allows us to…create discussion and dialogue on the current power and leadership structures of our Church today.”

Organizers of VoF opted for a change of location rather than adjusting their rostrum of speakers., and the conference will now take place at the Jesuit Curia in Rome.

“The Jesuits, in true form, have welcomed us and our speakers,” Gotz told CNA, explaining that she is unsure if Cardinal Farrell’s decision will affect future VoF events.

Cardinal Farrell could not be reached for comment.

CNA’s Perry West contributed reporting for this story.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy

Thursday, February 1, 2018, will be unlike any other day in the history of the Indian Ocean archipelago – if only a shade less celebratory than the first multi-party, democratic presidential polls of 2008. In a surprise decision, posted on its website, the five-judge full Bench of the Maldivian Supreme Court unanimously ordered freedom for former President Mohammed ‘Anni’ Nasheed, and all other Opposition leaders. It also restored the membership of 12 parliamentarians disqualified by the Election Commission for ‘defection’ at the behest of President Abdulla Yameen’s faction of the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

The court order, freeing the Opposition leaders, including Jumhooree Party’s (JP) Gasim Ibrahim, religion-centric Adhaalath Party (AP) and Yameen’s nephew, Faaris Maumoon, in turn the heir-apparent of the President’s half-brother and long-term predecessor, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, brought celebratory crowds to the streets. This in turn brought the riots police, who in turn tried to break up the Opposition cadres and supporters, took at least some of them into custody and also burst teargas shells, a rare event in law-maintenance in the country.

For their part, both the Government and the Opposition have been circumspect and cautious. After initially declaring that they were trying to verify the authenticity of the Supreme Court’s web-posting, the Government said that they were “currently working to vet and clarify tonight’s Supreme Court ruling…and comply with the ruling, in line with proper procedure and the rule of law”. Both Nasheed and Gayoom tweeted caution to their supporters, with the former saying that he would abide by ‘advice’ of his party and coalition partners, and not rush to the country, from his self-exile in the UK, where he has obtained ‘political asylum’.

‘Retrial’ still

According to the Maldives Independent, the Supreme Court decision also covered former vice-president, Ahmed Adheeb, ex-defence  minister, Mohamad Nazim, then prosecutor-general Muhuthaz Muhusin, and magistrate Ahmed Nihan. But the order is seemingly silent if the court had gone through the procedures and hearings in arriving at the conclusion it has since announced. If not, this could well have other consequences, if the Yameen government still chose to react that way.

The operative part of the court verdict read thus: “After considering the cases submitted to the Supreme Court about violations of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives and human rights treaties that the Maldives is party to, to conduct politically motivated investigations followed by trials where prosecutors and judges were unduly influenced, the Supreme Court has found that these cases have to be retried according to legal standards,” In context, the Supreme Court said that all those named “should be freed immediately in order to facilitate the retrial and investigation of the cases according to law”.

This could well mean that the Supreme Court has not acquitted all those being ordered free now, from the basic charges levelled against each one of them. Instead, it has only found fault with the procedures adopted.  For instance, the court has not ruled that the case, conviction and 13-year jail term handed down to Nasheed in the ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case’ was bad in law. If anything, it has not even specifically explained the reasons for ordering his freedom.

The Government statement could thus imply that they may seek detailed orders in each of these cases, and consider ‘court-acceptable’ ways of reopening the trial against each one of them, afresh. In Nasheed’s case, for instance, if the SC holds that his trial and conviction under the terrorism law was bad in law and under the Constitution, unless it also holds that no fresh trial was now possible, the Government may still consider the option.

In a nation where Islamic Shariat still has some place in court proceedings, despite the over-arching presence of constantly-updated penal and criminal procedure codes, the views of Judge Abdullah, allegedly Nasheed’s ‘victim’ may have a procedural value if Yameen were still intend on reopening the Nasheed case. Though not on the same lines, the Government could well look for loopholes of other kinds to proceed against others who have since been ‘freed’, after possibly seeking a detailed verdict from the Supreme Court – which however would be a political/personal decision for Yameen to make.

Where it all began

The current turn of events began with all four Opposition leaders, namely, Nasheed, Gayoom, Gasim and Imran Abdulla, moving a joint petition before the Supreme Court, seeking a direction for Yameen to step down, against the various charges of corruption, theft of government properties and  acting against the law, though without citing any specific case. Later, the Opposition explained that they had to move the Supreme Court as Parliament had been rendered ‘ineffectual’.

That all was not well for Yameen this time became clear when incumbent Law Minister Azima Shakoor, attorney-general under President Mohammed Waheed, claimed that the Supreme Court could not ‘impeach’ the President, or rule on the matter until Parliament had cleared it. Yameen himself reacted sharply around the time, declaring that under the Constitution, he had the responsibility to hold the judiciary, police and other institutions of the State accountable and responsible. He also said that police men did not have freedom to political views and activities.

The Maldivian police seem a divided house, what with an early statement that they would enforce the Supreme Court orders, followed by anti-riot action on the ground. In between, Yameen sacked the police commissioner, Ahmed Areef, the nation’s top cop, with the Government claiming that the President was unable to reach him.  After this, the riot police went into action on the streets and a police statement said: “We will use force and will not be responsible for any damage inflicted by using force.”

Incidentally, the Government’s early reaction to the Supreme Court ruling was conveyed by attorney-general Mohamed Anil at a news briefing chaired by defence minister Adam Shareef, where army chief, Maj-Gen Ahmed Shiyam, was conspicuous by his prominent presence. Unconnected with the news briefing, the Opposition lost no time in declaring their intention to move a no-trust motion against attorney-general Anil, a member of the Yameen Cabinet under the law.

Fragile still

From among the four-party Joint Opposition, MDP’s Nasheed was the first one to react, saying that the best thing now was for President Yameen to quit office, gracefully. From the international community, Colombo-based American Ambassador Atul Keshap promptly welcomed the Supreme Court decision and urged the Maldivian army and police to help enforce the same, if at all.

Close to 12 hours after the events unfolding in its ‘traditional sphere of influence’, India waited to comment on the Maldivian developments, as on most occasions. So are those of China and Saudi Arabia, Yameen’s known backers, who may do more possibly than say more. It is not unlikely, China, unused to the nuances of global diplomacy beyond a point, may even dump Yameen, as it has since done with former President Mahinda Rajpaksa in neighbouring Sri Lanka — but may wait as much without being seen as ‘interfering in the internal affairs’ of Maldives just now.

For all the celebrations in the Opposition camp, there is need for greater clarity, both on the Supreme Court’s orders and the future course of judicial, legal and political action. It remains to be seen if the court would take up the joint Opposition leaders’ petition to institute a probe against Yameen, and if so the procedure it would follow. The court also has to clarify the kind of ‘retrial and investigations’ it has in mind for the ‘freed’ leaders, individually more than collectively, and how the Government proposes to take them forward, if Yameen does not oblige them by stepping down.

The Supreme Court orders do not upturn a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament at Yameen’s behest, fixing a 65-year upper-limit for the presidency and vice-presidency, thus ‘disqualifying’ Gayoom and Gasim — that too with Nasheed’s MDP support in Parliament. There is also no knowing what a ‘re-trial’ may have in store for Nasheed and others.

Though Nasheed, even if found guilty, that too between now and the presidential polls, due in November, could contest the polls if fined MRV 1,000 as mentioned under the penal code as it stood at the time, any full, three-year jail-term under the common, criminal law could still lead to his disqualification. What more, both Nasheed and Gasim, now overseas, would have to return home to face re-trial when they could be arraigned for contempt of court after they ‘wantonly’ over-stayed their ‘prison leave’ for obtaining medical treatment, overseas.

If Yameen refuses to oblige the Opposition by quitting office early on, or take refuge overseas, say in friendly Saudi Arabia, if not China (which may be circumspect in the matter, even more), then any possible impeachment, requiring a two-thirds majority in the 85-member Parliament is not going to be as easy as being made out to be in some circles. While the Supreme Court may have woken up to the cause of democracy, and Maldives’ commitment(s) to international law and treaties, as cited in the 1 February order, individual MPs, especially from Yameen’s camp, starting with the five-member Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA), may still weigh their options and also the final legal and political fate of Nasheed and the rest before deciding to help vote out Yameen – where again, the Supreme Court has the final say.

Those that have hailed the Supreme Court verdict now cannot condemn it if it were to rule again any impeachment move against Yameen. It is in this context that the Opposition bid to ‘impeach’ attorney-general Anil becomes a first step as it required only a simple majority in Parliament, which they now have with court-ordered membership-restoration of 12. For now, the nation will have to await word from all five Supreme Court judges that Thursday’s ruling was  theirs and that they stood by it, still.

But Yameen too would require parliamentarry approval for a new appointment for president of the nation’s Election Commission (EC) after incumbent, Ahmed Sulaiman quit, reportedly on demand, again in the midst of other developments just ahead of the Supreme Court’s order.  Though both sides have maintained silence on another of Yameen loyalist’s exit, local media claiimed that the decision followed  the EC’s slow pace in holding fresh polls  to the 12 parliamentary vacancies, which it had fast-tracked  earlier.

This apart, the Joint Opposition would have to prove that they are still united to face the electorate, whether or not Yameen is still eligible to contest the elections. In the nation’s democratic past of 10 years now, the Opposition to the incumbent President of the day has fought more among themselves, and making only ‘strategic sacrifices’ in the decisive second-round, but without the winner not making good his promises to his ‘new-found’ allies, leading to political turmoil of their times.

To this end, Nasheed and Gasim, at first look, may want Yameen’s impeachment or disqualification otherwise, followed by their electoral rights, to be restored before they could think of the presidential polls. Gayoom need not be overly concerned about it all, as such a turn of events could make son Faaris the front-runner for the common Opposition candidate, as the cases against him, including the one for which he was arrested after obtaining bail in another, only a week back, are not as easy to prove as in the case of the rest.

It is another matter, in the past week, Yameen also touched a raw nerve, when the police arrested two of Gayoom’s aides for alleged bid to topple Yameen, as was the case against Faaris, leading to speculation  that he might not stop until taking octogenarian half-brother too into custody. Though Gayoom made more enemies than among fellow Maldivians in the later years of his 30-year presidency, yet, there is a lot of respect for the man, his socio-economic missions in the betterment of the nation and its people – and now his age, too – especially in spheres and circles where it matters.

For the last 100 years, researchers have constantly pushed the boundaries for our knowledge about medicine and how different bodies can respond differently to it. However, the methods for the production of medicine have not yet moved itself away from mass production. Many who have a given illness get the same product with equal amount of an active compound.

This production might soon be in the past. In a new study, researchers from the University of Copenhagen together with colleagues from Åbo Akademi University in Finland have developed a new method for producing medicine. They produce a white edible material. Here, they print a QR code consisting of a medical drug.

“This technology is promising, because the medical drug can be dosed exactly the way you want it to. This gives an opportunity to tailor the medication according to the patient getting it,” said Natalja Genina, Assistant Professor at Department of Pharmacy.

Potential for reducing wrong medication and fake medicine

The shape of a QR code also enables storage of data in the “pill” itself.

“Simply doing a quick scan, you can get all the information about the pharmaceutical product. In that sense it can potentially reduce cases of wrong medication and fake medicine,” said Natalja Genina.

The researchers hope that in the future a regular printer will be able to apply the medical drug in the pattern of a QR code, while the edible material will have to be produced in advance to allow on-demand production of medical drug near end-users.

“If we are successful with applying this production method to relatively simple printers, then it can enable the innovative production of personalized medicine and rethinking of the whole supply chain,” said professor Jukka Rantanen from Department of Pharmacy.

The researchers are now working to refine the methods for this medical production.

A new method could help researchers develop unbiased indicators for assessing complex systems such as population health.

Researchers have developed a complex system model to evaluate the health of populations in some U.S. cities based only on the most significant variables expressed in available data. Their unbiased network-based probabilistic approach to mine big data could be used to assess other complex systems, such as ranking universities or evaluating ocean sustainability.

Societies today are data-rich, which can both empower and overwhelm. Sifting through this data to determine which variables to use for the assessment of something like the health of a city’s population is challenging. Researchers often choose these variables based on their personal experience. They might decide that adult obesity rates, mortality rates, and life expectancy are important variables for calculating a generalized metric of the residents’ overall health. But are these the best variables to use? Are there other more important ones to consider?

Matteo Convertino of Hokkaido University in Japan and Joseph Servadio of the University of Minnesota in the U.S. have introduced a novel probabilistic method that allows the visualization of the relationships between variables in big data for complex systems. The approach is based on “maximum transfer entropy,” which probabilistically measures the strength of relationships between multiple variables over time.

Using this method, Convertino and Servadio mined through a large amount of health data in the U.S. to build a “maximum entropy network” (MENet): a model composed of nodes representing health-related variables, and lines connecting the variables. The lines are darker the stronger the interdependence between two variables.

This allowed the researchers to build an “Optimal Information Network” (OIN) by choosing the variables that had the most practical relevance for assessing the health status of populations in 26 U.S. cities from 2011 to 2014. By combining the data from each selected variable, the researchers were able to compute an “integrated health value” for each city. The higher the number, the less healthy a city’s population.

They found that some cities, such as Detroit, had poor overall health during that timeframe. Others, such as San Francisco, had low values, indicating more favorable health outcomes. Some cities showed high variability over the four year period, such as Philadelphia. Cross-sectional comparisons showed tendencies for California cities to score better than other parts of the country. Also, Midwestern cities, including Denver, Minneapolis, and Chicago, appeared to perform poorly compared to other regions, contrary to national city rankings.

Convertino believes that methods like this, fed by large data sets and analysed via automated stochastic computer models, could be used to optimize research and practice; for example for guiding optimal decisions about health. “These tools can be used by any country, at any administrative level, to process data in real-time and help personalize medical efforts,” said Convertino.

But it is not just for health.

“The model can be applied to any complex system to determine their Optimal Information Network, in fields from ecology and biology to finance and technology. Untangling their complexities and developing unbiased systemic indicators can help improve decision-making processes,” Convertino added.

By Lisa Ferdinando

The Nuclear Posture Review released Friday is a strategy to keep America safe with a deterrent that is modern and credible, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan said today in rolling out the strategy.

The NPR reaffirms that the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear policy is deterrence and continues the clear commitment to non-proliferation and arms control, Shanahan said in a Pentagon press briefing.

Shanahan was joined at the event by Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas A. Shannon Jr.

The review took a whole-of-government approach that involved the Departments of Defense, State and Energy, he said. The effort began in January 2017, when President Donald J. Trump directed the review to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.

The world has changed dramatically since the last review in 2010, Shanahan said.

The NPR takes the evolving threats into consideration in keeping America safe, he said. Both the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy call for a safe, secure, effective nuclear deterrent, he pointed out.

Mattis: ‘Current, Pragmatic Assessment’

The review comes at a critical moment in the nation’s history, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis wrote in the preface of the NPR, adding “America confronts an international security situation that is more complex and demanding than any since the end of the Cold War.”

He cited concerns with activities by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

“We must look reality in the eye and see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be,” Mattis wrote. “This NPR reflects the current, pragmatic assessment of the threats we face and the uncertainties regarding the future security environment.”

There is no “one size fits all” in regards to deterrence, Shanahan said.

“The challenging and dynamic security environment requires steady action to strengthen deterrence,” Shanahan said. “This NPR responds to today’s security needs with a tailored nuclear deterrent strategy.”

Modernization Needed

The Nuclear Posture Review calls for modernizing the nuclear triad — land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft — and command-and-control system.

While the triad has kept the nation safe for more than 70 years, the United States “cannot afford to let it become obsolete,” the deputy said.

The NPR recommends lowering the yield of some existing submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads, and bringing back a nuclear sea-based launched cruise missile, he said.

Those recommendations, Shanahan noted, do not require developing new nuclear warheads and do not increase the size of the nation’s nuclear stockpile. The recommendations align with nonproliferation commitments and strengthen American deterrence, he said.

According to the review, “expanding flexible U.S. nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression.”

Use of Weapons in ‘Extreme Circumstances’

The U.S. does not want to use nuclear weapons, Shanahan said. He noted the NPR says the nation would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies and partners.”

The NPR clarifies longstanding policy that “extreme circumstances” could include “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks,” the deputy secretary said.

The United States now faces a more diverse and advanced nuclear-threat environment than ever before, “with considerable dynamism in potential adversaries’ development and deployment programs for nuclear weapons and delivery systems,” the NPR states.

The review says it candidly addresses the challenges posed by “Russian, Chinese and other states’ strategic policies, programs and capabilities, particularly nuclear.”

In addition, “flexible, adaptable and resilient U.S. nuclear capabilities [are] now required to protect the United States, [its] allies and partners, and promote strategic stability,” according to the review.

The United States currently operates 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines and will continue to take the steps needed to ensure those submarines remain operationally effective and survivable until replaced by the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, the NPR explains.

The intercontinental ballistic missile force consists of 400 single-warhead Minuteman III missiles deployed in underground silos and dispersed across several states.

The United States has initiated the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program to begin the replacement of Minuteman III in 2029. The GBSD program will also modernize the 450 ICBM launch facilities that will support the fielding of 400 ICBMs.

The bomber leg of the triad consists of 46 nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress and 20 nuclear-capable B-2A Spirit “stealth” strategic bombers. The United States has initiated a program to develop and deploy the next-generation bomber, the B-21 Raider. It will first supplement, and eventually replace elements of the conventional and nuclear-capable bomber force beginning in the mid-2020s.

Russian programmer Pyotr Levashov, accused by US prosecutors of being the mastermind behind a large bot net has been extradited to the US from Spain and appeared in court Friday.

In a statement Friday, the US Justice Department said Levashov is “alleged to have controlled and operated the Kelihos botnet which was used to distribute hundreds of millions of fraudulent e-mails per year; intercept credentials to online and financial accounts belonging to thousands of Americans; and spread ransomware throughout our networks.” The suspected hacker appeared before a US Magistrates Court in Connecticut Friday evening.

Levashov pleaded not guilty to all 8 counts against him during his first US court appearance Friday, his Russian’s lawyer Igor Litvak told Sputnik. Litvak said they have “no documents from the prosecutor’s office, no evidence of crime.”

Levashov had previously said his life would be in danger if Spanish authorities complied with the US extradition request, and afraid that he might face torture in the US “in order to extract Russian secrets.”

The programmer is also wanted in Russia on cyber-crime charges, including hacking the site of a medical facility in St. Petersburg and spreading malware. Moscow issued an international warrant for his arrest in August.

The Russian Embassy in the US said it had not been notified of Levashov’s extradition and will request information on his exact whereabouts.

“Of course, we will provide Levashov with all necessary assistance,” the embassy told Interfax.

Justifying its decision, the Spanish Justice Ministry said Levashov faces more serious charges in the US than in Russia, and Washington was the first to demand his extradition.

Furthermore, Spain believes that since Levashov is a Russian citizen, Moscow is unlikely to hand him over to Washington for trial, and therefore, “the crimes he committed there might go unpunished,” Spanish authorities told Sputnik.

Russian programmer Pyotr Levashov, accused by US prosecutors of being the mastermind behind a large bot net has been extradited to the US from Spain and appeared in court Friday.

In a statement Friday, the US Justice Department said Levashov is “alleged to have controlled and operated the Kelihos botnet which was used to distribute hundreds of millions of fraudulent e-mails per year; intercept credentials to online and financial accounts belonging to thousands of Americans; and spread ransomware throughout our networks.” The suspected hacker appeared before a US Magistrates Court in Connecticut Friday evening.

Levashov pleaded not guilty to all 8 counts against him during his first US court appearance Friday, his Russian’s lawyer Igor Litvak told Sputnik. Litvak said they have “no documents from the prosecutor’s office, no evidence of crime.”

Levashov had previously said his life would be in danger if Spanish authorities complied with the US extradition request, and afraid that he might face torture in the US “in order to extract Russian secrets.”

The programmer is also wanted in Russia on cyber-crime charges, including hacking the site of a medical facility in St. Petersburg and spreading malware. Moscow issued an international warrant for his arrest in August.

The Russian Embassy in the US said it had not been notified of Levashov’s extradition and will request information on his exact whereabouts.

“Of course, we will provide Levashov with all necessary assistance,” the embassy told Interfax.

Justifying its decision, the Spanish Justice Ministry said Levashov faces more serious charges in the US than in Russia, and Washington was the first to demand his extradition.

Furthermore, Spain believes that since Levashov is a Russian citizen, Moscow is unlikely to hand him over to Washington for trial, and therefore, “the crimes he committed there might go unpunished,” Spanish authorities told Sputnik.

By Danijel Kovacevic

The staunchly pro-NATO Bilderberg Group has invited Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic to attend its next next invitation-only conference in June in Italy – in what looks like a tribute to her Atlanticist credentials.

Serbia’s Prime Minister, Ana Brnabic, is the only person from the Western Balkans so far to have received an invitation to this year’s Bilderberg group meeting from June 7 to 10 June in Turin, Italy.

Brnabic apparently received the invitation while attending the global business conference in Davos, Switzerland.

The official explanation is that Brnabic was given a call after her presentation at the New Leaders for Europe group meeting at the Davos forum.

As the only prime minister there from the region, Brnabic also participated in the report on migration and borders.

“It is a great honour for Serbia and a great opportunity for us to show our priorities, but also that Serbia is one of the important factors not only in this part of Europe”, Brnabic said on Tuesday.

Belgrade political analyst Cvijetin Milivojevic notes that the Bilderberg group supports NATO integration, free markets, strong ties between the US and Europe and the development of armed forces on the NATO pattern.

“So they did not invite someone from the Serbian government, who is, for example, pro-Russian or pro-Chinese oriented, or even someone who advocates sitting on two chairs. They called Ana Brnabic, who is synonymous [in Serbia] for the Euro-atlantic narrative,” Milivojevic told the RTRS broadcaster in Bosnia’s mainly Serbian entity, Republika Srpska.

Since its inaugural meeting in the Hotel Bilderberg in the Netherlands in 1954, it has become an annual forum for informal discussions, designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.

Every year, between 120 and 150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part.

It is seen as a forum for informal discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world today.

According to the Bilderberg group website, “the meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed”.

It adds: “Thanks to the private nature of the meeting, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”

The Atlantic Council of Serbia said the reason for inviting the Prime Minister of Serbia most likely relates to the topic of this year’s meeting.

“They will probably talk, not about Serbia itself, but probably about the Western Balkans,” Vlade Radulovic, from the Atlantic Council of Serbia, told the media.

However, Daniel Estulin, journalist and author of a critical book and documentary about the Bilderberg group, said that the invite “can’t be good news” for Serbia.

“People who go to the Bilderberg group meeting represent a particular ideology that has nothing to do with nation, state or borders but has everything to do with super-national organizations, and the fact that Serbia’s Prime Minister was invited is a sign of more trouble in your part of the world,” Estulin told BIRN.

US President Donald J. Trump’s inclination to withdraw from a three-year old international agreement that curbs Iran’s nuclear program is likely to strengthen the country’s hardliners even if the withdrawal would put responsibility for mounting economic and social discontent squarely on the shoulder of President Hassan Rouhani’s government.

That is the conclusion from a public opinion poll that shows widespread support for Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, deep distrust of Mr. Trump and the United States, and rising criticism of a government that has failed to raise standards of living, get management of the economy right, and fight corruption.

Iran scholar Esfandyar Batmanghelidj suggested that, taken together, responses in the poll to the nuclear issue and the economy revealed the “economic roots of a new-anti-Americanism” in one of the few Middle Eastern countries where public perceptions of the United States until the rise of Mr. Trump had been largely positive. Tehran and Tel Aviv were the only two major Middle Eastern cities that reacted to the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in New York and Washington with pro-American demonstrations.

Mr. Batmanghelidj said anti-Americanism was increasing because of perceptions that the Trump administration had failed to fulfil its obligations under the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran by the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. “The very idea of diplomacy is being defeated,” Mr. Batmanghelidj said.

More than 80 percent of those surveyed concluded that relations with the US had not improved as a result of the agreement, a stark increase from the 55.7 percent polled in June 2016. 69.2 percent described Mr. Trump as completely hostile towards Iran as compared to 49.6 percent in December 2016.

Some 60 percent asserted that the US had not lifted all the sanctions it was obliged to wave under the agreement, up from 24.5 percent in June 2016. In perhaps one of the more startling responses, the number of Iranians who had an unfavourable or somewhat unfavourable view of Americans rose from 45 percent in July 2014 to 54.5 percent in January of this year.

Three quarters of those surveyed by IranPoll have soured on the nuclear accord. Despite approval of the agreement dropping only 12 points from 87 percent in 2009 to 75.3 percent in January, the poll suggested that a significant majority favoured a hard line on nuclear issues although support for military applications at a mere 1.9 percent was miniscule.

Support for the nuclear accord dropped from 76.5 percent in 2015 to 55.1 percent in January, indicating mounting disillusionment because of the agreement’s failure to produce tangible economic benefits for a majority of the population. That perception was evident in the fact that the sense of lack of economic benefit remained static with 73.8 percent saying in 2016 that they had seen no upside and 74.8 percent expressing a similar sentiment in January.

The 103-question poll raises the question of how the jellying of Iranian foreign, defense, and economic policies will play out. The poll suggests that the public is likely to rally around the Iranian government in support of its refusal to bow to Mr. Trump’s demand for a renegotiation of the nuclear accord.

The question whether the government can address economic and social grievances that recently erupted in widespread anti-government protest is likely to influence attitudes towards the United States as well as the EU that has yet to put flesh on its skeleton of opposition to US tinkering with the nuclear accord.

The EU has so far refrained from putting legal protections in place to protect European companies that invest in Iran against US secondary sanctions should Washington decide to withdraw from the nuclear accord.

Iranian government officials insist that they have heard the complaints expressed in the recent protests. “Growth has not been inclusive,” admits Ali Taiebnia, Mr. Rouhani’s senior economic advisor. Mr. Taiebnia added that “those in charge have heard the message.”

Discussing the Iranian economy, Mr. Taiebnia projected signals of potential change as routine rather than as a response to the protests. He described efforts to reduce the role of the military and the Revolutionary Guards in the economy except for construction as a policy that was being developed for the past three years. Businesses associated with the Guards are believed to account for 15 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared last month in the wake of the protests to put his weight for the first time publicly behind the initiative.

Mr. Taiebnia said an initial study had concluded that “the role of the military in the economy has been exaggerated,” but conceded that a commission had decided that it (the armed forces and the Guards) should withdraw from the services, finance and manufacturing” sectors.

Mr. Taiebnia appeared to downplay this week’s rejection by parliament of the government budget that Mr. Rouhani presented in December on the eve of the protests in a speech in which he focused on corruption. “It’s not important. It will be re-discussed and most probably approved,” Mr. Taiebnia said.

Parliamentarians insisted that the budget needed to address issues such as employment and poverty. The budget’s proposed slashing of cash payments to tens of millions of Iranians was one reason parliament rejected it.

The long and short of the poll’s results is that Iranians are increasingly pessimistic about their economic prospects and that Mr. Trump’s belief that he can force Iran to make concessions on its missile program and support of groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and possibly incite Iranians to revolt against their government could backfire by altering public perceptions of the United States and possibly Europe.

A European move to ensure that it can abide by the nuclear agreement even if the Mr. Trump withdraws could focus Iranian anger exclusively on the US. Some 60 percent of those surveyed expressed confidence that Europe would live up to its obligations.

Perhaps the most troubling poll result is the fact that 67.4 percent of those surveyed concluded from the experience of the agreement that “it is not worthwhile for Iran to make concessions, because Iran cannot have confidence that if it makes a concession world powers will honour their side of an agreement.”

In a further warning sign, 67.3 percent favoured Iran seeking to achieve economic self-sufficiency – a policy pursued by former hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That promises to complicate any future negotiation with Iran.

By a large margin, most Americans believe in God, and most are Christians. It would seem logical that both Republicans and Democrats would try hard not to alienate them, yet time and again the Democrats have managed to do so.

The latest example is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. He blasted the president for mentioning religion in his State of the Union Address. “Here’s a guy that used religion tonight to divide,” Booker said.

Booker did not say whether it was Trump’s pledge to protect people of every creed and religion that bothered him the most. Perhaps it was Trump’s reference to “In God We Trust.” Maybe it was Trump’s remark about the need to have “confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God.” No matter, Booker certainly made a name for himself: God-talk is taboo, at least if invoked by President Trump.

Do Democrats take religion seriously? They say they do. How about Burns Strider? He was Hillary Clinton’s faith adviser when she ran for president in 2008. When Hillary learned that he was sexually harassing her female staff, she refused to fire him. She even overruled her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, who wanted him canned.

The story about Strider broke on January 26, and over the last few days only the Washington Post has shown any interest in discussing his role as a religious advisor. It is a sure bet that had an evangelical leader advising presidential candidate George W. Bush in 2008 been caught harassing female staff members—and allowed to continue—he, and not just Bush, would be raked over the coals when the news broke. Strider, however, is being treated as if he were a deputy campaign manager. Is that because few take religious advisors to the Democratic Party seriously?

There’s a related issue here. It says a lot about the Democrats that someone with such a bare bones religious resume could ascend to the post of Hillary’s senior religious advisor. Strider spent three years in Hong Kong as a youth minister, and that’s about it. He never entered the ministry, and indeed spent more time in policy positions and as a lobbyist than he did in any religious capacity.

Interestingly, Strider’s thin religious credentials did not stop him from being named by Religion News Service as one of the 12 most influential religious leaders in the Democratic Party in 2006. The bar was not set very high: Illinois Senator Barack Obama made the cut.

About the time Strider assumed the role as Hillary’s senior religious advisor, journalist and Democratic operative Amy Sullivan vouched for his credentials; she hailed him for his religious outreach efforts. Sullivan was a vocal critic of the Democrats for allowing the Republicans to capture the hearts and minds of the faithful, and was delighted to see Strider on board. She herself is worth a closer look.

By 2009, Sullivan emerged as a religious advisor to the Democrats. She showcased her chops by hammering the Catholic Church for opposing a bill, the Freedom of Choice Act, that was designed to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Is this what she meant by religious outreach?

The Washington Post article also mentions that Strider worked with Mara Vanderslice in 2004 trying to woo religious voters. After I outed her for her support for an urban terrorist group, ACT-UP (its members invaded St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 during Mass, spitting the Eucharist on the floor), presidential candidate John Kerry silenced her. That didn’t matter to Democrats, however. Two years later she was named one of the most important religious voices in the Democratic Party.

Just after Kerry muzzled Vanderslice, I outed Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, the Senior Advisor for Religious Outreach to the Democratic National Committee. She signed an amicus brief on behalf of atheist Michael Newdow attempting to excise the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. After I broke the news, she quit, blaming me.

Matters continued to go south in 2007 when presidential candidate John Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan to work on his campaign. After I outed them for their anti-Catholic writings, they quit.

In 2012, the Democrats deleted the word “God” from their Platform; they later reversed their decision.

And let’s not forget about the last election. Hillary’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, was outed for her Catholic-bashing remarks, and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, said he wanted to foment a “revolution” in the Catholic Church.

If the Democrats want the public to take them seriously in addressing religious issues, they will have to do better than serve up the likes of Cory Booker. They will also have to show greater scrutiny for “religious leaders” like Burns Strider.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the African American unemployment rate jumped 0.9 percentage points in January to 7.7 percent, putting it just a hair under the 7.8 percent rate of January, 2017.

This was associated with a 0.6 percentage point drop in the employment rate. Typically the African American unemployment rate is twice the white unemployment rate. However, with the white rate dropping to 3.5 percent, it is now substantially higher.

This is disappointing since the 6.8 percent rate in December was the lowest on record. The increase for men was 0.9 percentage points to 7.5 percent. For women the increase was 0.8 percentage points to 6.6 percent, and for teens the rise was 1.4 percentage points to 24.3 percent.

The data for African Americans are highly erratic and it is likely that much of this change is driven by measurement error, but it is nonetheless discouraging to see this reported jump.

Exxon Mobil Corporation announced Friday estimated 2017 earnings of $19.7 billion, or $4.63 per share assuming dilution, compared with $7.8 billion in 2016. U.S. federal tax reform in the fourth quarter resulted in a non-cash earnings gain of $5.9 billion, due to revaluation of deferred income tax balances. Non-cash asset impairments of $1.5 billion were recorded during the year, mainly relating to assets in the Upstream.

Fourth quarter 2017 earnings were $8.4 billion. Earnings excluding U.S. tax reform and impairments were $3.7 billion, or $0.88 per share assuming dilution, in the fourth quarter 2017, down 2 percent compared with the prior-year quarter.

“The impact of tax reform on our earnings reflects the magnitude of our historic investment in the U.S. and strengthens our commitment to further grow our business here,” said Darren W. Woods, chairman and chief executive officer. “We’re planning to invest over $50 billion in the U.S. over the next five years to increase production of profitable volumes and enhance our integrated portfolio, which is supported by the improved business climate created by tax reform.”

ExxonMobil is investing billions of dollars to increase oil production in the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico, expand existing operations, enhance infrastructure and build new manufacturing sites. These high-quality investments will create value for ExxonMobil shareholders while benefiting the economy, creating thousands of jobs and enhancing energy security.

Fourth quarter Upstream earnings were $8.4 billion, including $7.1 billion from U.S. tax reform and asset impairments of $1.3 billion. Fourth quarter earnings excluding U.S. tax reform and impairments increased $1 billion, to $2.5 billion, driven by higher prices as liquids realizations increased more than $10 per barrel.

Downstream earnings in the fourth quarter were $1.6 billion, including $618 million from U.S. tax reform. Earnings excluding U.S. tax reform and impairments declined $289 million, to $952 million, as the absence of last year’s Canada retail divestment gain of $522 million was partially offset by higher margins and asset management gains in the current quarter.

Chemical earnings were $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter. Excluding the $335 million impact from U.S. tax reform, Chemical earnings increased $63 million, or 7 percent, due to higher sales. Prime product sales of 6.8 million metric tons were the highest in a decade.

1 Includes additions to property, plant and equipment and net investments / advances

By Nick Cunningham

Shale companies continue to drill at a frenzied pace, adding rigs and breaking U.S. oil production levels with each passing week. Yet, the oil production is becoming increasingly geographically concentrated. Not only is the Permian basin accounting for much of the new oil production in the U.S., but a relatively small number of counties within the Permian are home to most of that action.

The drilling craze in the Permian has been going on for some time, but activity continues to pick up pace. The rig count in the Permian has surged over the past year, and jumped by 18 in the most recent week for which data is available, to 427, the highest total for the basin since early 2015.

But the Permian encompasses a wide swath of territory, and the rig increases are really concentrated in surprisingly small geographical area.

The rig count in the sub-basins of the Delaware and Midland has jumped by 54 since last summer, rising to 388. There are 25 counties located within these two sub-basins, but really, 95 percent of drilling activity is located in just 12 of them, according to a research note by Standard Chartered. Digging deeper, roughly half of that activity is located in just four counties — Midland, Reeves, Lea and Eddy.

Against that backdrop, the shale bonanza “has an increasingly narrow base,” Standard Chartered analysts wrote, growing rapidly in this core area at a time of “sluggish activity elsewhere.” For U.S. oil production, that may not necessarily be a problem, as long as the region can handle the blistering pace of drilling.

Fourth-quarter earnings will be released in the next few days and weeks, and if the shale industry continues to report strong production gains from this small geographical footprint, “then the Midland and Delaware basins seem set to lead strong U.S. growth in 2018,” the investment bank said.

However, because so much drilling is concentrated in such a relatively small area, the risk is that bottlenecks will start to crop up. The strain on gathering lines, pipelines, processing facilities, plus a shortage of fracking crews, labor and/or equipment will become a point of focus as production continues to mushroom. If a number of shale companies raise concerns about infrastructure or other equipment and services bottlenecks in these areas, Standard Chartered says the heady growth forecasts for U.S. shale “may disappoint.”

Anecdotally, at least, there have been stories of bottlenecks for more than a year. So far, there has been no obvious impact on overall output. Production from the Permian is exploding, and plenty of market forecasts predict the U.S. will add upwards of 1 million barrels per day over the next year; some say more.

Still, there is some evidence that the cost of oilfield services is on the rise. A wider metric that captures total costs for the shale industry also points to cost inflation. This would be consistent with a tighter market for services and equipment. But again, thus far, the production figures continue to climb unimpeded.

One factor to keep in mind going forward is that the U.S. EIA is planning on tweaking the way it reports its production figures. Because the weekly production data — a closely watched figure that has a great deal of influence on short-term fluctuations in oil prices — is only an estimate based on the best available data to the agency, it can’t paint a precise picture of what is going on at the ground level with 100 percent accuracy. The EIA has tried to make this clear, but it comes under fire when the data is revised in subsequent weeks and months as better data becomes available.

In response, moving forward the EIA will report production figures rounded up to the nearest 100,000 bpd. As such, the most recent data, for instance, shows that the U.S. produced 9.919 mb/d for the week ending on January 26. Under the revised system, that figure would appear as simply 9.9 mb/d. That, the agency argues, will make it clear that the figure is an estimate and not intended to be a precise measurement. This may prevent media types (*ahem*) from reading too much into a figure that inherently involves a bit of guesswork.

The flip side is that the data will get more clunky. Standard Chartered argues that because the data will likely stay the same for the next several weeks (at 9.9 mb/d) and then suddenly jump to 10.0 mb/d, it may have a jarring impact on market psychology. “The proposal seems a retrograde step to us, designed more to create a defensive shield of opaqueness around what has unfortunately become a political number, rather than to improve transparency in the market place,” Standard Chartered analysts wrote.

Regardless of one’s view, the best bet is to keep an eye on the monthly figures, which are more accurate, although published on a lag. For that, the EIA reported on Wednesday that the U.S. produced a staggering 10.038 mb/d in November, a massive jump of 384,000 bpd from a month earlier.

Based on that figure, at least as of November, the shale industry was not being held back by any bottlenecks.

Source: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Can-The-Shale-Boom-Avoid-These-Bottlenecks.html

By Tomas Liutkus*

By Aline Piva*

Brazil has just taken another step toward the dismantling of its democracy. On January 24, an appeals court confirmed a previous ruling against former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Workers’ Party), sentencing him to over 12 years in jail.

Although there is no consensus among legal experts about what will happen next (some say Lula could be incarcerated by the end of next month), the political implications of this decision are, without a doubt, enormous.

Lula’s sentencing was met with protests both in Brazil and internationally. The legality of the process against him has been questioned, not only due to lack of evidence, but also because it is probably one of the most emblematic cases of how the legal process can be instrumentalized to pursue a political agenda. However, the case against Lula is just another link in a long chain of events that has led to the steady deterioration of democracy and the Rule of Law in Brazil.

Much like the unconstitutional impeachment that led to the removal of democratically elected president Dilma Rousseff, what we see now is the result of a coordinated maneuver to undermine the political project that was being implemented by the Workers’ Party. This political maneuver gained traction with the support of Brazil’s political and economic elites, aided by the judiciary and the media.

The Case Against Lula

On July 2017, a low-level judge, Sérgio Moro, charged Lula with nine and a half years in jail for passive corruption and money laundering. The prosecution claims that the former President received a bribe from one of Brazil’s largest construction companies, OAS, in the form of a beachfront apartment. In exchange, Lula allegedly provided OAS with an undue advantage on contracts with Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company. The charge of money laundering, subsequently, is related to Lula’s alleged concealment of the property.

Several experts question the legality of the case. One of the most striking features of the entire process is the lack of evidence. After three years of a massive police operation — which has reportedly violated basic principles of due process, acted against the Brazilian Constitution, hindered the Defense, and deprived Lula of his basic human rights — the prosecutors were still not able to produce any concrete evidence to support their case. In the 218-page document presented by Moro, he failed to provide documentary proof that Lula was indeed the owner of the apartment. Furthermore, there were no elements that could assert that Lula was the author, co-author, or shareholder of the contracts deemed detrimental to Petrobras, or that any unlawful acts were carried out by OAS. Rather, Moro’s case is based on the testimony of José Adelmário Pinheiro Filho, also known as Léo Pinheiro, a former OAS executive who had his own sentence reduced by more than 80% after he changed his testimony to accuse Lula of illegal deeds. Pinheiro is not a witness, but rather, a co-defendant in this case, and as such he is under no legal obligation under Brazilian law to tell the truth or to present any proof for his testimony.

What began as a (much-needed) investigation into the historical corruption that has been afflicting Brazil for decades rapidly acquired a flagrant political character. According to the Frente Brasil de Juristas pela Democracia (Brazil Front of Jurists for Democracy),

The criminal case […] resulted in a sentence that revealed a trial based on the willingness to convict of the judge to sustain the decision; that uses the criminal process of exception typical of authoritarian regimes. The judge allows for wide use of the Law in order to combat a ‘greater evil’, systemic corruption, and proceeds to disrespect the legal principle of [presumption of] innocence […].

The swiftness of the appeals court to review Lula’s case is also suspicious. Other proceedings were postponed so that Lula’s trial could take place on January 24, the first available date after the summer recess. For Supreme Court Justice Luis Roberto Barroso, it was important, “in the name of judicial security and stability of the democratic game, […] to define very soon what the rules will be, who can be a candidate”. If there was any doubt, the justice’s statement makes it even more evident that what is at stake is not the prosecution of a corruption case, but rather the upcoming presidential elections.

Lula’s conviction perfectly shows how the law can be misused for political purposes. There is a judge that has carte blanche to act beyond the scope of the Law, who frequently goes to the media to taint the image of the accused, and who uses his position for personal gain. Neither impartiality nor a fair trial can in any way be expected. As Juarez Cirino dos Santos, a Brazilian lawyer that has been working very closely with Lula’s defense team points out, the

Judicial violence against the constitutional principles of due process, even if examined only from the general point of view […], and even disregarding more visceral nullities that definitely invalidate the process, already configures sufficient material to determine the complete annulment of the criminal proceedings against Lula.

But one might wonder: if the case against Lula is so obviously botched, how has it manage to get this far?

“Judicial Activism” and Criminalization of Politics

For anyone who does not follow Brazilian politics closely, the political turmoil that has engulfed the largest country in Latin America during the past two years may have come as a shock. Yet the level of breakdown of the Rule of Law that Brazilians are currently experiencing cannot be achieved overnight. There needed to be a collective mindset that allowed a progressive undermining of individual and political rights in the name of the “greater good,” with little to no reaction. It is something similar to the “war on terror”: first, a state of constant fear must be created – fear for personal well-being, fear for life, fear for anything deemed valuable. Afterwards, an enemy must be chosen. Lastly, new, damaging jurisprudence is introduced on a case-by-case basis in order to make people feel that they are not directly affected.

For this process to occur, a series of elements need to align. First of all, a Judiciary that knows no boundaries. In 1988, when Brazil emerged from a 21-year-long military dictatorship, one of the social pacts that needed to be restored was the Constitution. According to Rogério Dultra dos Santos, a Brazilian law professor, “one of the actors who renewed itself with the [re]democratization and empowered itself with the Constitution of 1988 […] was the Judiciary.” Although the constitution was being re-written, it reproduced and maintained much of the legal apparatus that was in place during the dictatorship. Reproducing the logic of that model, says Santos, the, “Brazilian Judiciary [acts] as a countermajoritarian force, unelected, with the capacity to exercise the so-called ‘balance’ between [State] powers […]” under no regulation from the other branches of government, and even less, from the people. That superpower, Santos continues, creates a destabilizing force in the “relationship between law and politics” known as “judicial activism” or “judicialization of politics.” Thus, Santos points out, “the general political paradigm of exception oriented not only the renewal of institutional reactionaryism of the Brazilian Judiciary. It has [stimulated] the differentiation in the normative treatment between citizens and those considered undesirable or enemies of society, easing or even suppressing procedural guarantees.”

The Brazilian Judiciary is perhaps one of the most elitist institutions in the country, replicating its hierarchical social structure throughout Brazil. Shielded from public scrutiny and control, the Judiciary is driven by short-term opportunistic impulses generated by moments of commotion – which are largely driven by the stimulus coming from the media, the second most important element in this equation. According to Santos,

The [Brazilian] contemporary criminal system begins to operate in tune with economic and political interests reinforced by the mass media, in the so-called phenomenon of criminal populism. […] The state of exception formula applied to the punitive system eliminates normative control over repressive activity, allows for differentiated public policies for different social extracts […] and is justified by the emotional approval of the population through the media, […] instead of justifications of a legal, analytical and technical nature.

Indeed, many Brazilians have suffered these double standards, particularly low-income, black men living in Brazilian slums; a quick look at the astonishing statistics of the Brazilian prison system is a cruel illustration of this disparity. But in 2005, this logic of instrumentalization of the judicial system to achieve specific social interests started to be applied to the realm of politics. During that year, Brazilian authorities uncovered what was called at the time the “biggest corruption scandal in Brazil’s history”, known as the “mensalão” scheme. It was back then that many of the legal precedents that now allow Moro to act as if the Constitution and the basic principles of due process, such as in dubio pro reo (presumption of innocence), are mere suggestions. For example, one of the most iconic moments of that case was when Supreme Court Justice Rosa Weber said, during her ruling against Lula’s former chief of staff, José Dirceu, that she did not have “definitive evidence” against him, but that she would convict Dirceu anyway, since the “legal literature” allowed her to do so. This shameful episode in Brazilian legal history was recently re-enacted by the prosecutors in charge of Lula’s case, who said that they did not have any document-based evidence connecting Lula to the infamous apartment, but that they had a “strong belief” that he was guilty.

Of course, State-led political persecution is nothing new. Yet the past year’s events stand out in that they are being carried out “under the veil of a Democratic State of Law, and under the appearance of the normal functioning of its political institutions,” as Santos points out. This is true for the judicial persecution against Lula and also applies to Rousseff’s illegal impeachment. Once again, “the country observes the establishment of the state of exception” through the action of an increasingly politicized judiciary – the modus operandi of dictatorships. Furthermore, the media plays a crucial role in this process. Mass media operates in Brazil as a political power. As Santos defined, “guided by economic and political interests not reachable by the public, without any limits and control over their activities and concentrated in the hands of a few [and] capable of producing the narrative that it wishes in order to preserve its interests”, Brazilian mass media has been able, over the years, to have a real, profound effect on the course of Brazilian politics. For the Brazilian mass media, Moro is the hero who will save the country from pernicious corruption and Lula and the Workers’ Party are the villains that invented it… and all evidence of right-wing corruption going back decades, or that may tarnish the reputation of right-wing parties and politicians, is just a footnote.

Burying a Political Project

The political project implemented by the Workers’ Party in its 13 years of government was perceived not only as a threat to the Brazilian political establishment (Lula’s election was the first time in over 50 years that an opposition party came to power), but also to the privileges of the economic ruling class. Unable to regain the country’s presidency through democratic elections, Brazil’s economic and political elites instead planned a political scheme to bring down a democratically elected president through illegal and unconstitutional means, imposing an economic and social agenda that had been rejected by the Brazilian people in four consecutive elections.

Although Brazil has a long history of democratic ruptures (which is also quite telling since those ruptures always occur during periods of social progress in the country), one of the most striking features of recent events, starting with the coup against Rousseff, is the instrumentalization of the legal framework and process to lend formal legitimacy to the illegitimate overthrow of power. Following this logic, the current de facto government would need to win the next presidential elections to continue to present itself as a “legitimate government” – even though it is to be expected that those elections will be nothing more than an undemocratic sham, comparable to what is happening now in Honduras. However, the coalition that staged the coup against Rousseff now faces a dilemma: not only were they unable to reach a consensus on a viable candidate to carry out their neoliberal agenda, but they were also unable to damage Lula’s popularity. Despite the constant flux of accusations against him, Lula is still the frontrunner. If the elections were held today, Lula would probably win in the first round (recent polls shows him with 38% of voter intention), and his return would represent the complete failure of last year’s coup and the interruption of the neoliberal program currently being implemented by Michel Temer. Thus, the need for the outrageous case against the popular favorite.

Despite right-wing wishes to the contrary, it is vital to note that although Moro, the prosecution, and even Justices from the Supreme Court are trying to politicize Lula’s case, the confirmation of his conviction does not prevent him from running in the next presidential elections. Lula has the right to present his candidacy, although it would probably be contested shortly after his registration and a higher court would probably prevent him from taking office, due to the Brazilian “Clean Record Law” (Lei da Ficha Limpa), that prevents candidates whose sentences are confirmed by an appeals court to hold office. The report presented by the Frente Brasil de Juristas pela Democracia states that even though Electoral authorities seem to be in a hurry to define the 2018 electoral scenario without Lula, the latest development in his case will not prevent him from presenting his candidacy. The Workers’ Party has already announced his pre-candidacy, and according to Brazilian electoral law, he will be able to exercise his electoral rights until all legal formalities regarding his case are exhausted.

What’s Next for Brazil?

One of the most distinct features of any democracy is the fact that litigations are not subject to the scrutiny of a discretionary power. Rather, democratic societies build independent, secular institutions to guarantee, to the best of their abilities, that each and every person subjected to its rule is treated with as much equality as possible. However, the case against Lula is, to say the least, one of the most sordid examples of systematic violation of these principles. Indeed, Lula’s candidacy is at stake. His freedom is at stake. But more than that, what is at stake now is the future of Brazilian society and the vitality of democracy in Latin America’s largest country. As writer Guilherme Santos Mello points out,

In a coup d’état, one can know when it starts, but it is almost impossible to predict its end. The fear of those who promoted the coup [against Rousseff] to bear the political and legal costs of what they did […] forces them to deepen the state of exception rather than soften it in the hope of promoting the ultimate destruction of their opponents. The only way out is to amplify the arbitrariness, to hunt down its enemies and to remain in power. As in 1968, the prospect of a free and truly democratic electoral process profoundly shocks the coup advocates […].

After going to such lengths to regain power, it is clear that Brazil’s economic and political elites will not let go easily — no matter what it takes.

*Aline Piva is a Brazilian political analyst based in Washington, D.C. She is Assistant Deputy Director and Coordinator of the Brazil Research Unit at the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, a D.C.-based think tank on Latin American affairs. She is also a collaborator of the political blog Nocaute, a project led by Brazilian writer Fernando Morais. This article was originally published by New Socialist | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Additional editorial support provided by Larry Birns and Liliana Muscarella.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the West has believed that terrorism emanates from Islam and Muslims fight the West, its lifestyle and thought. The editor of the French newspaper Le Monde French newspaper “Jean Marie Colombani” has expressed it in his writing, “The Muslims’ hatred of the West is caused by their jealousy of the success and wealth that the West enjoys and represents”.

Many of them, including the American-British historian Bernard Lewis, have justified the existence of violence among Muslims—the violence that leads to their backwardness. There are many such views that confer the status of “terrorist” on Muslims only. Some of them describe Muslims as savages aiming at purifying mankind from the world of disbelief. Some of them have covered Islam with what it has nothing to do, by defaming its form and considering it a religion based on supremacy and oppression. They consider that Islam has no relation with respect to ensuring freedom and tolerance, protecting any covenant or maintaining any treaty. They think Islam is “exploiter” in regard to negotiating and breaking the treaties, that is, if it finds any profit in negotiating treaty it does, and when that profit is achieved, it breaks the treaty.

Undoubtedly Islam strongly emphasizes on supporting the weak and protecting the life and dignity. So the fight is not waged but only for the same reason, as Allah Almighty said, “And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?” (4:75). Islam also urges to prevent the sedition [Fitnah] and ensure freedom, as mentioned in the divine speech “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers” (2:193). And “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” (8:39)

Islam also urges to restore the usurped freedoms. It is therefore not an instrument of oppression or force and hence fighting is hateful, as Allah Almighty says, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you” (2:216).  There are some reasons which make fighting obligatory, however it is governed by laws, as the Quranic verses read, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” 92:190) and “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]” (8:61)

In light of the aforementioned discussion, can we ask? Where is terrorism in Islam? When was it that Muslims were aggressors or attackers since the advent of Islam till our modern era? Were they so in the Battle of Badr, for example? They had been treated brutally by the enemies, driven out of their homeland and deprived of their wealth and homes? Or in the battle of Uhad? The Army of the Enemy had marched to Medina. Or in the Battle of the Trench [Khandaq]? The enemies had colluded together and become an army that wanted to invade the Madina. If the Muslims defend their homeland, wealth and dignity, does it mean they are terrorists?

The Muslims in the era of the Prophet [peace be upon him] and after him in the era of the companions [Sahaba] were threatened with the sudden violent attack by the forces who used to see Islam with contempt and hostility. So the “defensive war” was immensely necessary at that time. The fight of Islam was defensive and not offensive. It is necessary to understand that sometimes defence wears the dress of offence merely for reasons such as, preventing the obstacles in the preaching of Islam, applying and propagating the principles of humanity, brotherhood, equality among the servants of Allah and social security and deterring the strong from oppressing the weak.  So in order to prevent oppression, the Muslims used to lie in ambush. This was the time when the king of Persia was planning to kill the prophet (peace be upon him), when Hercules [Harqul in Arabic] killed everyone who converted to Islam in Syria, Islam was badly treated and when the expectants were looking for an opportunity to wage sudden violent attack on Muslims. At that time, it was not wise waiting for the enemy to invade the homes of Muslims, and hence the defence wore the dress of offence. This kind of war in the modern term is called the “preventive war”.

As for the wars fought by Muslims or their negotiated covenants, they were always governed by the Islamic laws which oblige Muslims to establish peace at the first signs, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.” (8:61). So Peace is a permanent slogan and a distinguishing feature of the followers of Islam, unlike war which becomes necessary only when all roads of peace are blocked, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you” (2:216). War is a temporary commitment which stops with the end of sedition [Fitnah] and its necessity, Allah Almighty says, “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” (8:39)

In the state of fighting and war, the right to life is protected for non-combatants such as old men, children and women, with special care of the injured, and this happens without breaking the covenant if the other party respects its provisions, as mentioned in the divine speech “Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].” (9:6). Islam categorically prohibits sudden violent attack prior to announcing the notice and explicit information.

Islam made this prohibition 1400 years ago, that is, much before than the contemporary laws, which included this prohibition during the Hague Convention of 1907, stipulating the condition that “The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war”. The Muslims committed themselves to this prohibition and did not fight but to defend their rights and lives when they were attacked by the enemy or when it appeared that the enemies are preparing for attack. The history is the best witness to that.

The intention of Islam behind ordering Muslims to prepare for confronting the enemies and those who prey on the physical and moral strength was only for preserving peace by intimidating and terrorizing the enemies until their hopes and fantasies, which envisage victory and domination are vanquished. So they will not dare to attack and oppress, as mentioned in the divine speech “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged” (8:60). It should be known here that Islam is not only against the aggressive war but also against terrorism, vandalism and corruption, “whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs” (5:32). It should also be borne in mind that it is necessary to confront the usurper who perpetrates the acts of looting, killing and vandalism.

Islam urges peaceful co-existence among Muslims and all non-Muslims. It calls for establishing goodness and benevolence as long as these non-Muslims are in peace. “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (60:8)

No matter whether the people of other religions i.e. non-Muslims are expatriates or part of the Islamic community, Islam guarantees for them all rights and privileges as equally as for Muslims, such as freedom, justice, care and protection with regard to opinion, religion, practice of economic and commercial activities, and establishment of religious rituals, even if they are from a country hostile to the people of Islam as long as they have been allowed to enter their homes.

Also as per the majority of jurists, the money of the expatriates acquired in the lands of Islam remain as their property, that is, even if they return to their homes and fight Muslims, they will not lose their ownership of the money. No interference will be made into their personal affairs. They will be allowed to follow as per the requirements of their religions, even if they are contrary to Islam. So it is allowed for the Christians, for example, to eat pork and drink wine. Similarly the Majus (Magi; Zoroastrians) are allowed to marry their daughters; despite the fact that there is a flagrant violation of the fundamentals of Islam and its rules in this regard.

The Ameer al-Mumineen Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz wrote to Imam Hasan al-Basari, seeking the religious decree [fatwa] “Why the rightly guided caliphs left the people of Dhimmah who marry the Maharim, drink alcohol and eat pigs?” Al-Hasan al-Basri replied: “You are follower and not the innovator [Mubtad’i]”

(Translated from Arabic by Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi. This article was published by New Age Islam.)

The Global SDG7 Conference on Energy will be held from February 21 to 23 in Bangkok, Thailand with stakeholders set to discuss progress in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) on Energy.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set out 17 Goals and 169 targets, which jointly constitute a comprehensive plan of action to eradicate poverty and ensure sustainable development. SDG7 is the first-ever universal goal on energy, and includes targets for access, renewables and energy efficiency.

Organized by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), along with the Ministry of Energy, Thailand, the Conference will provide a platform for stakeholder from across sectors to examine the trends and gaps toward the achievement of SDG7. This will include inter-linkages with other SDGs, means of implementation, including finance, capacity building and innovation, and key areas for policy action and collaboration.

Ministers and representatives from UN agencies and civil society will participate in the high-level segment from February 22 to 23 , where they will share leadership perspectives on accelerating SDG7 implementation. Over 1,000 participants are expected to attend.

According to organizers the outcome of the Global SDG7 Conference will provide substantive input to the upcoming High-Level Political Forum in New York in July, which will serve as a first critical milestone to take stock of progress toward SDG7 to-date including energy’s linkages with other SDGs and reflect on the way forward to accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

Sri Lanka’s Cabinet approved a proposal by Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development Minister Mahinda Amaraweera, to establish a think tank forum for the progress of the fisheries sector.

The forum would include economists, environmentalists, lawyers, marine engineers, Naval and wave architects, social welfare representatives of the fisheries and tourism industries, and fishermen.

The forum is expected to formulate a policy for sustainable use and management of Sri Lankan marine resources towards achieving economic development.