A team from the Institute of Forest Sciences at the University of Freiburg shows that the extraction of ground water for industry and households is increasingly damaging floodplain forests in Europe given the increasing intensity and length of drought periods in the summer. The scientists have published their results in the journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.

Floodplain forests dominated by oaks are among the most at risk in Europe. Through conversion to arable land and pastures, as well as settlements, they have lost most of their original distribution. River regulation and drainage have also changed the natural hydrologic balance.

The introduction of pests and diseases decimates native tree species such as elm and ash. At the same time, these forests play an important part in the control of flooding and protection of biodiversity.

The root of the study by the Freiburg team was the observation that the vitality of old trees in the oak forests of the Rhine valley had significantly declined, and their mortality appeared to have markedly increased. Forest ecologist Prof. Dr. Jürgen Bauhus’ work group then investigated whether these trends could also be discerned from the growth patterns of trees and whether they were connected with the widespread extraction of ground water for industry and households. Pumping water can reduce the groundwater level so far that even deep-rooted oaks cannot reach it.

So the forestry scientists studied the annual growth rings of young and old trees at locations with and without noticeable extraction of ground water, in three forests of English oak in the Rhine valley, between the Freiburg Mooswald and the Hessisches Ried near Lampertheim. Their analysis of the statistical connections between the width of growth rings and climate data shows that the annual stem growth of oaks is negatively affected by summer drought. At locations with lowering of the groundwater, the sensitivity of oak growth to the summer droughts increased markedly since the start of groundwater extraction, which started 49 years ago or earlier at the different study sites. In contrast, the sensitivity of the annual ring growth remained relatively stable over time in oaks at sites without groundwater extraction. Another difference between locations with and without extraction of ground water, according to Georgios Skiadaresis, PhD student and lead author of the study, is: “Oaks with contact to groundwater can recover better in phases of favorable weather conditions, as can be seen from greater annual ring growth. But this is far less the case for oaks without contact to groundwater.” The researchers’ hypothesis that young oaks are less affected by the lowering of the groundwater, because their root system could be more adaptable than that of old oaks, was not confirmed.

The results of the study clearly show that the extraction of ground water below oak floodplain forests will worsen the negative effects of climate change. The authors indicate that adaptive strategies in other sectors, such as irrigation by agriculture, should not take place at the expense of the health of these forests. They recommend reducing rather than increasing the extraction of ground water from floodplain forests, to maintain the vitality of the trees in these ecosystems in the long term.

Japan’s government should stop forcing transgender people to be surgically sterilized if they want legal recognition of their gender identity, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Requiring a medical intervention as a condition of having their gender identity legally recognized violates Japan’s human rights obligations and runs counter to international medical standards.

The 84-page report, “‘A Really High Hurdle’: Japan’s Abusive Transgender Legal Recognition Process,” documents how Japan’s Gender Identity Disorder Special Cases (GID) Act harms transgender people who want to be legally recognized but cannot or do not want to undergo irreversible medical procedures like sterilization.

“Japan should uphold the rights of transgender people and stop forcing them to undergo surgery to be legally recognized,” said Kanae Doi, Japan director at Human Rights Watch. “The law is based on an outdated premise that treats gender identity as a so-called ‘mental illness’ and should be urgently revised.”

In Japan, transgender people who want to legally change their gender must appeal to a family court under the GID Act, which was introduced in 2004. The procedure is discriminatory, requiring applicants to be single and without children under age 20, to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to receive a diagnosis of “gender identity disorder,” and to be sterilized. This is regressive and harmful. The requirements rest on an outdated and pejorative notion that a transgender identity is a mental health condition, and compel transgender people to undergo lengthy, expensive, invasive, and irreversible medical procedures.

The report is based on interviews with 48 transgender people, as well as with lawyers, health providers, and academics from 14 prefectures in Japan.

Transgender people told Human Rights Watch that Japan’s law infringes on their rights. One transgender man said: “I don’t want to [have surgery], to be honest. However, I have to just because it is a requirement…I feel pressured to be operated on – so terrible.”

Others explained the trade-offs they felt forced to make. “Of course I want to change the gender on my official family register, and have relationships with my significant other,” said a transgender woman in Tokyo. “But the walls that I have to overcome are just too big.”

In recent years, regional human rights courts and other rights bodies have found that legal requirements such as Japan’s violate international human rights law. In 2013, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture noted that transgender people being “required to undergo often unwanted sterilization surgeries as a prerequisite to enjoy legal recognition of their preferred gender” was a human rights violation and called on governments to prohibit the practice.

Medical experts have urged governments to remove medical requirements from legal gender recognition.

The World Health Organization (WHO) published its new International Classification of Diseases, which removes “gender identity disorders” from the “mental disorders” section much like the American Psychological Association did in 2012.

The new edition of the ICD will be presented to World Health Assembly member countries in May 2019 for endorsement. It reframes “gender identity disorders” as “gender incongruence,” and moves the diagnosis from the chapter on “mental disorders” to a chapter on sexual health.

In January 2019, Japan’s Supreme Court, ruling on the case of a 43-year-old transgender man who did not want to be sterilized, upheld a lower court ruling that the sterilization requirement did not violate Japan’s constitution. However, the four-judge bench noted that “it cannot be denied that there is an aspect in which freedom from invasion of the physical body is restricted.”

Two of the justices recognized the urgency of the situation, and the need to reform the law. “The suffering that [transgender people] face in terms of gender is also of concern to society that is supposed to embrace diversity in gender identity,” the two justices wrote in their concurring opinion. They concluded that for transgender people, being “able to receive rulings of changes in recognition of gender status…is an important, perhaps even urgent, legal benefit.”

Japan’s national government has, in recent years, taken several positive steps toward recognizing and protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, Human Rights Watch said.

The Education Ministry issued a “Guidebook for Teachers” in 2016 that outlines how to treat LGBT students in schools. In 2017, the ministry announced that it had revised the national bullying prevention policy to include LGBT students.

In 2018, in anticipation of hosting the 2020 Olympics, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government passed a law that states “the [city government], citizens, and enterprises may not unduly discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.” Japan has also voted for two UN Human Rights Council resolutions to end violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The Supreme Court raised serious doubts about Japan’s legal gender recognition law,” Doi said. “The government needs to revise its laws to meet its international human rights obligations and international medical norms.”

Iran’s missile program is destabilizing the Middle East, and Tehran risks starting a regional arms race by supplying weapons to armed groups in Lebanon and Yemen, a senior US arms control official said on Tuesday.

“Iran must immediately cease activities related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and halt the proliferation of missiles and missile technology to terror groups and other non-state actors,” Yleem Poblete, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, said in a speech to the UN-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland.

“Iran’s missile program is a key contributor to increased tensions and destabilization in the region, increasing the risk of a regional arms race,” she said, denouncing Iran’s support to the Houthi movement in Yemen and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

She said Iran had provided ballistic missiles to the Houthis that were fired into Saudi Arabia and unmanned aerial systems to Houthi groups that enable strikes against land-based targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. “We are committed to aggressively countering Iran’s regional proliferation of ballistic missiles and its unlawful arms transfers,” she said.

US President Donald Trump said when he quit the 2015 deal that lifted international sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear activities that the agreement failed to rein in Iran’s missile program or curb its regional meddling.

The US has accused Iran of defying a UN Security Council resolution by carrying out a ballistic missile test and two satellite launches since December.

Poblete urged “all responsible countries” to enforce UN Security Council resolutions restricting the transfer of missile-related technologies to Iran. She also accused Iran of “pursuing pharmaceutical-based agents for offensive purposes,” but did not provide details.

Harvard scholar and Iranian affairs expert Dr. Majid Rafizadeh said Iran had the largest ballistic program in the Middle East. “Through its ballistic missile program, the Iranian regime appears determined to escalate tensions in the region and seek every opportunity to project its power in order to reassert its hegemony,” he said. “The international community ought to hold Tehran accountable for its military adventurism and violations of international standards.”

Political commentators sympathetic to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Fatah movement in particular fanned out as soon as news of Mohammed Shtayyeh’s appointment as the new Palestinian prime minister was announced.

It is no surprise to witness this gush of support and enthusiasm, for Shtayyeh is a Fatah man par excellence. Gone are the days of the factional uncertainty of Rami Hamdallah, the independent prime minister who served from 2014 until he was brushed aside earlier this year. 

Hamdallah, like his predecessor Salam Fayyad, was meant to perform a most intricate balancing act: “Independent” enough to win the approval of some Palestinian political factions, including Hamas; worldly enough to appeal to Western governments and deal with their endless demands and expectations; and morally flexible enough to co-exist with the massive corruption racket in operation in Ramallah. 

However, Hamdallah, in particular, represented something more. He was brought to his position to lead reconciliation efforts between Fatah in Ramallah and its Gaza rivals, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Although the Gazan groups had their reservations, they still felt Hamdallah was a genuine and moderate leader capable of bridging the gap and, perhaps, delivering the coveted unity. 

Hamdallah had, indeed, gone that extra mile. He went as far as visiting Gaza in October 2017. However, some hidden entity did not want unity to actualize among Palestinians. On March 13, 2018, a massive explosion took place soon after Hamdallah’s entourage had entered Gaza to finalize the unity government. The bomb disrupted the unity talks and denied Hamdallah the primary role he was assigned. 

In January this year, Hamdallah resigned, paving the way for yet more consolidation of power within the branch of Fatah that is loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas. 

Fatah has consolidated its control over the PA since the latter was formed in 1994. But, even then, the PA allowed for a margin in which other smaller parties and independent politicians were permitted to participate in the political processes. Following the deadly Fatah-Hamas clashes in Gaza in the summer of 2007, however, Fatah managed some areas of the West Bank, under Israeli military occupation, unhindered, while Hamas reigned supreme in Gaza. 

Hamdallah was meant to change all of this, but his efforts were thwarted, partly because his power was largely curbed by those who truly managed the PA: The Fatah strongmen — an influential and corrupt clique that has learned to co-exist with and, in fact, profit from any situation, including the Israeli occupation itself. 

Concerned by the old age of Abbas, now 83, and wary of the continued influence and power of shunned Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, the pro-Abbas Fatah branch in the West Bank has been eager to arrange the future of the PA to perfectly suit its interests. 

Starting in 2015, Abbas has taken several steps to consolidate his power within Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), thus the PA, which derives its manpower and political validation from these two entities. Political commentator Hani Al-Masri described the move at the time as an attempt to “recalibrate the Executive Committee (of the PLO) to Abbas’ favor.” 

That “recalibration” has never ceased. In May last year, the Fatah-dominated PLO’s National Council elected Abbas as chairman of the Executive Committee. The committee was also assigned eight new members, all loyalists to Abbas. 

Abbas and his supporters had only one hurdle to overcome: Hamdallah. It is not that Hamdallah was much of a political fighter or a maverick to begin with, it is just that Abbas’ loyalists detested the idea that he was still keen on achieving reconciliation with Hamas. For them, Shtayyeh’s appointment is the most logical answer. 

Shtayyeh possesses all the features that qualify him for the new role. His “seven-point letter of assignment,” which he received from Abbas, calls on him to prioritize national unity. But that would make no sense since Shtayyeh, who has been close to Abbas since the early 1990s, has a poor track record on that front. 

Aside from accommodating the whims of Abbas and his grouping within Fatah, Shtayyeh will try to appeal to a younger generation within Palestine that has lost faith in Abbas, his authority and all the hogwash about the two-state solution. That is, in fact, Shtayyeh’s main mission. 

Shtayyeh is a two-state solution enthusiast, as his legacy in the Palestine negotiations team clearly demonstrates. His article in the New York Times in October 2016 was a desperate attempt to breathe life into a dead option. His language is very similar to that used by a younger and more energetic Abbas during the heyday of the Oslo Accords. 

But Shtayyeh is different from Abbas, at least in the appeal of his own persona. He hails from the First Intifada generation of 1987. He was dean of students at Birzeit University in the early 1990s. Birzeit has served as a symbol of the revolutionary class of Palestinian intellectuals in the West Bank, and even Gaza. Shtayyeh’s ability to connect with young people — as he places constant but guarded emphasis on the resistance against Israeli occupation — will certainly bring new blood to the aging, irrelevant PA leadership; or, at least, that is what Abbas hopes. 

“We do not want to preserve the same status quo,” Shtayyeh told Al Quds newspaper in 2017. “The Palestinian government… has to… turn into a resistance authority against Israeli settlements. We should be able to take measures without the permission of Israel, such as digging water wells and reforesting Area C in the West Bank,” he said.

The type of “resistance” proposed by Shtayyeh hardly pushes Abbas out of his comfort zone. However, the aim of this language is barely concerned with digging a few wells, but to reintroduce “revolutionary” rhetoric to the prime minister’s office in the hope of reinventing the PA and renewing confidence in its ailing and corrupt institutions. 

Shtayyeh’s mission will ultimately fail, for his actual mandate is to reunite Fatah behind Abbas, not the Palestinian people behind a truly democratic and representative leadership aimed at ridding Palestine of its Israeli occupiers. The sad truth is that the latter goal was hardly a priority for Abbas or his loyalists in Ramallah in the first place. 

Nine soldiers serving with the regional G5 Sahel force were killed by an improvised explosive device in Mali early this month. This attack against the G5 Sahel, which is made up of military forces from Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger, is the latest in what must be understood as a clear and present threat to the governments of the region.

Covering 5 million square kilometers, the G5 countries have deployed troops across three sectors (west, central and east), with each composed of two to three battalions. Each battalion will consist of 650 troops, for a total of 5,000. In addition to the member countries, the force is supported by a coalition of 26 countries and the EU.

Importantly, the G5 is designed to help the Sahel region better combat security threats from extremists, though funding has remained an obstacle. In December, the European Commission announced funding of 125 million euros ($141 million) for the G5 Sahel countries at the partners and donors coordination conference in Nouakchott, Mauritania. Donations from the Gulf states are particularly generous and helpful, although sometimes at cross purposes.

From a European standpoint, the EU supports the efforts of the G5 Sahel countries in the fight against terrorism, organized crime and any other threat to security, stability and peace. The EU wants to reinforce its regional approach in the Sahel with the aim of supporting cross-border cooperation, regional cooperation structures and, in this context, enhancing the national capacities of the G5 Sahel countries. Stability in the Sahel region is key for European security.

To meet that security requirement and need, the EU Common Security and Defence Policy missions in the Sahel, the EU Capacity Building Missions (EUCAP) in Mali and Niger, and the EU Training Mission (EUTM) in Mali were established in June 2017. The first step allowed for the establishment of a regional coordination cell (RCC) within a joint military concept based within one of the EU civilian missions, EUCAP Sahel Mali. The RCC included a network of internal security and defense experts deployed in Mali, but also in EU delegations in the other G5 Sahel countries.

This structural expansion is to help joint force military and police components improve cross-border cooperation. Interestingly, EUCAP Sahel Mali and EUCAP Sahel Niger are ahead of their development curve and will be able to conduct punctual and targeted activities of strategic advice and training in other G5 Sahel countries. EUTM Mali already supports the operationalization of the G5 Sahel joint force at its headquarters. It may provide training outside its mission area on a case by case basis.

Stability in the Sahel is key to the region’s future development. France plays a major role in this sphere from both a strategic and economic vantage point. In January 2013, France launched Operation Serval in Mali to counter a militant Islamist insurgency that threatened to topple the government in Bamako. In August 2014, Serval was transformed into Operation Barkhane, which consists of about 4,500 soldiers throughout the G5 Sahel countries and a budget of about $797 million per year. It has three major bases: In the Chadian capital N’Djamena, where the headquarters and joint staff are located, and command posts in Gao, Mali, and Niamey, Niger. In October last year, Barkhane expanded its area of operations to Burkina Faso at the request of the Burkinabe government, which is facing a rise in militant Islamist attacks. These attacks are growing in frequency and thus a greater focus on the Sahel by Paris is pushing for a greater effort by partners to support the Sahel countries.

France is reaching out to Arab partners for assistance in countering terrorist ideologies in the Sahel by coordinating messages about the ills of extremism and violence. These messages, which are in both French and Arabic, are helping to shape the strategic space that these terrorist groups are able to operate in by reducing support. The unique nature of the extremist groups in the Sahel — mostly led by the Macina Liberation Front, which is inspired by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar Dine’s fundamentalist theoreticians — illustrates where government weakness allows groups to operate and conduct illicit financial activity across weak borders.

Grievances, such as poor economic conditions and ethnic racism and hatred, litter the Sahel and these factors feed into extremist recruitment strategies. Historical drivers such as the former theocratic Macina Empire, which from 1818 to 1863 encompassed a large territory comprising the Segou, Mopti and Timbuktu regions, is part of the landscape. The Macina Empire, which was dominated by the Fulani ethnic group, applied Islamic rule across its territory. These tendencies to bring back historical antecedents but in an updated and violent mode is shaping the security environment across the Sahel.

By attempting to garner control of the Sahel in a cross-border manner, the EU and partners are hoping that stability will bring investment, especially the development of rail infrastructure across this part of Africa. The Sahel, and ultimately the Chad Basin, is another part of Africa that has direct implications not only for Europe, but the Middle East as well. This is why the battle for Libya’s south, which stretches into Niger and Mali, is so critical at this time. US, French and other forces from these countries are in the midst of cutting illicit networks that were tied back to Libya’s south and the ratlines of illegal migration.

Naturally, the US is invested in the Sahel through a number of mutual interests with Europeans, especially France, at this juncture but, for the Trump White House, the Sahel is a local issue, at least publically.

The Catholic Church in Australia is calling for an increase to the minimum wage in the country, saying that it will help lift families out of poverty.

Megan Kavanagh, a member of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Employment Relations Reference Group, said in a March 17 statement that Australian tradition going back to what is known as the Harvester Case of 1907 dictates that full-time employees with dependents should be able to support themselves without falling into poverty.

“The current level of the minimum wage falls far short of the objective identified and set by Harvester in a much less prosperous Australia 112 years ago,” Kavanagh said.

The Church is calling on the Fair Work Commission to step up, arguing that it has not done enough to support hundreds of thousands of families who are suffering from low wages, as well as children who are living in poverty.

Current minimum wage in Australia is $18.93 per hour. The Austrlaian Catholic Bishops Conference is calling in its submission to the Fair Work Commission for the wage to be raised to $20 per hour.

Kavanagh said this would be an important first step in resolving economic problems facing working families.

She noted that the value of the minimum wage in Australia has declined relative to national wages in the last 20 years.

“The Fair Work Commission last year found that the minimum wage provided a reasonable income for a single adult without family responsibilities,” she said. “In other words, what was an inadequate wage for a family two decades ago has become a reasonable wage for a single adult without family responsibilities. That is simply unacceptable.”

The government should address the poor living standards of people in low-wage jobs, either by increasing minimum wage or offering more government assistance, stressed Joe Zabar, director of economic policy at Catholic Social Services Australia.

He warned that policy moves such as freezing or reducing Family Tax Benefits in recent years have only served to prevent families from achieving living wages.

The Islamic State launched arguably their last counter-offensive to regain the territory they lost to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the Baghouz area of eastern Deir ez-Zor, Al-Masdar News reports.

Backed by nearly 100 women and children, the Islamic State stormed the Syrian Democratic Forces’ positions at the northern flank of the Baghouz Camp in a bid to force the latter to retreat from several areas.

According to preliminary reports, the Syrian Democratic Forces did retreat from some points after losing a half dozen fighters on Monday.

The reports said the Syrian Democratic Forces saw many women and children dressed in their combat fatigues attacking their points during today’s battle.

The Syrian Democratic Forces will likely counter this Islamic State offensive in the coming hours as they hammer away at the militant group’s last bastion with both airstrikes and heavy artillery.

Due to their shortage of fighters, the Islamic State has begun using women and children at the front-lines to help defend their last positions at the Baghouz Camp.

The Islamic State had previously prohibited women from fighting at any of their front-lines; however, due to a shortage in manpower and provisions, they have made an exception to this rule.

Much of California enjoys year-round pleasant weather, without the harsh winters of the midwest and northeast, and without the heat and humidity of the deep south. One result is that California homes use less heat and air conditioning than homes in other parts of the country.

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser says that a household in San Francisco has a carbon footprint 60 percent smaller than a similar household in Memphis.

Meanwhile, California has the nation’s most restrictive land-use policies, which prevent new housing from being built, keep housing prices high, and prevent people from moving to California.

In 2016, California had the second highest out-migration among the states (second to New Jersey). The most common destinations of California out-migrants were Texas, Nevada, and Washington. The state with the highest net in-migration was Florida.

While at first glance California’s stringent land-use policies that keep people from moving to the state might appear environmentally friendly, the opposite is true. People have to live somewhere, and when California’s land-use policies keep them from moving to California, they end up living in states that give them a much higher carbon footprint.

Every retiree who ends up in Florida instead of California raises the nation’s carbon footprint. Every worker who ends up in Texas, Nevada, or Washington, rather than in California, raises the nation’s carbon footprint.

If Californians were really serious about mitigating global warming, their policies would be designed to encourage people to move to their state, where people’s carbon footprints are naturally lower because of the favorable climate. Instead, California has an anti-green environmental agenda that pushes people to live in places with higher carbon footprints.

Californians often act as if their state is environmentally friendly, but its land-use policies that push people into states where people have higher carbon footprints add more to global carbon emissions than the policies of any other state.

This article was published by The Beacon

By Sam Morgan

(EurActiv) — The European Parliament’s transport committee quizzed the head of the EU Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on Monday (18 March) about the ongoing investigation into a crash that prompted agencies around the world to ground Boeing MAX aircraft.

Two crashes involving Boeing’s MAX 8 aircraft in October and earlier this month have triggered an investigation into whether the two fatal accidents were linked.

As part of the inquest, the Ethiopian Airlines flight’s onboard recorder, or black box, has been sent to France for analysis. Investigators have already concluded that there “are similarities” between the two doomed flights.

However, EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky told MEPs on the Parliament’s transport committee that his agency is “not allowed to participate in the accident investigation, as it is an American aircraft. Even though there were 40 Europeans among the victims.”

“We had to rely only on public information and information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. As a safety authority, this puts us in a very delicate situation,” Ky warned, adding that “I would like to call on the EU institutions for help in this matter”.

As an EU member state authority was tasked with downloading information from the black box, EASA was present as a technical supervisor. But it did not participate in any further analysis.

EASA is still waiting for more information about the crash and has filed a request with Ethiopia’s aviation authority to act as an observer to the inquest. Ky told MEPs that Addis Ababa wants to keep a “close circle around the investigation”.

Last week, EU transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc offered Ethiopia assistance via EASA. Under air accident rules, the country conducting the inquest can invite whoever they want to be a part of it.

The country of manufacturing, in this case the US, and the operator’s country must be included. EASA is still waiting for a reply to Bulc’s offer.

MEPs expressed their shock at the events that led to both October’s Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the Ethiopian Airlines accident, as there had been reports of problems before the first incident.

Socialist and Democrats lawmaker Lucy Anderson warned that it could provoke a political scandal “to rival Dieselgate”, the 2015 revelations that German carmaker Volkswagen had installed so-called defeat devices to cheat emissions testing.

Nearly 400 MAX aircraft have so far been delivered by Boeing and more than 5,000 are on the company’s order book, making it Boeing’s fastest-selling plane to date.

The brewing scandal revolves around a part of the MAX planes known as the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which the US manufacturer developed to force the nose of the aircraft down automatically if sensors detected an engine stall.

Anderson interpreted Patrick Ky’s explanation of the MCAS problem and the software updates as “an attempt to save Boeing money when what was really needed was a fundamental redesign of the plane”.

She added that “Boeing has been looking after the interest of its shareholders not its passengers”, while committee co-chair Dominique Riquet (ALDE) said “it is crazy” that the manufacturer did not recall its planes when it was clear that there was a problem.

Ky made a “personal guarantee and commitment” that EASA will act independently of the FAA in its investigation and promised MEPs that EASA will dig deep down into Boeing’s MCAS software and even the architecture of the system itself. He said the agency will not certify the MAX planes to fly if satisfactory answers are not provided.

Asked by MEPs why the agency took longer than national authorities to ground the MAX, Ky explained that those bodies did not actually ground the aircraft but just prevented them from using their respective airspaces.

He added that it only took EASA “a matter of hours” to issue its grounding directive and that their decision was based on a deeper analysis of data that “I doubt anybody else had at the time”.

The investigations into both crashes are still ongoing.

There has been much debate about President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on our southern border. Critics complain either that no real emergency exists and/or that Trump’s actions are unconstitutional. Too often, how one feels about the issue of immigration shades one’s view of the declaration. Open borders advocates detest it and condemn the declaration, but those in favor of less immigration generally like it.

No matter where one comes down on this immigration issue, anyone holding any loyalty to our written Constitution should decry the National Emergencies Act itself. In declaring the emergency, Trump specifically relied on “sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act.” In 1976, Congress granted to the president the authority to declare an emergency and to invoke “special or extraordinary power[s].”

A careful study of Article II of the Constitution, which sets forth the president’s authority, mentions nothing about special or extraordinary powers outside of the instrument. Similarly, Article I, which deals with congressional authority, does not allow Congress to delegate power to the president nor does it grant Congress (or any other branch) special or extraordinary powers outside of those powers specifically enumerated. “The powers of the federal government,” Madison explained in the Virginia ratifying convention, “are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

If it is discovered that the president or Congress needs power outside the Constitution, an amendment is the only allowable course of action. “Had the power of making treaties, for example, been omitted, however necessary it might have been,” Madison explained during the controversy over the national bank, “the defect could only have been lamented, or supplied by an amendment of the Constitution.”

Rather than go back to first principles and acknowledge the flaw in the idea of a National Emergencies Act, critics are blaming the Supreme Court for its opinion in INS v. Chadha (1983), in which the Court held that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional. Under the National Emergencies Act as originally structured, Congress could block implementation of a presidential declaration of emergency with simple majority votes in each house. These votes were not subject to a presidential veto. But Chadha requires all such legislative actions/vetoes to be submitted to the president under the Presentment Clause, which then gives the president an opportunity to use his constitutional veto authority. Congress can only override his veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses. And in the present case, Congress is woefully short of a super-majority to kill the wall project.

Bottom line: Legislative vetoes might be useful tools and could make the National Emergencies Act more palatable. But the real problem here is that the National Emergencies Act recognizes extra-constitutional assumption of powers. Let’s not blame Chadha for bad legislation.

This article was published at The Beacon

By S. Chandrasekharan.

In the midst of intensive and heavy fighting between Myanmar Army( Tatmadaw) and the Arakan Army, Suu Kyi’s Government is making efforts in tandem to secure peace and stability in Rakhine Province. But one cannot fight with one hand and try to shake hands with the other.  Thia is what is happening in Rakhine State in a new front  that has opened in the West in Myanmar.

It all started on March 12, when the Myanmar Army had heavy casualties with the Arakan Army in an encounter near Paletwa earlier.  Zaw Htay, a Spokesman of President’s Office told the Press that the Arakan Army is welcome to sign the Government’s National Cease-fire Agreement even though the Government had excluded the Group from inking the agreement in the past. 

Zaw Htay added that the Government and the Army have reviwed the situation in Rakhine State and have concluded that cease-fire and peace are necessary. It was indeed a great discovery when the Arakan Army was specifically excluded from the four months ceasefire unilaterally ordered by the Army followed by diversion of additional troops to that area after the announcement of the cease-fire.

Zaw Htay also added that the Myanmar Peace Commission led by Gen. Khin Zaw Oo had also held the same view.

The response from the Arakan Army was quick. Its Spokesman Khine Thu Kha said that the Government is not sincere and does not want talks.  He added that  it is impossible to hold talks when they wield a stick!

Three days later, a bigger surprise was to follow.  The NRPC ( National Reconciliation & Peace Centre that is led by Suu Kyi herself, issued invitations to eight of the groups that have not signed the National Cease-fire Agreement (NCA).  Of these eight, seven  belong to the China backed and UWSP led Federal Political Negotiation & Consultative Committee which had all along pushed for an alternative narrative to the Peace Process.  The Only other member is the KNPP which had suspended its participation in the Peace Process.  This includes the Arakan Army and its Political Wing ULA (United League of Arakan) that had been excluded all the while with the tacit support of China.

The invitation from the NRPC said that the Groups should send two Representatives each and the NRPC will be holding talks with the group collectively on March 21.  It is significant that the Government has finally agreed to deal with them collectively.  In contrast, the invitation said that the Armmy’s Negotiating Team will meet the individual Groups the next day if they so desired.

The response from the Arakan Army is yet to be received and their Representative said that they would decide in a day or two. Surely the AA should not miss this opportunity to put forth its agenda and see the reaction of the Government and the Army.

Separately the same day, the Government announced  a new committee specially tasked to bring stability to Rakhine State.  It would consist of 14 members and would directly report to the President’s Office.  It will be headed by the Deputy Speaker of Union Parliament U Aye Tha Aung and two deputies, all ethnic Arakanese.  The ANP will also have a member. The ANP is said to have been not consulted in including it or in choosing its representative!

There is no doubt that the Government is concerned about the deteriorating law and order situation in Rakhine State with the Arakan Army inflicting heavy casualties on the Army. 

While no word is forthcoming from the Army Sources on the nature of fighting and casualties, the Arakan Army websites have detailed accounts of the fighting that is going on the Arakan area.  There has been heavy fighting since the beginning of this month.  On 11^th March the Arakan Army announced that it had captured 11 soldiers of the 564 Light Infantry Batalion of 5^th Division whentheyoverran a strategic hill controlled by the Government soldiers near Pyan So Village, Paletwa’s Pee Chaung area. A large quantity of arms and other equipment have been captured.

Earlier on March 9, 2019 Nine Police Officers have been killed in an attack on a Police Post in Yoetayoke village in Paletw’s Ponnagyun Township.  Hundreds of civilians have fled their homes.  In retaliation the Army is said to be using Helicopter Gun ships and Artllery in pounding the AA positions.  Though not confirmed, it is said the the Indian Army as a quid pro quo attacked three of Arakan Army Posts in Chimtuipui district of Mizoram. The Burmese Army had completely dismantled the NSCN Khaplang Group’s bases near the Taga River.  The ULFA post was also attacked and there were some casualties to ULFA also.  It remains to be seen what ULFA will do.  Will they go north and seek protection from the Chinese authorities?

From the foregoing a few things are clear.

1. There has been very intensive and heavy fighting between the Myanmar Army and the Arakan Army Insurgents, causing casualties on both sides, resulting in exodus of civilians.  Some may have also come into India.
2. The Government ,led by Suu Kyi which had ordered the Myanmar Army to go after the AA insurgents, now feels that the situation may soon go out of hand and something has to be done to get round the Arakan Arakan Army Leaders to talk.
3. The Myanmar Army is not yet seen to be convinced of the critical nature of the situation and want to continue the fight with the Arakan Army to the finish. This needs to change.
4. India should be concerned with the escalation in fighting with the danger of the war spilling into Indian territory.  If Indian media is to be believed, the Indian Army had to attack offensive action against an Arakan Army base inside India – an outfit that is supported by over 95 percent of population of the Rakhine State. Here is the dilemma for India.

By Rev. Ben Johnson*

As Muslims gathered for Friday prayers, a shooter livestreamed himself entering the Masjid Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, and killing 41 people with a semiautomatic weapon. He then drove to the Masjid mosque in nearby Linwood, where seven more have died. (An additional victim died off the premises, bringing the death toll to 49 as of this writing.) Police also found several improvised explosive devices on vehicles in the area.

Authorities have arrested four people – three men and one woman – but only one man has been charged with murder. Although the 28-year-old Australian’s name has not been released, he identified himself as Brenton Tarrant in the video.

A man posting online as Brenton Tarrant posted a 74-page manifesto titled The Great Replacement the morning before the attack to explain his motivation. His writing reveals a callous racial collectivist and self-described “eco-fascist” motivated in part by a concern about overpopulation, whose model society is the People’s Republic of China, and who believes murdering CEOs, enacting global trade regulations, and raising the minimum wage are keys to preventing “white genocide.”

What was his motivation?

Tarrant writes that below-replacement white birthrates, paired with the high fertility of non-white immigrants, will lead to the replacement of the white population in the West. He quotes a white nationalist mantra (the 14 words) and refers to the spontaneous process as “white genocide.”

He writes that he acts to avenge Muslim terrorist attacks on the West, as well as the Rotherham child sex ring, which victimized 1,400 British girls.

The 2017 election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France over “civic nationalist” (and “milquetoast”) Marine Le Pen of the National Front provided another tipping point. Tarrant describes himself as an “ethno-nationalist”: A civic nationalist believes in a multiethnic and pluralistic nation, while an ethno-nationalist believes race and soil are coterminous.

Why did he use a semiautomatic weapon?

Tarrant writes that he specifically chose a semiautomatic weapon in the hopes that leftists will press for gun control legislation, ultimately provoking a racial civil war in the United States. Charles Manson voiced similar hopes for his 1969 murder spree.

What are the mosque shooter’s political views?

Tarrant describes himself as a fascist and writes that “I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley,” the founder the British Union of Fascists.“Conservatism is corporatism in disguise,” he writes. “I want no part of it.”

What are his concerns about environmentalism and overpopulation?

He adds, “[I] consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature.” He writes that he was partly motivated by concerns about overpopulation and environmental catastrophe. While “the environment is being destroyed by over population [sic], we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. … Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.” Tarrant writes that he had no children in part because they are “ultimately destructive to nature and culture.” Under capitalism, Tarrant adds, “The natural environment is industrialized, pulverized and commoditized.”

Alt-Right figures including Richard Spencer and David Duke have embraced environmentalist or eco-fascist views – emphasizing the “soil” aspect of “blood-and-soil” – in recent years, and the works of Finnish eco-fascist Pentti Linkola are published by Alt-Right publisher Artkos Media. (Linkola wrote, “The worst enemy of life is too much life: the excess of human life.”)

Why would a white nationalist extol China?

“The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China,” Tarrant writes. The Alt-Right has a soft spot for Asian nations, including North Korea, where mercantilist policies are often put in the service of racial purity.

How does he feel about individual rights and the free market?

Tarrant despises capitalism. His manifesto uses socialist-sounding language while dismissing “the myth of the individual, the value of work (productivity for the benefit of your capitalist owners) and the sovereignty of private property (to ensure none of us get grand ideas of taking the unearned wealth of our owners).”

The cover of his manifesto praises “environmentalism,” “responsible markets,” and “worker’s [sic] rights” as ways to build a racially pure society.

What specific economic policies does this terrorist promote?

Tarrant writes that he would abolish free trade, restrict trade to white nations, raise the minimum wage, and promote the unionization of the work force. And murder CEOs.

“If an ethnocentric European future is to be achieved global free markets and the trade of goods is to be discouraged at all costs,” Tarrant writes. “BLOCK FOREIGN GOODS FROM WHITE MARKETS.” (Screaming capitalization in original.)

Since much of the non-white “invasion” responds to capitalist desire for low-wage labor, workers’ wages must be raised in any way possible, “[w]hether that is by encouraging and pushing increases to the minimum wage; furthering the unionization of workers; increasing the native birthrate and thereby reducing the need for the importation of labour; increasing the rights of workers; pushing for the increase in automation or advancement of industrial labour replacement or any other tactic that is available.”

CEOs are “greedfilled [sic] bastards [who] expect to replace our people with a race of low intellect, low agency, muddled, muddied masses” so that new immigrants can “earn our wealthy benefactors their second yachts and their fifth properties!”

“KILL YOUR LOCAL ANTI-WHITE CEO,” he instructs his national socialist, terrorist followers.

How do his views compare to those of other Alt-Right terrorists?

His views are in keeping with other white nationalist extremists who have resorted to violence. Jeremy Joseph Christian, an Alt-Right terrorist arrested for murdering two Muslims at a Portland train station in 2017, supported Bernie Sanders over the issue of tariffs and economic interventionism.

Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik – whom Tarrant says he contacted and asked for a “blessing” before the Christchurch attack – wrote in his own 1,500-page manifesto that his economic views fell between socialism and social democracy. He favored the “development of alternative energy” to “save the environment” and argued it is “essential” that “national states have a controlling stake in” multinational corporations.

James Wenneker Von Brunn, who opened fire inside the Holocaust Museum in 2009, wrote in his book Kill the Best Gentiles that Christianity is a “hoax,” denounced “JEW CAPITALISTS,” and concluded that “WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West.” (Capitalization in the original.)

Why do racialists hate capitalism and the free market so much?

In the Alt-Right/white nationalist worldview, all economic and social activity should be segregated to maximize the power of the white race. The Alt-Right correctly assesses that the free market allows the peaceful exchange of goods and services between any two willing parties. These economic ties create social relationships, friendships, even marriages, which threaten the ethnic “purity” of their desired ethnostate.

Would he spare anyone?

No. Tarrant wrote, since there “are no innocents” a racial war, racialists must aim at “[p]reventing these enemies from reaching adulthood and their full potential.”

Did the Christchurch mosque shooter claim to be a Christian?

Answering whether Brenton Tarrant is a Christian is, in his words, “complicated. When I know, I will tell you.”The complication may be a semantic distinction derived from Breivik’s notion that it is possible to be a cultural Christian without believing in God. Breivik wrote that his followers “don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist.”

How would a Christian respond?

Christianity begins with a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Apostles or Nicene Creed. Building on the divine commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself,” Christianity has led the way in affirming the innate human dignity of all life from conception to natural death, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, nationality, sex, or disability. Every murder, especially the mass killing of innocent civilians at prayer, is a tragedy that violates Western values.

Life must be taken only by lawful authorities after the commission of a crime, as determined by just laws rooted in natural law and right reason.

Speaking as a member of the Eastern Christian tradition, I am unaware of a single church canon forbidding marriage between members of two ethnic groups in the 2,000-year history of the Christian Church and its ecclesiastical law. However, ethnic separatism has been condemned as anti-Christian.

Where can I learn more about the views of Alt-Right terrorists?

I’ll be discussing the Alt-Right again at this year’s Acton University. If you haven’t yet, consider signing up.

You can read Brenton Tarrant’s full manifesto, The Great Replacement, here – if you have the stomach.

*About the author: Rev. Ben Johnson is a senior editor at the Acton Institute. His work focuses on the principles necessary to create a free and virtuous society in the transatlantic sphere (the U.S., Canada, and Europe). He earned his Bachelor of Arts in History summa cum laude from Ohio University and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.

Source: This article was published by the Acton Institute

By Nilanjan Ghosh

Businesses across the globe are increasingly acknowledging and adopting sustainability as part of their core operational strategy for market positioning and branding. This phenomenon, though apparently prominent in the developed world, is also becoming fashionable among large businesses in India, though not ubiquitous.

Instead, many business enterprises in India still ask the question: Does sustainability affect profitability?

Natural capital

Though organisations accept that protecting the capital base is important for their bottomlines, it is not popular to extend the idea to their natural capital base. Rather, till recently, most parts of the world perceived environment and ecological concerns to be questions of ethics, that are anti-development. This made conservation move asymptotic with the core business, and was taken as external to fundamental human existence.

After the 1992 Earth Summit adopted the Brundtland Commission’s definition of ‘sustainable development’, and the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) became effective in 1993, biodiversity conservation was recognised as an integral part of the development process by international law In science, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) of 2005 enhanced human understanding of how the ecosystem functions in its own inimitable ways to provide services (benefits) to society in the form of provisioning (food, raw materials, genetic resources, water, etc.); regulation (carbon sequestration and climate regulation); culture (tourism and religion), and support (nutrient recycling and soil formation, among others). This gave a sharper idea of ecosystem-livelihoods linkages and also offered ways to appreciate that despite the other forms of capital — physical, human and social (institutions and relations) — businesses will not thrive without the quintessential natural capital

The developed world’s corporate sector began to change its myopic view with the notion of ‘sustainable business’, as it began to understand that: their long-term survival depends on the resource base that is steadily getting depleted by then- own acts; their long-term costs will increase with the ecosystem’s diminishing capacity to provide services; and that a ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ business model will have a competitive advantage, with efforts reflected in the bottom line.

Therefore, when seen through the sustainability lens, the trade-off for the firm is between the choice of short-term rent- seeking behaviour, and long-term optimisation. While addressing the long-run and short-run trade-off, Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, in their works in Harvard Business Review, in 2006 and 2011, bring in the notion of ‘creating shared value’ or CSV — companies can generate economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges, bringing business and society closer.

Green balance sheet

According to Porter and Kramer, firms do this in three distinct ways: by re-conceiving products and markets; redefining productivity in the value chain, and building supportive industry clusters.

For example, Nestle tried to redefine its procurement process for coffee by working intensively with small-holder farmers from poverty-stricken areas of the developing and less developed world. They advised cultivators on farming practices, helped growers secure inputs at better cost and offered a premium for better quality and environment protection.

Quality certification and better market linkages improved yield, quality and growers’ incomes, while farms’ environmental impact shrank, ensuring a better soil quality and resource base. So, CSV was embedded in Nestle’s strategic subscription to principles of sustainability.

In this context, it is important for the corporate sector to understand the significance of ecosystem services for their own business and for the global community on a larger scale; and to understand the footprint created by their own initiatives, ie, loss of ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services need to be valued in monetary terms to: help humans understand the importance of ecosystems for society, make policymakers aware of the importance of these services; draft proper compensation policies that asses the extent of negative externalities; and lastly, to help firms make better investment decisions.

The value of ecology

In a recent research on the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) in Uttarakhand conducted by WWF India, the aggregate values of seven ecosystem services were found to be around $6 billion in 2015-16; the implication being, ruining this landscape is tantamount to destroying a value of $6 billion for humans. More than half the population in the region earns as little as $1.9 per day. The ecosystem dependency of these households is higher than those earning average per capita incomes, as they earn more from ecosystem services than incomes from various sources, thereby reestablishing the ‘GDP of the poor’ tag for ecosystem services.

Firms need to integrate these types of ecosystem service values in the benefit- cost ratios of their projects for taking informed decisions. A benefit-cost ratio (entailing the long-run impacts on ecosystem) that is greater than unity justifies that the firm’s interventions are economically, socially, and ecologically viable. This, essentially, creates a ‘win-win’ situation for the firm and the communities at various scales, all of whom are fundamentally dependent on ecosystem services. This is the way sustainability gets embraced in the firm’s decision-making with implications on the broader ecosystem, thereby creating shared value.

This commentary originally appeared in Mail Today.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

China and Pakistan in one stroke of China’s veto in United Nations blocking designation of JeM Chief Masood Azhar in February 2019 have forced into global consciousness the stark reality that Pakistan and China are complicit in Pakistan Army’s adopting State-sponsored terrorism, particularly against India.

Pakistan and China with convergent aims of containing India’s rise in global geopolitical calculus and with conflictual history of past aggressive wars against India emerge in February 2019 as jointly complicit in perpetuation of Pakistan Army’s strategy of using Jihadi terrorist outfits to launch terrorist strikes and suicide bombings targeting India.

Pakistan Army’s using weapons of state-sponsored terrorism against India, Afghanistan and Iran is well documented and visibly recently too. Well known too is the use of same strategy against United States Forces in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Government by terrorist affiliates of Pakistan Army operating from safe havens provided by Pakistan Army.

Not well known is that lurking behind such Pakistan Army terrorism misadventures is China’s earlier tacit support and now in February 2019 starkly visible China’s determined effort to block naming of Pakistan  Army supported Je M Chief as Global Terrorist.

China this time around has advanced the lame excuse that it needs to revaluate all evidence pointing towards JeM Chief Masood Azhar’s involvement in launching terrorist and suicide bombings strikes against India. Two serious doubts are raised regarding China’s intentions on this score.

Firstly, does China have doubts about Pakistan Army’s protégé Masood Azhar being involved in terrorist strikes against India ranging from the JeM attacks on Indian Parliament in 2001 to recent strikes against Pathankot Air Base, the Uri Base attacks in 2016 and the latest suicide bombing at Pulwama on February 14 2019? How is that Great Britain, France and the United States were convinced by India’s evidence and the evidence that they may have collected from their own agency sources that indeed all these terrorist attacks were indeed masterminded by Masood Azhar and his JeM terrorist outfit based at Bahawalpur next to Pakistan Army Corps Headquarters? Is it China’s case that these three UN security Council Permanent Members are behaving irresponsibly in supporting India charging Pakistan Army’s complicity?

Secondly, what cogent reasons does China have in shielding Masood Azhar at the UN Security Council from being branded as Global Terrorist when the United Nations has already designated JeM as a global terrorist organisation? China’s glaring attempts to disconnect JeM Chief Masood Azhar from the terrorist organisation that he heads and claims it to be so raises alarming deductions on China’s underlying motives.

China cannot be said to be so naïve as to believe that the entire body of international scholars, think-tanks, Major Powers’ official assessments are all based against China and Pakistan Army to allege that Pakistan-based Jihadi terrorist groups like JeM and Lashkar-e-Toiba are operating against India, Afghanistan and Iran from safe havens provided by Pakistan Army.

China is deliberately blind to all this evidence and persists in being so blinded obviously to shield the Pakistan Army which patronises Jihad terrorist groups to further its foreign policy objectives. China dose so brazenly because China’s colonial embedment in Pakistan is ensured by a “Collusive” Pakistan Army. Gwadur Port on the Makran Coast in Balochistan is crucially strategic for Chinese Navy as a naval base and so are Baluchistan’s rich mineral reserves.

Pakistan Army’s decisive shift away from United States strategic orbit to as I mentioned in my Book ‘China-India Military Confrontation:21^st Century Perspectives” to emerge now as ‘China’s Frontline State’ leaves no space for China to do anything otherwise—–China will persist in underwriting Pakistan Army’s State-sponsored terrorism’

Three major implications arise from this policy stance of China which perceptively makes China complicit as the prime supporter of Pakistan’s State-sponsored terrorism. The three security implications are global, regional and the third pointedly India-specific in terms of China’s overall strategic approaches to India and whether India can repose strategic trust in China.

Globally, the international security implications basically emerge in questions whether China can be treated as a responsible stakeholder in management of global security and stability and whether China’s persistent brazen contempt for global institutions like United Nations and the majority views of Major Powers call for a global reappraisal of China’s membership of such institutions. Persistent brazen contempt of China of global opinion and conventions has been markedly visible under China’s current President Xi Jinping. With him being made President for life, there are no indicators available that China will cease this brazen disrespect for global opinion. This brings to the fore past historical precedents of Hitlerian Germany.

Regionally and in terms of Asian and Indo pacific security China has already discredited itself with its brazen brinkmanship and aggression in South China Sea with the usurpation of islands of its ASEAN neighbours. The implication of China’s present course will result in greater Asian polarisation against China and Asian countries gravitating towards the United States for counter-balancing China.

Moving to India-specific implications of China emerging as unapologetic supporter of Pakistan State-sponsored terrorism the security implications are wide-ranging. Overall, the major deduction that India’s policy establishment must face is that India cannot repose ‘Strategic Trust’ in China, even in long-term perspectives.

China cannot give up on Pakistan strategically despite its many militarily misadventure delinquencies. Reflected in my Book was the stark reality that  China has invested so heavily in Pakistan Army that should in the future Pakistan gets tempted to shake-off China’s stranglehold, Pakistan would be subjected to full force of Chinese power to desist it from an independent course.

The second major deduction that Indian policy establishment must face is that China will never ever restrain Pakistan Army from ceasing its State-sponsored terrorism against India and more so in the Kashmir Valley where China’s and Pakistan’s strategic convergences now stand openly asserted by China.

China has recently asserted that China is interested in the economic development of ‘Kashmir’ to uplift its poverty-stricken masses. Rather a presumptuous assertion by China as it presupposes that it is speaking for the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir which is well developed and does not need Chinese mercy.

China’s assertions in this direction are now more centred on gaining depth and security of its much vaunted China Pakistan Economic Corridor or the CPEC as commonly referred to. The Pakistan Army has a vested ‘corporate interest’ in the CPEC and its successful completion as forcefully asserted by successive Pakistan Army Chiefs.

Contextually, therefore, India would be indulging in futile diplomacy by extending ‘political space’ to China to delay branding of Masood Azhar as Global Terrorist by the United Nations and by extension and deductive reasoning condemning Pakistan Army for financing, training and facilitating Jihadi terrorist groups under its wings to launch terrorist strikes and suicide bombings against India.

India and the Indian people have to gird themselves for the long haul of a dual China-Pakistan Axis jointly operating towards containment of India, if not by a Hot War but by asymmetric strategies of Pakistan-based and facilitated State-sponsored terrorism and maintaining tense borders with military standoffs and border clashes. India’s war preparedness has consequently to be put on a fast-track basis.

Concluding, irrespective of what Indian Opposition political leaders or Indian China-apologists obliviously rationalise about China’s sincere intentions for friendly relations with India a strategic reality-check indicates otherwise. China is India’s’ long-term and potent security threat to India— a threat which is ‘force-multiplied’ by its colonial hold on the Pakistan Army and Pakistan Army’s collusive propensities with China to contain India’s geopolitical and economic rise.

By Prof. Ramu Manivannan

Already four years including a two-year extension granted to the Sri Lankan Government by the Human Rights Council in 2017, there is little progress in addressing the key goals set out in the Human Rights Council adopted resolution on 1^st October,2015 (A/HRC/30/1), titled “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka”.  This resolution was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka and legally implied that it accepted and assented to the resolution in full, and thereby commended it to other members of the Human Rights Council.   

Several United Nations high officials and observers are on record that none of the measures so far adopted to fulfill Sri Lanka’s transitional justice commitments are adequate to ensure real progress. It is too naive to say that the progress is slow but the entire process seems to have come to a virtual halt. The World Governments are coming to terms with the ground realities in Sri Lanka with little evidence that perpetrators of war crimes committed by members of the Sri Lankan armed forces are being brought to justice. 

Any power or the international institution trying to impart a sense of justice to the Sri Lankan government are best advised to learn from the failure of the Indian government in pleading with the successive Sri Lankan governments to implement the provisions of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord-1987, especially the 13^th Amendment to the constitution of Sri Lanka for over three decades.

The refusal of the Sri Lankan government authorities to comply with its own commitment given at the Human Rights Council reveals two distinct but inter-related realities of international politics and the limitations of global institutions.  For the Tamils, this trait of Sri Lankan government co-sponsoring the resolution (A/HRC/30/1) is neither unusual nor unprecedented. This is a characteristic instinct of Sinhala survival in the face of overwhelming crises and walking out of this commitment is being executed through bargains of time and diplomatic maneuvers. There are several historical and contemporary instances to this effect.  The international governments including the sponsors of the resolution (A/HRC/30/1) are also responsible for allowing the Sri Lankan government to wriggle away from its own commitment as co-sponsor.

The Sri Lankan government is trying to employ its time-tested tactics of delay and destroying the process of international justice mechanism as conducted at home for seven decades.  After presenting the prospects of drafting a new constitution to the UNHRC it has successfully diverted the attention of the global community to the deliberations and divisions within the Sinhala polity than the original commitments it had made through the resolution (A/HRC/30/1). 

The current Sri Lankan Government is now trying to seek Cabinet approval for a truth and reconciliation mechanism, when its leaders accepted to address justice and accountability in post-war Sri Lanka.  The Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe  has recently called to the masses for a process of truth telling, regret , and forgiveness, similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of South Africa, for a true reconciliation without any reference to key promises of justice and accountability. 

Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has recently observed that ‘’I am disappointed to learn that on the eve of the interactive dialogue on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’(OHCHR) report on Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council, the Government of Sri Lanka is resorting to yet another delaying tactic to escape……implementation of Resolution 30/1.” (See., Ceylon Today, 24 February,2019, Colombo Edition).

There are three different positions held by the Sinhala ruling elites regarding the UNHRC resolution (A/HRC/30/1) –

First, demolish the UNHRC process by demonstrating Sinhala nationalism with the determination of defending the war crimes and crimes against humanity in the name of national sovereignty as advocated by Mahinda Rajapaksa and increasingly held by the president Maithripala Sirisena.

Secondly, tactical negotiations to buy time with delay and deception mechanism at work inside the UNHRC with the prospect of another two-year extension with Sri Lanka as co-sponsor once again.

Thirdly, keep experimenting with the art of balancing act between the Chinese interests and Western pressures through strategic bargains in Indian Ocean and South Asia region. All three positions converge at a single point of permanently denying justice to the Tamils.

If the Sri Lankan government seeks and UNHRC agrees for another two- year extension the council should not be content by insisting upon clear, stringent, time-bound benchmarks and a monitoring framework. The Action Taken Report (ATR) should be followed up with an assessment and responses to ATR. The Geneva process should be followed and respected along with its logical course of a recommendation by the UNHRC that United Nations General Assembly set up an International Criminal Tribunal as a subsidiary organ under Article 22 of the UN Charter such as the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) / the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) or request that the UN Security Council refer the case to the ICC pursuant to its authority under Article 13 of the Rome Statute. 

As a first step in the direction, Human Rights Council should come forward to establish an Independent, Impartial and International Mechanism for Sri Lanka. It is only through such a mechanism that evidence of crimes held by the Government of Sri Lanka, other States, the OHCHR and civil society actors will be preserved / available for use by the ICC and other national courts bringing cases under universal jurisdiction. 

The international process cannot be subordinated to the parasitic worldview of “Sinhala Only” which tolerates neither democratic dissent from within nor genuine concerns from outside including the United Nations and the global community of nations.  If world governments led by influential powers witnessed light in the regime change in 2015 of the Maithripala Sirisena government in Sri Lanka, then the continuing darkness of injustice in Sri Lanka cannot be eliminated by abandoning the well-meaning international process due to the resistance and defiance of Sri Lankan government and its authorities.

  H.E. Ms. Michelle Bachelet Jeria, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her recent report released on 8^th March, 2019 observed “Since 2015, virtually no progress has been made in investigating or prosecuting domestically the large number of allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity collected by OHCHR in its investigation, and particularly those relating to military operations at the end of the war.” In corroborating with the High Commissioner’s warning that “the gravity of the cases that a specialized accountability mechanism must address cannot be underestimated,” reveals the dire situation of human rights in Sri Lanka that should undoubtedly remain firmly on the agenda of the Human Rights Council.

Transitional Justice in Sri Lanka suffers from a unique condition of Sinhala chauvinism and ethnic discrimination of Tamils.  The UNHRC resolutions has not even generated “top-down” approach to justice in Sri Lanka, leave alone the scope for building the “bottom-up” participatory democratic approach to delivering justice at the grassroots, because of the complete denial and discrimination of ethnic Tamils. 

Neither “top-down” nor “bottom-up” approaches to justice are considered feasible under extreme conditions of ethno-centric denial and deceit as demonstrated by the Sri Lankan government. We need to build a bridge between the two approaches without exhausting the options from either end.  On the other, Sri Lanka’s approach to justice has been steered by the biases and predispositions of “Sinhala Only” politics combined with the bargains between contending powers as part of the geo-strategic competition in the Indian Ocean region. In this sense, transitional justice in Sri Lanka reflects the reality of global power politics as well as the legal, moral and political dilemmas governing in the international human rights and justice movements in the world today.

The Author is a Professor & Head of the Department of Politics & Public Administration, Chairperson of the School of Politics & International Studies, University of Madras, Chennai, India. He has also published a book on “Sri Lanka: Hiding the Elephant – Documenting Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity,” University of Madras, Chennai, 2014.      

Accurate censuses help with government planning and policies – an odd question and unrepresentative samples erode results.

By Joseph Chamie*

Collection of population data is essential for planning and governing. From time immemorial, societies have counted and registered people for a variety of purposes, including taxation, military service, employment, voting, consumption, representation, immigration, education, public health, research, benefits and more. The methods, what meanings and rights or obligations are ascribed and who should have access to these statistics, continue to be relevant and controversial in the modern world. Governments, companies and organizations make decisions based on data, and more recently, concerns have been raised about the consequences of population growth on socio-economic development,climate change and environmental sustainability.

World population reached its first billion around 1804 and then grew at unprecedented rates during the 20^th century, reaching 7.7 billion today. According to United Nations projections, the world’s human population is likely to reach 10 billion by 2055. For some, the consequences of a world with several billion more people expected in the coming decades are highly troubling for the planet’s sustainability.

Others view the projected growth as necessary for continued economic prosperity. Population size remains controversial at the national and community levels, too, prompting worries on both demographic increase and decline.

Irrespective of one’s position, demographic changes pose major challenges and opportunities for countries, regions and cities. For example, with its population expected to triple by mid-century, Niger faces enormous development difficulties in meeting citizen needs and demands.

In contrast, Countries generally estimate populations by censuses, registration systems and large-scale sample surveys. Controversies over census counts emerge due to the consequences of under- or overcounts, which can influence political power and the allocation of government funds and services.

Beyond the absolute totals of people, the two most commonly enumerated characteristics of human populations are sex and age. Sex ratios offer useful insights about a population’s past and future. For example, sex ratios are useful in measuring the extent of sex-selective abortion or female feticide, the consequences of which are evident in the gender imbalances in the world’s two largest populations, China and India. In most developed countries and many developing countries, females outnumber males. By contrast, China and India both have significantly more males than females, leaving millions of men without female partners.

Traditionally, government questionnaires presented a binary choice on sex, male or female, but now include additional categories to reflect sexual orientation or gender identity that may differ from one’s biology. A number of countries – including Canada, India, Nepal and Pakistan – survey non-binary gender identities and in some instances indicate status on identification cards and passports. The United Kingdom is perhaps the first country in the world considering making the census sex question voluntary. Government research found that the binary sex question on the 2011 census was viewed as irrelevant, unacceptable and intrusive, especially to transgender people. The government considers potentially collecting details on gender identity as well as sex.

Virtually all countries measure age in years, with birth designated as age zero. Age is a critical measure, frequently utilized as the basis for activities, rights, obligations and entitlements, including schooling, driving, military service, employment, age of legal consent, voting and retirement.

Age structure also provides useful insights about a population’s needs, capacities and demographic future. For example, the median ages of Angola, Chad, Mali, Niger and Uganda, the world’s youngest countries, are below 17 years, suggesting that more government funds can be devoted toward education. The median ages of Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal and Spain – the five oldest countries – are above 40 years and so retirement planning is emphasized.

Age is immutable, unlike most individual characteristics. Recently, however, a 69-year old man took legal action to change his age to 49 to avoid discrimination. Arguing that people can legally change their names and gender, he hoped to decide his own age, suggesting he felt much younger than his real age. The court ruled that he could not change his age.

Governments regularly collect other data across a broad spectrum of individual characteristics, including education, occupation, income, marital status, ethnicity, race, religion, language, housing, birthplace, origin of immigrant country, citizenship and disability. While some of those categories such as education or marital status are relatively straightforward, others are less clear. For example, individuals of mixed race or backgrounds might struggle to respond accurately.

Inaccuracies or outright lies defeat the purpose of the census and disrupt effective governing and meaningful planning. So every question should have a legitimate public purpose to promote well-being and reduce problems. Other concerns about the collection, use and dissemination of data that can erode accuracy include:

Privacy and confidentiality: Citizens are increasingly wary about the risks associated with disclosure of their personal information. International guidelines and policies of many countries stress the necessity of safeguarding confidentiality of government data and impose penalties for violations.

Representation: Large-scale census and registration systems often impact political representation, allocation of funds and cultural identity. In the United States, for example, some worry that inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 census could lead to millions of immigrants refusing to fill out their census questionnaires, leading to an undercount of residents in many states, reducing congressional apportionment and federal funding. The US Supreme Court will determine if the citizenship question is on the 2020 US census.

Diversity: Identifying and grouping people, while a common practice, can be a contentious issue. For example, France, Italy and the Netherlands do not count the race or ethnicity of individuals, but Brazil, China, Hungary and the United States do. Australia, Canada, Israel and the United Kingdom gather details on religious affiliation but the US census does not. Governments typically use data on ethnicity or race and religion for planning and funding services for those enumerated groups. Such categorizing can raise questions about ensuring equity, eliminating discrimination and promoting diversity. A recent US federal lawsuit against Harvard University illustrates such a challenge – students for Fair Admission accused the university of discriminating against Asian-American applicants for diversity purposes. From 1995 to 2013, Asian-American applicants had the lowest acceptance rate of any major racial group applying to Harvard.  

Abuse & inequality:  History provides examples of governmental authorities using census and registration data for abuse and mistreatment of certain groups among their populations. However, most governments rely on data to address differences, inequalities and discrimination in such areas as education, employment, housing, wages and voting.

Demographic data from censuses, registers and surveys contribute to democratic representation, policymaking, research, planning and administration as well as the decision-making processes of the private sector and non-governmental organizations. Most countries, including China, the United States and India require participation. Anonymous submissions are not allowed, and the counts typically link names and addresses with collected data.

In short, the counting of individuals and compiling meaningful information about them can enhance good governance and the well-being of a country’s population. However, as history has shown, government-compiled demographic data can be used for nefarious purposes, including abuse. Citizens need to understand the purposes behind any data collection, and governments must also articulate the reasons for any question. Census organizers must also apply caution, safeguards and monitoring of data-collection activities to protect privacy, ensure representation, recognize diversity, address inequalities and secure public trust.

*Joseph Chamie is a former Director of the United Nations Population Division.

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad) is an informal strategic dialogue between the US, Japan, Australia and India. It was initiated in 2007 by then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe  during his first term. Since 2014, these discussions have been bolstered by the annual trilateral Malabar (US-Japan –India), other trilateral exercises and at least one quadrilateral naval exercise. It was widely perceived as part of a China containment strategy.  After China issued formal diplomatic protests to its members asking their intention, Australia withdrew from the Quad and the meetings ceased.

In 2018 the administration of US President Donald J. Trump re –raised the concept as part of its ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ strategy. But some members are balking. In 2018, India—in deference to China– objected to Australia’s inclusion in Malabar even though the exercise took place in US waters. Admiral Phil Davidson, the head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has suggested that the Quad be shelved for now. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/03/07/indopacom-the-quad-might-be-shelved/

Davidson said Indian navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba “made it quite clear that there wasn’t an immediate potential for a quad.”   As Davidson says, ‘there is limited appetite for operationalizing the Quad’ presumably meaning the militarization of the arrangement. .  Indeed the concept –at least as a military alliance—is more likely to go the way of the dodo than rise from its ashes like a phoenix.  

Yet the US military and some die-hard analysts refuse to accept this reality. A Pentagon spokesperson explained that Davidson “was referring to a formal, regular meeting of military leaders from the four countries” and not other regular diplomatic consultations. The spokesperson said such diplomatic meetings have been held three times since November 2017 and [will] continue.” But the failure of Quad meetings to produce a joint statement indicates a deep diversity of views on critical issues including the need for and form of security cooperation. Given the context, this ‘clarification’ seemed to be damage control as well as an attempt to breathe life into a dying concept.

Another example is Washington-based leading analyst Patrick Cronin’s article “US Asia Strategy: Beyond the Quad” https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/us-asia-strategy-beyond-the-quad/  Although Cronin maintains ‘all is well’  the article seems to be an attempt to whistle by the graveyard of a comatose concept.  He claims that there is no “hidden meaning” in Davidson’s statement such as “signs of U.S. retrenchment, growing discord with Delhi, or a pre-emptive move before a possible new Australian Labor government moves once again to put the quadrilateral community on ice (as it did in 2008)”.  He adds that it would be advisable “to take Davidson at face-value that there is limited appetite for operationalizing the Quad.”   

US retrenchment or anticipation of a change in government in Australia are straw men and not serious reasons for abandoning the concept—at least not yet.  But there is certainly discord with Delhi – as well as with some Southeast Asian countries on this particular issue https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/quad-leaders-stress-aseans-centrality-in-their-indo-pacific-visions ; https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2146484/shrinking-quad-how-alliance-going-nowhere-japan-and-india.

Cronin and other would-be Quad supporters, fail to appreciate the depth of the dilemma for prospective Quad members.  As then Prime Minister Tony Abbott famously quipped “Australia’s China policy is driven by fear and greed”. These deep emotions and their manifestations in domestic politics and the media complicate the decision for each prospective Asian member of the Quad.    

China’s economic dynamism, influence and largesse are obvious phenomena of our age.  China is the most important trading partner for both Australia and India—particularly as an export market for their raw materials. Australia is also the second most recipient of Chinese direct investment. Japan’s exports to China now exceed those to the U.S. and account for nearly 20 percent of its total exports. These economic links clearly influence perspectives of prospective Asian Quad members.

 But fear of China also plays a major role.  Indeed, in Australia, the national debate pits realists who foresee or accept the inevitability of China’s dominance and influence in Asia and on its society and values against idealists who are “willing to risk the economic benefits to preserve Western values and existing international order.” https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/joining-the-quad-fear-versus-greed/

Japan is in a different place – geopolitically.  In Japan, fear dominates avarice when it comes to China. Its worst nightmare is subjugation by a vindictive China exacting revenge for its military’s behavior in China prior to and during World War II. It fears that if the boot is on China’s foot, it will act the same way it did.

 Non-aligned India faces a somewhat different and more nuanced trade-off. Greed plays a role. But China can also apply pressure on India to demur and delay joining military by withdrawing desperately needed assistance in infrastructure development, making military mischief along their disputed border, beefing up its presence in the Indian Ocean and providing increased military aid to India’s arch enemy Pakistan. As a sign of the sensitivity of such a decision for India, when senior representatives of the Quad countries met on the sidelines of the 2017 ASEAN-hosted meetings, the Indian government downplayed the meeting and did not join the other three in acknowledging the need for “coordination on maritime security”. Moreover, the impending trade war between India and the U.S. will not help boost India’s interest in the Quad. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/india-execs-raise-concerns-about-potential-trade-war-with-us.html

But Cronin is unimpressed with this reality.  He asserts that because the Quad itself was never seen as a short-term operational instrument of policy, ‘concern about the Quad’s possible re-retirement, should be minimal.’  He rationalizes that the Quad’s strength resides not in the four countries acting together but in the bilateral and trilateral building blocks on which it rests. He considers it “a natural trend” that the four deepen bilateral and trilateral military operations.  But this is more a hope than a realistic appraisal of the situation and it does not amount to the Quad—at least in its initial conception.

He then asserts that “the Quad makes a better reserve force than an actual capability, at least for the time being.”  He says “alliances are latent military communities, and for now, the Quad can be most useful as a latent maritime security community.”   Of course it is so.  But it is an implicit acknowledgement that the Quad is moribund – – at least as an alliance.  It is just or even more likely to be ‘dead and buried’, given that China’s economic and political persuasion will continue to prevent it from coming to fruition.

As Australian analyst Hugh White aptly puts it: “Does anyone imagine that India is really willing to sacrifice its relationship with China to support Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, or that Japan would endanger its interests with the Chinese to support India in its interminable border disputes with China? Or that Australia would jeopardize trade with China for either of them, or even to support America?” https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2120010/why-us-no-match-china-asia-and-trump-should-have-stayed-home

To quote Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the Quad concept is like “sea foam in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean: [it] may get some attention, but soon will dissipate.” https://www.afr.com/news/economy/why-indopacific-thinking-embraces-asean-too-20180315-h0xhzl  He appears to be right.

This piece first appeared in the IPP Review. http://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/918.html

When Turkish vice-president Fuat Oktay and foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu became this weekend the first high-level foreign government delegation to travel  to Christchurch they were doing more than expressing solidarity with New Zealand’s grieving Muslim community.

Messrs. Oktay and Cavusoglu were planting Turkey’s flag far and wide in a global effort to expand beyond the Turkic and former Ottoman world support for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s style of religiously-packaged authoritarian rule, a marriage of Islam and Turkish nationalism.

Showing footage of the rampage in Christchurch at a rally in advance of March 31 local elections, Mr. Erdogan declared that “there is a benefit in watching this on the screen. Remnants of the Crusaders cannot prevent Turkey’s rise.”

Mr. Erdogan went on to say that “we have been here for 1,000 years and God willing we will be until doomsday. You will not be able to make Istanbul Constantinople. Your ancestors came and saw that we were here. Some of them returned on foot and some returned in coffins. If you come with the same intent, we will be waiting for you too.”

Mr. Erdogan was responding to an assertion by Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist perpetrator of the Christchurch attacks in which 49 people were killed in two mosques, that Turks were “ethnic soldiers currently occupying Europe.”

Messrs. Oktay and Cavusoglu’s visit, two days after the attacks, is one more facet of a Turkish campaign that employs religious as well as traditional diplomatic tools.

The campaign aims to establish Turkey as a leader of the Muslim world in competition with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and to a lesser degree Morocco.

As part of the campaign, Turkey has positioned itself as a cheerleader for Muslim causes such as Jerusalem and the Rohingya at a moment that Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Muslim nations are taking a step back.

Although cautious not to rupture relations with Beijing, Turkey has also breached the wall of silence maintained by the vast majority of Muslim countries by speaking out against China’s brutal crackdown on Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western province of Xinjiang.

Mr. Erdogan’s religious and traditional diplomatic effort has seen Turkey build grand mosques and/or cultural centres across the globe in the United States, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa and Asia, finance religious education and restore Ottoman heritage sites.

It has pressured governments in Africa and Asia to hand over schools operated by the Hizmet movement led by exiled preacher Fethullah Gulen. Mr. Erdogan holds Mr. Gulen responsible for the failed military coup in Turkey in 2016.

On the diplomatic front, Turkey has in recent years opened at least 26 embassies in Africa, expanded the Turkish Airlines network to 55 destinations in Africa, established military bases in Somalia and Qatar, and negotiated a long-term lease for Sudan’s Suakin Island in the Red Sea.

The Turkish religious campaign takes a leaf out of Saudi Arabia’s four decade long, USD 100 billion effort to globally propagate ultra-conservative Sunni Islam. 

Like the Saudis, Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) provides services to Muslim communities, organizes pilgrimages to Mecca, trains religious personnel, publishes religious literature, translates the Qur’an into local languages and funds students from across the world to study Islam at Turkish institutions.

Turkish Muslim NGOs provide humanitarian assistance in former parts of the Ottoman empire, the Middle East and Africa much like the Saudi-led World Muslim League and other Saudi governmental -non-governmental organizations, many of which have been shut down since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Saudi Arabia, since the rise of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2015, has significantly reduced global funding for ultra-conservatism.

Nonetheless, Turkey is at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia as well as the UAE over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; Turkish support for Qatar in its dispute with the Saudis and Emiratis; differences over Libya, Syria and the Kurds; and Ankara’s activist foreign policy. Turkey is seeking to position itself as an Islamic alternative.

Decades of Saudi funding has left the kingdom’s imprint on the global Muslim community. Yet, Turkey’s current struggles with Saudi Arabia are more geopolitical than ideological.

While Turkey competes geopolitically with the UAE in the Horn of Africa, Libya and Syria, ideologically the two countries’ rivalry is between the UAE’s effort to establish itself as a centre of a quietist, apolitical Islam as opposed to Turkey’s activist approach and its support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In contrast to Saudi Arabia that adheres to Wahhabism, an austere ultra-conservative interpretation of the faith, the UAE projects itself and its religiosity as far more modern, tolerant and forward looking.

The UAE’s projection goes beyond Prince Mohammed’s attempt to shave off the raw edges of Wahhabism in an attempt to present himself as a proponent of what he has termed moderate Islam.

The UAE scored a significant success with the first ever papal visit in February by Pope Francis I during which he signed a Document on Human Fraternity with Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the revered 1,000-year-old seat of Sunni Muslim learning.

The signing was the result of UAE-funded efforts of Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to depoliticize Islam and gain control of Al Azhar that Sheikh Al-Tayeb resisted despite supporting Mr. Al-Sisi’s 2013 military coup.

To enhance its influence within Al Azhar and counter that of Saudi Araba, the UAE has funded  Egyptian universities and hospitals and has encouraged Al Azhar to open a branch in the UAE.

The UAE effort paid off when the pope, in a public address, thanked Egyptian judge Mohamed Abdel Salam, an advisor to Sheikh Al-Tayeb who is believed to be close to both the Emiratis and Mr. Al-Sisi, for drafting the declaration.

“Abdel Salam enabled Al-Sisi to outmanoeuvre Al Azhar in the struggle for reform,” said an influential activist.

The Turkey-UAE rivalry has spilt from the geopolitical and ideological into competing versions of Islamic history.

Turkey last year renamed the street on which the UAE embassy in Ankara is located after an Ottoman general that was at the centre of a Twitter spat between Mr. Erdogan and UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan..

Mr. Erdogan responded angrily to the tweet that accused Fahreddin Pasha, who defended the holy city of Medina against the British in the early 20^th century, of abusing the local Arab population and stealing their property as well as sacred relics from the Prophet Muhammad’s tomb,. The tweet described the general as one of Mr. Erdogan’s ancestors.

“When my ancestors were defending Medina, you impudent (man), where were yours? Some impertinent man sinks low and goes as far as accusing our ancestors of thievery. What spoiled this man? He was spoiled by oil, by the money he has,” Mr. Erdogan retorted, referring to Mr. Al-Nahyan.

China is being harassed on several fronts by the US: commercial pressures, diplomatic maneuvers to block the progress of infrastructure projects (OBOR/New Silk Road), at technological level, the boycott/ restrictions against Huawei. These are some of the current modalities of strategic competition between great powers, without involving the direct use of hard / military power, which we could well consider a Cold War 2.0.

Analyzing the factors and interests at stake, the events in full development during the last months are not surprising, as the advances of the US government against the Chinese technological giant Huawei. Since the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the founder of the company, to accusations of espionage, boycotts and diplomatic pressure to annul Huawei’s advances in several countries.

Huawei is the flagship, the spearhead of the Chinese technological advance. This onslaught is not a coincidence. While formally not having direct links with the Chinese government, Huawei has a prominent role in the Chinese strategic technological plan “Made in China 2025”, because of its development and implementation of 5G networks, key part of the plan, which are estimated to be available around soon.

The strategic approach is to change the Chinese productive matrix towards a “High Tech” economy, of design and innovation, to position China in the forefront in the technological advanced sectors of the modern economy (artificial intelligence, biotechnology, robotics, automation, the internet of things, telecommunications, software, renewable energies, and the element that is in the most interest for us to analyze, the 5G). In Washington, they do not feel comfortable with Chinese advances.

The Eurasia Group consulting firm argues that the installation of 5G networks will involve one of the biggest changes in our time, comparing its appearance with major breaks in the technological history such as electricity. Some specialists, websites and the press have coined the term “Sputnik” moment, by comparing the potential impact of competition for the development of 5G technologies with the space race in the Cold War at the time.

The 5G will allow the use of faster network data, as well as the widespread and coordinated use of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, the internet of things, smart cities, automation, improvements in health, and in the military field.

The US has put pressure on several of its allies (Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Great Britain, and Canada to name some) to block Huawei’s advances in services and investments in their countries, while restricting the purchase of Huawei’s products and services on North American soil.

While it is true that several countries could give in from the pressure from Washington to “encircle” Huawei and restrict its services and products, so is the fact that many other countries, especially the many that have China as their main trading partner, in addition to all the pleiad of emerging and developing countries that are being seduced by the economic possibilities, and in this specific case, technology offered by China and its companies. What it would imply, a worldwide competition between American diplomatic muscle and Chinese sweet money.

And also in commercial terms, the progress of Huawei into the top of the tech companies is remarkable, due to its production methods and its business model, having surpassed, for example, APPLE among the largest companies that sells mobile phones being only second to Samsung.

Does anyone remember free trade? Competition? What’s up with that? Or was it just a trick? It seems that in the global economic game, the US throws the chessboard away when it loses, and uses the geopolitical muscle, without any problem, following the Groucho’s Marx doctrine: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” The fears about Huawei’s technology are hiding a power struggle, a hegemonic dispute over technology. So far the accusations of espionage against this corporation perhaps are valid in theoretical sense, but unprovable in facts, what left them as mere speculations. The accusations by the US against Huawei, through the speech of “the threat of espionage” are unbelievable, and hypocritical in some sense, and the speech is marked by a double standard… Who represents the threat? IS the same US that nowadays “advises” its allies and other countries to “protect” themselves against the “threat” of Huawei’s espionage in favor of its government, the same country that spied on its own allies in a wicked way, if we remember the cases that Assange and Snowden brought to light.

We can also highlight recently the Cambridge Analytica scandal – much of which has been well predicted by Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic in his influential manifesto about the McFB world of tomorrow. The Cambridge Analytica fiasco plainly showed the unholy relations between the big technological “independent” corporations like Facebook and Google with the political power in the West.

Conclusions:

Technological competition is another chessboard of this new multilevel and multidimensional XXI Century Great Game, where the great actors move their pieces.

5G is the focal point for a global rush to dominate the next wave of technological development – a race many policymakers worry the U.S. is already losing, and that’s why they act in this aggressive way. The strategic competition for advanced, high technologies such as 5G, and innovations in the fourth industrial revolution, will mark the “podium” of the great powers of the 21st century.

The technological new cold war between the two largest economies and powers in the world shows no signs of diminishing, either the strategic competition.

Who will win this Great Game on the chessboards? The patience / precaution and forecast of the game of Go, or the strong bets and bluffs of poker.

The geostrategic chessboard is already deployed. Players already have their cards in hand, and have moved their tokens. Prestige is to come.

*Juan Martin González Cabañas is a senior researcher and analyst at the Dossier Geopolitico

The Inclusive Business Action Network (iBAN) and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) announced a joint initiative to help governments to enhance the policy environment for inclusive business in South-East Asia.

iBAN is a global initiative implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), which supports the scaling and replication of inclusive business models to improve the lives of the poor. ESCAP – the regional intergovernmental platform for the United Nations in Asia and the Pacific – will leverage its expertise in promoting impact investment, sustainable business and inclusive innovation; to support policymakers to develop inclusive business policies, and provide a sub-regional platform for sharing knowledge and lessons learned across South-East Asia.

“ESCAP’s regional expertise and knowledge in promoting inclusive innovation policies makes it ideally placed to support a strong policy foundation to spur inclusive businesses in this fast-growing region,” said Christian Jahn, Executive Director of iBAN.

Inclusive businesses provide goods, services, and livelihoods to people living at the base of the economic pyramid; while also engaging the low-income population in the value chain of companies as suppliers, distributors, and retailers. Governments can encourage the growth of inclusive business by implementing policies that facilitate impact investments. They can also reward companies that have a social impact, and boost innovations that allow businesses to be inclusive while meeting profit margins.

The iBAN-ESCAP partnership will focus on three main areas: country-level analysis and advice, regional policy dialogues and knowledge exchange. The partners will conduct studies that identify existing and potential inclusive business companies in each country and analyze the overall context in which they operate. Based on this analysis, the studies will provide recommendations for policymakers and institutions to encourage inclusive businesses. The partners will provide policymakers with technical and advisory services to help them design inclusive business policies. ESCAP will also convene member States and promote policy dialogues and endorsements at the regional level.

“The United Nations recognize the importance of businesses in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the right policy environment needs to be in place to incentivize them to be more inclusive. Innovation is not just about technology but also innovative business models and changes in mindsets. One could argue that the most impactful innovation for the SDGs could be the shift from business as usual to inclusive business” said Mia Mikic, Director of Trade, Investment and Innovation at ESCAP.