As UN climate negotiations enter their final days, the European Union and the group of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific States on Tuesday stressed their shared commitment for an ambitious and binding global climate deal to be agreed in Paris.

The EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific states have agreed: the Paris Agreement must be legally binding, inclusive, fair, ambitious, durable and dynamic; it must set out a clear and operational long-term goal which is in line with science; it must establish a review mechanism for countries to come together every five years to consider progress made and to enhance collective and individual efforts as appropriate, and; it must include a transparency and accountability system to track progress on the delivery of national commitments and the sharing of best practice.

EU Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, Minister for Environment of Luxembourg holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Carole Dieschbourg,and Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, Patrick Gomes, highlighted the longstanding cooperation and common understanding between the two groups of countries in the fight against climate change. They agreed that the 79 ACP countries and the 28 European Union Member States will push together for an ambitious agreement in Paris.

Miguel Arias Cañete and Patrick Gomes welcomed the signing of the 11th European Development Fund Intra-ACP Strategy by the ACP Group and the European Commission, which allocates €475 million to support climate action, resilience building and the environment in ACP countries up to 2020.

Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete said, “These negotiations are not about “them” and “us”. These negotiations are about all of us, both developed and developing countries, finding common ground and solutions together. This is why the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have agreed to join forces for an ambitious outcome here in Paris. We urge other countries to join us. Together we can do it. The EU stands shoulder to shoulder with its long term partners in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions.”

ACP Secretary General Patrick Gomes stressed the importance of supporting ACP Countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, stating, “The EU and the ACP Group represent a great majority of countries in the world and we want an ambitious Paris Agreement to accelerate the global transition that we urgently need. Now is the time for leaders to be ambitious. The adverse impacts of climate change threaten the world as a whole, including the very survival of the 79 countries of the ACP Group, while impeding their achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

The Paris climate conference, scheduled to run from November 30 to December 11, is due to conclude a new international agreement to limit global average temperature rise and avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change.

Recent events in Europe have brought the issues of marginalization and extremism to the forefront of public debate. On December 7, the European Parliament’s culture committee adopted a report on the role of intercultural dialogue, cultural diversity and education in promoting EU fundamental values.

Ahead of the vote, European Parliament News (EPN) spoke to report author Julie Ward, a UK member of the S&D: “We have one world and we have to find some way of being mutually respectful and tolerant of each other.”

EPN: There are many who blame multiculturalism for the terrorist attacks Europe has faced of late. How would you respond to this?

Julie Ward: These acts were perpetrated by a small minority of people, in many ways damaged people. The terrorist attacks were not the result of multiculturalism at all, but of exclusion. I represent the northwest of England including Manchester which is an extremely cohesive, inclusive society where people from many ethnic backgrounds work together on joint projects on a whole variety of issues. What I actually see is a really positive way of people from different backgrounds coming together and building one of the most successful, dynamic cities in the world.

EPN: So what measures can be taken to promote such integration and social cohesion at an EU level?

JW: Education is crucial. Children are not born to hate, so tackling things from an early age is vital. We are sometimes afraid of otherness and the best way to address this is to be in dialogue with people, to share different practices. In schools in Manchester, for example, children celebrate the Muslim holidays but also the Jewish, Christian and Hindu holidays. This sharing of different cultural practices is what makes a rich society.

The media has in a way legitimized racism. The narrative is that somebody else is always to blame; for the crisis, the lack of employment and so on. Also the conflation of migrants with refugees has resulted in a culture of fear. However, when people come together and talk honestly and share in each other’s culture, they learn that we’re all human beings with common aspirations and concerns. That’s the bottom line.

EPN: Would you then argue that migrants and refugees enrich the social fabric of their new communities?

JW: Even by looking at your own story, you can find very positive narratives on migration. I myself have ancestors who fled the persecution of the Huguenots in France. They brought wealth and skills and helped found the lace trade in Nottingham. Look also at the UK’s National Health Service which today relies on migrant labor. It’s also worth noting that people from developing countries or who have escaped terrible situations tend to be very entrepreneurial.

In terms of marginalization and intolerance, we must also use history as a means to teach us about how to live better in the future. That requires us to face up to some difficult truths about the very bloody history of Europe. We don’t want to see the rise of fascism again. Ultimately when you “other” people, you are beginning the steps towards genocide. So I would say: look at the past and don’t let that ever happen again.

Source: European Parliament News

By Ian Storey*

In 2010, a year before the Obama administration announced its pivot/rebalance towards Asia, President Vladimir Putin declared Russia would “Turn to the East”: that henceforth, Moscow was committed to ramping up its economic, political and security engagement with countries in Asia.

What motivated Putin’s “Turn to the East”? One reason was Russia’s desire to lessen its economic dependence on the West (and especially Europe) in the wake of the global financial and euro zone crises. Another reason was the lure of Asia’s growing economies, particularly China. Since 2010, Putin’s policy has been given added impetus due to Russia’s severe economic problems caused by plunging global oil prices (one of the country’s largest foreign currency earners) and the imposition of sanctions by the United States, the European Union (EU) and other countries following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the Kremlin’s support for pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. According to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, the sanctions have done “meaningful harm” to Russia’s economy.1 The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the Russian economy will contract 3.4 per cent in 2015 and that future growth will be sluggish at best.2

This is not, however, the first time that Russia has looked to strengthen ties with Asia when relations with the West have soured — and as several observers have noted, once relations improve, Russia’s Western-centric elite resumes normal interaction with Europe and America and turns its back on Asia.3 Geography and demographics exacerbate this mindset.

Despite the fact that three-quarters of Russia’s territory lies east of the Urals, less than 30 per cent of the population resides there.4 For the majority of Russians, the country’s vast Asian hinterland is alien and far away. Russia’s current “Turn to the East” may prove to be more durable and substantive than past iterations, especially as the global economic centre of gravity moves inexorably from the Euro-Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific, and the region’s security dynamics become more complex. However, Russia will need to strive hard to prove to its Asian partners that it is more than just a transactional player whose primary interest is the sale of energy and weapons.

Since taking office in 2000, Putin’s Asia policy has been Sino-centric, and today relations between Moscow and Beijing are at an historic high. Yet the Kremlin has serious trust issues with Beijing: it worries about intellectual property theft when it sells high-tech weapons systems to China; it harbours residual concerns over whether China has irredentist claims in the resource-rich but underpopulated Russian Far East; Moscow smarts that it has lost influence to Beijing in Central Asia — a region it considers to be its “near abroad” and in which it has special interests — and that President Xi Jinping’s Silk Road Economic Belt competes with Putin’s Eurasian Economic Union (EUU), a trade bloc of former Soviet republics.

Underlying all these concerns is Russia’s fear that as China’s power grows, it will be relegated to the status of dependent junior partner. Yet even as Moscow fears dependence, it has become anxious that China’s slowing economic growth has weakened demand for Russian commodities — the volume of Sino-Russian trade plummeted 30 per cent in the first half of 2015 5 — and that some of Putin’s signature projects with Beijing are now at risk, including two massive contracts signed in 2014 to supply China with oil and gas.6 As a consequence, the Kremlin has looked to diversify its Asia policy away from China.

Moscow’s Asia options are limited though. Russia’s relations with Japan have become strained over the Ukraine (Tokyo has supported G7 sanctions against Russia) and Moscow’s decision to bolster its military presence on the disputed Southern Kuril Islands/Northern Territories. Russia would like to sell more weapons to India, but in recent years New Delhi has loosened defence ties with Moscow in favour of arms imports from America. As a result, the Kremlin has increasingly focused its attention on Southeast Asia, where it already has a close relationship with Vietnam. Aside from Vietnam, however, most Southeast Asian countries do not see Russia as a serious player. As this paper will demonstrate, Russia lacks economic heft, significant power projection capabilities and is uninterested in playing a more active role in the region’s security forums. For Southeast Asia, therefore, there is little substance to Russia’s “Turn to the East”.

RUSSIA’S ECONOMIC TIES WITH SOUTHEAST ASIA: A MODEST FOOTPRINT

In terms of economic engagement with Southeast Asia, Russia is a very minor player. Russia’s main exports to the region consist mainly of natural resources, especially oil and gas. As part of its Asian pivot, Russia has been trying to boost exports to the region, particularly in areas in which it excels such as weapons systems (of which more later) and nuclear technology. In 2012 Russia’s state-owned Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) won a contract to supply Vietnam with two nuclear power plants — the country’s first — to be completed in 2023-24.7 Russia has also offered to provide Myanmar, Indonesia and even Cambodia with advanced civilian nuclear technology.8 However, aside from commodities, arms and energy technology, there seems little room for expansion in Russia- ASEAN trade.

The statistics highlight the weak economic links between Russia and Southeast Asia. In 2014, Russia was ASEAN’s 14th largest trade partner: the value of two-way trade amounted to US$22.5 billion, a 13 per cent increase on the 2013 figure (US$19.95 billion) but still a mere 0.9 per cent of the ten members’ total trade.9 In contrast, China’s trade with ASEAN was US$366.5 billion (14.5 per cent), the EU US$248 billion (9.8 per cent), Japan US$229 billion (9.1 per cent), the United States US$212 billion (8.4 per cent) and India US$67.7 billion (2.7 per cent).10 Russian investment in Southeast Asia is also very modest, and shrinking. Between 2012 and 2014, Russian Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the ASEAN-10 was only US$698 million or just 0.2 per cent of total net inflows.11 During the same period, the EU invested US$58 billion (15.7 per cent), Japan US$56.4 billion (15.3 per cent), the United States $32.4 billion (8.8 per cent) and China US$21.4 billion (5.8 per cent).12 Due to the country’s economic crisis, Russian FDI in Southeast Asia in 2013-14 was down 105 per cent on 2012-13.13

In 2012 Russia’s largest trade partner in Southeast Asia was Vietnam (US$2.92 billion) followed by Indonesia and Thailand (US$2.87 billion each) and Singapore (US$1.98 billion).14 In May 2015 Vietnam became the first country to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with the Russian-led EEU — established in 2014 and whose other members include the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan — which will take effect in 2016.15 But the economic benefits for Vietnam are unlikely to be substantial, especially when compared with the recently concluded US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) of which Vietnam is a member. As a means to deepen economic ties with Southeast Asia, Russia has proposed an FTA with ASEAN, but this may be problematic as Moscow has suggested that all EEU members be included.16

RUSSIA’S MILITARY ENGAGEMENT WITH SOUTHEAST ASIA: BOMBS AND BULLETS

A key component of President Putin’s ambition to restore Russia’s Great Power status has been to revitalize the country’s armed forces, once among the most powerful in the world but which quickly atrophied following the end of the Cold War. In 2010, Putin announced a ten-year $650 billion programme to modernize Russia’s military. With the economy buoyed by rising oil process, Russia’s defence budget almost doubled between 2010 and 2014 — from US$58.7 billion to US$84.5 billion — to become the third largest in the world after the United States and China.17 Although the Kremlin has tried to ring-fence defence spending from government cuts, the economic crisis has forced it to scale back its military modernization plans by reducing orders for new weapons systems and extending the modernization period beyond ten years.18 Nevertheless, as Moscow’s recent operations in the Ukraine and Syria have highlighted, Russia’s military capabilities under Putin have undergone significant improvement.

Rising defence outlays and new weapons platforms have allowed Russia’s armed forces to increase their global presence, including in the Asia-Pacific. The Pacific Fleet, headquartered in Vladivostok, has commissioned new vessels, including nuclear-powered ballistic submarines, though its size and capabilities remain a fraction of what they were during the Soviet era.19 To facilitate its military presence in the region, in November 2014 Moscow signed an agreement with Hanoi that would give the Russian navy and air force regular access to facilities at Cam Ranh Bay.20 During the 1980s, the Soviet Union maintained a significant military presence at Cam Ranh Bay, but substantially downsized its presence in the 1990s before withdrawing completely in 2002.21 Under the new agreement, Russia has stationed IL-78 tanker aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay that have been used to refuel nuclear-capable TU-95 strategic bombers which have resumed patrols in the Asia-Pacific including near Japan and the US territory of Guam. The presence of Russian bombers near Guam led Washington to rebuke Hanoi in January 2015 for allowing Russia to use Cam Ranh Bay to raise tensions in the region.22

Hanoi’s response is not in the public domain, but the episode highlights Asia’s increasingly complex strategic environment: Vietnam has strengthened defence ties with Russia because of apprehensions over China, but in doing so has irked the United States with which it also seeks a closer strategic relationship due to Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea.

The most prominent aspect of Russia’s defence engagement with Southeast Asia continues to be arms sales. Russia and America dominate the global arms trade. Between 2010 and 2014, America’s share of international arms exports was 29 per cent, followed closely by Russia with 27 per cent.23 The Asia-Pacific is a particularly lucrative market for Russia, and during 2010-14 the region received 66 per cent of the country’s weapons exports, mainly India (39 per cent) and China (11 per cent).24 As defence budgets in Southeast Asia have soared — regional defence spending grew by 37.6 per cent during 2010-1425 — Russian arms manufacturers have been eager to take advantage of the commercial opportunities available. On the whole, Russian weapon systems enjoy a good reputation in the region (though after- sales services do not) and are generally cheaper than their Western equivalents.

Vietnam is by far Russia’s most important customer. As tensions in the South China Sea have risen since 2007-08, Vietnam has accelerated the modernization of its armed forces, especially the navy and air force. Russia has provided Vietnam with 90 per cent of its arms imports, including six Kilo-class submarines, six Gephard-class frigates, six Tarantul-class corvettes (built in Vietnam), six Svetlyak-class patrol vessels, 32 SU-30 fighter jets and air defence missile systems.26 Russian weaponry has provided Vietnam with a limited but potent deterrent against China, that could inflict serious damage on the Chinese navy should conflict break out in the South China Sea. Despite the recent lifting of America’s ban on lethal weapons sales to Vietnam, Russia is likely to remain its arms vendor of choice due to the long-standing relationship between the two countries and because Russian equipment is cheaper.

Russia has been looking beyond Vietnam to other Southeast Asian countries. In 2009-10, Myanmar ordered 20 MiG-29 fighters and over 20 military helicopters from Russia.27 Over the past decade, Russia has supplied Indonesia with SU-27 and SU-30 fighter jets, transport and attack helicopters and in September 2015 Jakarta announced it would purchase three Kilo-class submarines.28 Russia has moved to take advantage of America’s ban on arms sales to Thailand following the May 2014 coup, and has offered Bangkok a variety of weapons systems including military aircraft.29 Russia is also keen to expand arms sales to Malaysia, including fighter jets and missile systems, but this will prove difficult due to political sensitivities caused by the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 in July 2014 over eastern Ukraine, allegedly by pro-Russian rebels using Russian-supplied surface-to-air missiles. Overall, however, arms transfers to ASEAN countries remain one of the few bright spots in Russia’s engagement with Southeast Asia.

RUSSIA, ASEAN AND THE REGIONAL SECURITY ARCHITECTURE: AN UNINTERESTED BYSTANDER

Moscow’s relationship with ASEAN, and its participation in the organization’s efforts to construct a regional security architecture, dates back to the early 1990s. In 1991, a few months before its dissolution, the Soviet Union became a Consultative Partner of ASEAN. In 1994, Russia became a founding member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and two years later its status was elevated from Consultative to Dialogue Partner. Russia acceded to ASEAN’s non-aggression pact, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), in 2004, and together with the United States, joined the East Asia Summit (EAS) in 2011. ASEAN and Russia have held two summit meetings — in Kuala Lumpur in 2005 and Hanoi in 2010 — and in 2016 the two sides will hold a commemorative summit at the Black Sea resort of Sochi to mark twenty years of dialogue relations. At that summit Russia and ASEAN are expected to issue a Comprehensive Programme of Action to guide the development of relations from 2016 to 2026.

At the rhetorical level, Russia has praised ASEAN as an important partner.30 Yet Russia’s engagement with ASEAN has been superficial at best. As noted above, Russia-ASEAN economic ties are unimpressive. Russia has been a member of ASEAN-led security forums for over two decades, but it has never been a proactive participant. A prime example is the EAS. Although Russia became a member in 2011, President Putin has yet to attend a single summit. Putin’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, represented Russia at the EAS from 2011 until 2013, while Prime Minister Medvedev attended the 2014 and 2015 summits. In contrast, President Obama has attended four EAS summits.31

What explains Russia’s lack of commitment to Asia’s regional security architecture? The answer can be found in Russia’s sense of self-entitlement, and its Realist view of international relations. As Bobo Lo has argued, due to its size, history and culture, Russia perceives itself to be a permanent and indispensable Great Power.32 Accordingly, it sees Russian membership of regional and international forums as an automatic right. Yet at the same time, because Moscow regards powerful states as the key actors in the international system, it does not view multilateral institutions as serious players in their own right, but as mere tools of the major powers to promote their national interests.33 Furthermore, Russia does not participate enthusiastically in multilateral forums in which it feels it has limited influence to advance its interests.

Instead, it focuses its diplomatic energies on inter-state forums in which it can exert a strong influence and promote its core interests, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS (the association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the EEU and the Arctic Council. Thus, although Russia actively sought membership of the EAS to burnish its international credentials, once admitted it has had little incentive to actively participate in a forum led by ASEAN, dominated by America and China and in which it wields little real influence. Despite its “Turn to the East”, Moscow is unlikely to revise its role in the EAS any time soon.

RUSSIA AND THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE: A LOW-KEY APPROACH

Unlike the United States, the Kremlin has adopted a relatively low-key approach to Southeast Asia’s most contentious security problem for two reasons: first, it is not a major stakeholder in the South China Sea; and second, it is anxious to avoid offending its two major partners in Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, China and Vietnam respectively, which are rival claimants.

Russia’s official line on the South China Sea dispute is similar to that of many other countries: Moscow does not take a position on the merits of competing territorial claims; it advocates for a peaceful resolution of the dispute and urges the disputants to exercise self- restraint; it has called on all the parties to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); and it supports the implementation of the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC) and negotiations for a Code of Conduct (CoC).34

Just as China has not publicly supported Russia over the Ukraine (it abstained from a vote in the UN General Assembly in March 2014) Moscow has not publicly backed Beijing in the South China Sea — although Foreign Minister Lavrov has echoed China’s view that the problem should be resolved by the claimants themselves without “outside interference”, a veiled reference to the United States35 — because this would damage its relationship with Vietnam. But nor has it, like the United States, publicly queried the legality of China’s nine- dash line — which covers almost 80 per cent of the South China Sea and in which Beijing appears to be claiming sovereignty over all of the geographical features as well as so-called “historic rights” to living and non-living resources — as this would hurt its relationship with China.

However, it can be inferred from the participation of Russian companies in Vietnam’s offshore energy development projects that Moscow believes Hanoi to have legitimate sovereign rights in the country’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and that China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea do not comport with UNCLOS. Russian energy giant Gazprom, of which the Russian government is the majority shareholder, entered into an agreement with state-owned PetroVietnam in 2006 to explore for hydrocarbons in offshore oil and gas fields.36 Subsequent agreements between the two companies led to exploration activities in four offshore gas fields which are located on Vietnam’s continental shelf but also lie within the nine-dash line.

Production began in 2013, and is expected to reach full capacity in two of the fields by 2016.37 Gazprom’s partnership with PetroVietnam benefits both countries. For Moscow, it increases Russia’s economic engagement with Southeast Asia. Vietnam gains access to Russia’s technical expertise while the presence of foreign energy majors in its EEZ strengthens its jurisdictional claims and gives major powers such as Russia a stake in the dispute. Russia’s participation in Vietnam’s offshore energy industry, and its sale of major weapons systems to Vietnam, rankles China. Yet Beijing remains silent, at least in public, so as to maintain cordial relations with Moscow.38

Despite its low-key approach to the dispute, rising tensions in the South China Sea over the past few years have become a concern for Russia. At a time when Russia is trying to strengthen economic ties with Asia, peace and stability in an area which is home to critical maritime trade routes has become of great importance to Russia. Moreover, the dispute places Russia in a somewhat difficult position vis-à-vis its most important partners in Asia — China, Vietnam and even India — who are increasingly at odds with each other. As a result of these growing concerns, in 2013 and 2015 the Institute of Oriental Studies (IOS), part of the state- funded Russian Academy of Sciences, hosted two conferences in Moscow to discuss the deteriorating situation and how the dispute might be better managed. Tellingly, the IOS is considering hosting an annual conference on the South China Sea.

CONCLUSION

With Russia’s relations with the West and its economy both in serious crisis, the Kremlin has looked to Asia for salvation. As the world’s second largest economy, and with a voracious appetite for natural resources, it is unsurprising that Putin’s Asia policy has centred on China. But fears of overdependence, and China’s slowing economy, have forced Russia to look for new markets in Asia, especially in Southeast Asia. However, due to its lack of economic, diplomatic and military levers of power, aside from Vietnam, few countries in Southeast Asia view Russia as a credible and committed player. While Russia will continue to push ASEAN members to buy its energy and arms, for the Kremlin Southeast Asia is likely to remain a sideshow next to Europe, the Middle East and China.

About the author:
* Ian Storey is ISEAS Senior Fellow and editor of the Contemporary Southeast Asia, one of the Institute’s three academic journals.

Source:
This article was published by ISEAS as ISEAS Perspective 67 (PDF).

Notes:
1 Andrew Roth, “Russian Premier Says Annexation of Crimea Was Worth Sanctions Fallout”, New York Times, 21 April 2015.
2 “IMF Says Sanctions Take Toll on Russia”, Wall Street Journal, 3 August 2015.
3 Jonathan Eyal, “The ‘illogic’ behind Russia’s Asia strategy”, Straits Times, 18 August 2014; Bobo Lo, Russia and the New World Disorder (London and Washington D.C.: Chatham House and Brookings Institute Press, 2015), p. 11.
4 Ibid., p. 135
5 Julia Smirnova, “Russia’s turn to China: A gap between rhetoric and reality”, Washington Post, 6 September 2015.
6 In May 2014 Russia agreed to supply China with 38 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas for thirty years beginning in 2018, followed by another contract in November to supply an additional 30 bcm. However, the construction of the pipelines that will carry the gas has been delayed due to disagreements over financing, and the price of gas for the November deal has not yet been agreed. Both contracts may have to be renegotiated. “An uneasy friendship”, The Economist, 9 May 2015.
7 “Russian president visits Vietnam to boost ties”, Associated Press, 12 November 2013.
8 “Russia and Burma discuss ‘favourable conditions’ for nuclear technology”, Democratic Voice of Burma, 14 April 2015; “Russia-Indonesia Partnership to Build Future of Indonesian Nuclear Sector”, Jakarta Globe, 7 October 2015.
9 ASEAN Trade by Partner Country/Region 2014, ASEAN Secretariat statistics available at < http://www.asean.org/images/2015/July/external_trade_statistic/table24_asof17June15.pdf>.
10 Ibid.
11 Foreign direct investment new inflows in ASEAN from selected partner/country regions, ASEAN Secretariat statistics available at < http://www.asean.org/images/2015/June/FDI_tables/Table%2026.pdf>.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Direction of Trade Statistics: Yearbook 2013 (Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 2013).
15 “Vietnam signs Free Trade Agreement with Russian-led Economic Union”, Moscow Times, 29 May 2015.
16 “Russia Expands ‘Pivot’ East Beyond China to Vietnam and Thailand”, Reuters, 9 April 2015.
17 SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, available at < http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database>.
18 Thomas Grove, “Russia Shows Off Military Might as Budget Gets Squeezed”, Wall Street Journal, 27 August 2015.
19 Franz-Stefan Gady, “What to Expect from Russia’s Pacific Fleet in 2015”, The Diplomat, 2 March 2015.
20 “Russia, Vietnam agree on simplified Cam Ranh port entry for Russian warships”, TASS, 27 November 2014.
21 Ian Storey and Carlyle A. Thayer, “Cam Ranh Bay: Past Imperfect, Future Conditional”, Contemporary Southeast Asia 23, No. 3 (December 2001): 452-473.
22 Nhina Lee and Koh Swee Lean Collin, “Vietnam and Great Power Rivalries”, The Diplomat, 31 March 2015.
23 Pieter D. Wezeman and Siemon T. Wezeman, Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2014, SIPRI Fact Sheet (March 2015), available at < http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1503.pdf>.
24 Ibid.
25 Zachary Abuza, “Analyzing Southeast Asia’s Military Expenditures”, cogitASIA, 7 May 2015, available at < http://cogitasia.com/analyzing-southeast-asias-military-expenditures/>.
26 SIPRI Arms Transfer Database, available at < http://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers>. 27 Ibid.
28 “House support plans to buy Russian submarines”, Jakarta Post, 29 September 2015.
29 “Russia Eyes Military Sales to Thailand, Rubber Deals”, Reuters, 9 April 2015.
30 “Russia considers ASEAN as important partner”, Vietnam News Agency, 7 August 2015.
31 Obama attended EAS summits in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015. In 2013 the United States was represented by Secretary of State John Kerry.
32 Lo, Russia in the New World Disorder, op. cit., p. 49.
33 Ibid., pp. 40-41.
34 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Channel NewsAsia, Kuala Lumpur, 5 August 2015, available at < http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/foreign_policy/news/- /asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/1635121>.
35 Ibid.
36 For further information see “Vietnam” on Gazprom’s website, available at < http://www.gazprom.com/about/production/projects/deposits/vietnam/>.
37 “Gazprom and PetroVietnam to develop Moc Tinh and Hai Thach fields to full capacity in 2016”, Gazprom media release, 3 September 2014, available at < http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2014/september/article200284/>.
38 While China has put pressure on US, Malaysian and Indian energy companies not to sign agreements with Vietnam, Russian firms have not been subject to the same treatment. See Greg Torode, “Beijing pressure intense in South China Sea row”, South China Morning Post, 23 September 2011.

Exploding stars may seem like an unlikely yardstick for measuring the vast distances of space, but astronomers have been mapping the universe for decades using these stellar eruptions, called supernovas, with surprising accuracy.

Type Ia supernovas–exploding white dwarf stars–are considered the most reliable distance markers for objects beyond our local group of galaxies. Because all Type Ia supernovas give off about the same amount of light, their distance can be inferred by the light intensity observed from Earth.

These so-called standard candles are critical to astronomers’ efforts to map the cosmos. It’s been estimated that Type Ia supernovas can be used to calculate distances to within 10 percent accuracy, good enough to help scientists determine that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a discovery that garnered the Nobel Prize in 2011.

But despite their reputation for uniformity, exploding white dwarfs contain subtle differences that scientists are working to explain using supercomputers.

A team led by Michael Zingale of Stony Brook University is exploring the physics of Type Ia supernovas using the Titan supercomputer at the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Titan is the flagship machine of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF), a DOE Office of Science User Facility located at ORNL. The team’s latest research focuses on a specific class of Type Ia supernovas known as double-detonation supernovas, a process by which a single star explodes twice.

This year, the team completed a three-dimensional (3-D), high-resolution investigation of the thermonuclear burning a double-detonation white dwarf undergoes before explosion. The study expands upon the team’s initial 3-D simulation of this supernova scenario, which was carried out in 2013.

“In 3-D simulations we can see the region of convective burning drill down deeper and deeper into the star under the right conditions,” said Adam Jacobs, a graduate student on Zingale’s team. “Higher mass and more burning force the convection to be more violent. These results will be useful in future studies that explore the subsequent explosion in three-dimensional detail.”

By capturing the genesis of a Type Ia supernova, Zingale’s team is laying the foundation for the first physically realistic start-to-finish, double-detonation supernova simulation. Beyond capturing the incredible physics of an exploding star, the creation of a robust end-to-end model would help astronomers understand stellar phenomena observed in our night sky and improve the accuracy of cosmological measurements.

These advances, in addition to helping us orient ourselves in the universe, could shed light on some of humanity’s biggest questions about how the universe formed, how we came to be, and where we’re going.

An Explosive Pairing

All Type Ia supernovas begin with a dying star gravitationally bound to a stellar companion. White dwarfs are the remnants of Sun-like stars that have spent most of their nuclear fuel. Composed mostly of carbon and oxygen, white dwarfs pack a mass comparable to that of the Sun in a star that’s about the size of the Earth.

Left to its own devices, a lone white dwarf will smolder into darkness. But when a white dwarf is paired with a companion star, a cosmic dance ensues that’s destined for fireworks.

To become a supernova, a white dwarf must collide with or siphon off the mass of its companion. The nature of the companion–perhaps a Sun-like star, a red giant star, or another white dwarf–and the properties of its orbit play a large role in determining the supernova trigger.

In the classic setup, known as the single-degenerate scenario, a white dwarf takes on the maximum amount of mass it can handle–about 1.4 times the mass of the Sun, a constraint known as the Chandrasekhar limit. The additional mass increases pressure within the white dwarf’s core, reigniting nuclear fusion. Heat builds up within the star over time until it can no longer escape the star’s surface fast enough. A moving flame front of burning gases emerges, engulfing the star and causing its explosion.

This model gave scientists a strong explanation for the uniformity of Type Ia supernovas, but further tests and observational data gathered by astronomers suggested there was more to the story.

“To reach the Chandrasekhar limit, a white dwarf has to gain mass at just the right rate so that it grows without losing mass, for example by triggering an explosion,” Jacobs said. “It’s difficult for the classic model to explain all we know today. The community is more and more of the belief that there are going to be multiple progenitor systems that lead to a Type Ia system.”

The double-detonation scenario, a current focus of Zingale’s team, is one such alternative. In this model, a white dwarf builds up helium on its surface. The helium can be acquired in multiple ways: stealing hydrogen from a Sun-like companion and burning it into helium, siphoning helium directly from a helium white dwarf, or attracting the helium-rich core remnant of a dying Sun-like star. The buildup of helium on the white dwarf’s surface can cause a detonation before reaching the Chandrasekhar limit. The force of this sub-Chandrasekhar detonation triggers a second detonation in the star’s carbon-oxygen core.

“If you have a thick helium shell, the explosion doesn’t look like a normal Type Ia supernova,” Jacobs said. “But if the helium shell is very thin, you can get something that does.”

To test this scenario, Zingale’s team simulated 18 different double-detonation models using the subsonic hydrodynamics code MAESTRO. The simulations were carried out under a 50-million core-hour allocation on Titan, a Cray XK7 with a peak performance of 27 petaflops (or 27 quadrillion calculations per second), awarded through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment, or INCITE, program. DOE’s Office of Nuclear Physics also supported the team’s work.

By varying the mass of the helium shell and carbon-oxygen core in each model, MAESTRO calculated a range of thermonuclear dynamics that potentially could lead to detonation. Additionally, the team experimented with “hot” and “cold” core temperatures–about 10 million and 1 million degrees Celsius, respectively.

In three-dimensional detail, the team was able to capture the formation of “hot spots” on the sub-Chandrasekhar star’s surface, regions where the star cannot shed the heat of burning helium fast enough. The simulations indicated that this buildup could lead to a runaway reaction if the conditions are right, Jacobs said.

“We know that all nuclear explosions depend on a star’s temperature and density. The question is whether the shell dynamics of the double-detonation model can yield the temperature and density needed for an explosion,” Jacobs said. “Our study suggests that it can.”

Using the OLCF’s analysis cluster Rhea, Zingale’s team was able to visualize this relationship for the first time.

Bigger and Better

Before translating its findings to the next step of double detonation, called the ignition-to-detonation phase, Zingale’s team is upgrading MAESTRO to calculate more realistic physics, an outcome that will enhance the fidelity of its simulations. On Titan, this means equipping the CPU-only code to leverage GPUs, which are highly parallel, highly efficient processors that can take on heavy calculation loads.

Working with the OLCF’s Oscar Hernandez, the team was able to offload one of MAESTRO’s most demanding tasks: tracking stars’ nucleus-merging, energy-releasing process called nucleosynthesis. For the double-detonation problem, MAESTRO calculates a network of three elements–helium, carbon, and oxygen. By leveraging the GPUs, Zingale’s team could increase that number to around 10. Early efforts to program the OpenACC compiler directives included in the PGI compiler indicated a speedup of around 400 percent was attainable for this part of the code.

The GPU effort benefits the team’s investigation of not only Type Ia supernovas but also other astrophysical phenomena. As part of its current INCITE proposal, Zingale’s team is exploring Type I x?ray bursts, a recurring explosive event triggered by the buildup of hydrogen and helium on the surface of a neutron star, the densest and smallest type of star in the universe.

“Right now our reaction network for x-ray bursts includes 11 nuclei. We want to go up to 40. That requires about a factor of 16 more computational power that only the GPUs can give us,” Zingale said.

Maximizing the power of current-generation supercomputers will position codes like MAESTRO to better take advantage of the next generation of machines. Summit, the OLCF’s next GPU-equipped leadership system, is expected to deliver at least five times the performance of Titan.

“Ultimately, we hope to understand how convection behaves in these stellar systems,” Zingale said, “Now we want to do bigger and better, and Titan is what we need to achieve that.”

By Riley Walters*

On the morning of December 2, gunfire was reported at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. The events of the following five hours resulted in 16 deaths, including the two suspected shooters, and 21 wounded, including two police officers. The FBI has confirmed it will be investigating the events in San Bernardino as an act of terrorism, making this the 75th Islamist-inspired terrorist attack or plot in the U.S. since 9/11.[1]

While a motive has not been confirmed amidst the ongoing investigation, there are reports connecting the suspected shooters with confirmed terrorists in the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).[2] This will be the 12th domestic terror attack or plot in 2015—adding to the greatest number of attacks or plots in a single year over the past 14 years.

Timeline of Events

After leaving a morning holiday party at his place of employment, Syed Rizwan Farook, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, returned between 10 to 30 minutes later. After shooting up to 75 rounds at Farook’s co-workers, the suspects fled the scene of the attack. Police, unable to immediately identify the attackers, began looking for three suspected shooters reported to have escaped in a black SUV. Hours after the incident began, police located the black SUV and then engaged in a roadside shootout with the suspects that ended with the deaths of Farook and Malik.

Information released in later reports reveals that police found in possession of the couple the following items: tactical gear, .233-caliber rifles, handguns, and 1,600 rounds of ammunition at their time of capture; as well as an additional 3,000 rounds of ammo and 12 pipe bombs at their place of residence.

Self-radicalization or Outside Influence?

The first suspect, 28-year-old Syed Rizwan Farook, was a U.S. citizen. He married Tashfeen Malik, 27, after meeting on an online dating site and during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2013. Malik had reportedly been living there after moving from Pakistan in the late 2000s.

According to family and personal witnesses, Farook was a “normal guy”—“living the American Dream.”[3] According to the FBI, however, the shooters did make contact with known suspected terrorists, and Malik may have also pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.[4] Malik may also be a leading source for radicalizing Farook—as it is reported she began posting radicalized statements online as early as 2007.

Conclusion

Prior to the events in San Bernardino, there have been 74 Islamist-inspired terror attacks and plots in the U.S. since 9/11. This is the 64th terrorist attack or plot that has been perpetrated by self-radicalized U.S. citizens.

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in separate speeches over the past week, have reminded citizens that assaults like these are carried out by radicalized terrorists and not reflective of the teachings and beliefs of most Muslims.

In his address from the Oval Office the Sunday following the San Bernadino attack, President Obama noted that “it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.”[5]

The attack comes at a difficult time, as countries across the globe question their ability to accept mostly Muslim refugees displaced by ongoing conflict in Syria, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, and the terror of ISIS.

Congress should:

• Develop a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy. Since the inspirational source of domestic radicalization and terrorism often lies overseas, battling violent Islamist extremism abroad should be addressed in concert with the challenges presented by the terrorism at home. Congress should ensure that the Administration has a comprehensive strategy for addressing violent Islamist extremism both at home and abroad.
• Emphasize community outreach. Federal grant funds should be used to create robust community outreach capabilities directed towards higher-risk areas. Such capabilities are key to building trust in local communities. If the United States is to be successful in thwarting lone-wolf terrorist attacks, it should seriously consider community outreach operations.
• Maintain comprehensive information sharing. The Visa Waiver Program has been under attack following the recent terrorist attacks in the Western world. The program is essential for sharing information between 38 countries and the U.S. on potential terrorists, and stopping those who seek to travel to the U.S. with the intent of causing mayhem or radicalizing young Americans. Congress should avoid legislation that may suspend or negatively affect the program. Congress should also work with all nations in collaborating other counterterrorism efforts.

The U.S. needs to simultaneously continue its battle against terrorist organizations abroad, while at the same time keeping those are who are easily impressionable within the U.S. from becoming radicalized. The two issues cannot be addressed separately. The Western world will remain strong in the face of these radical terrorists, but it should also have leadership that will show resolve in fighting any future threats to our national security.

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

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Notes:
[1] David Inserra, “Terror in Paradise: 73rd Terrorist Plot Highlights Need to Act,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4449, August 4, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/08/terror-in-paradise-73rd-terrorist-plot-highlights-need-to-act.

[2] Jesse Byrnes, “FBI Investigating California Shooting as an ‘Act of Terrorism,’” The Hill, December 4, 2015, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262136-fbi-investigating-california-shooting-as-act-of-terrorism (accessed December 7, 2015).

[3] Tamara Audi, Miriam Jordan, and Zusha Elinson, “Neighbors, Acquaintances Shocked That Couple Are San Bernardino Shooting Suspects,” The Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/neighbors-acquaintances-shocked-that-couple-they-knew-are-shooting-suspects-1449188181 (accessed December 7, 2015).

[4] Bradford Richardson, “Female Shooting Suspect Pledged Allegiance to ISIS, Say Officials,” The Hill, December 4, 2015, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262097-report-female-san-bernardino-shooting-suspect-pledged (accessed December 7, 2015).

[5] The White House, Address to the Nation by the President, December 6, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president (accessed December 7, 2015).

According to an investigation by the New York Times, half of all the money contributed so far to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates—$176 million—has come from just 158 families, along with the companies they own or control.

Who are these people?  They’re almost entirely white, rich, older and male—even though America is becoming increasingly black and brown, young, female, and with declining household incomes.

According to the report, most of these big contributors live in exclusive neighborhoods where they have private security guards instead of public police officers, private health facilities rather than public parks and pools.

Most send their kids and grand kids to elite private schools rather than public schools. They fly in private jets and get driven in private limousines rather than rely on public transportation.

They don’t have to worry about whether Social Security or Medicare will be there for them in their retirement because they’ve put away huge fortunes. They don’t have to worry about climate change because they don’t live in flimsy homes that might collapse in a hurricane, or where water is scarce, or food supplies endangered.

It’s doubtful that most of these 158 are contributing to these campaigns out of the goodness of their hearts or a sense of public responsibility. They’re largely making investments, just the way they make other investments.

And the success of these investments depends on whether their candidates get elected, and will lower their taxes even further, expand tax loopholes, shred health and safety and environmental regulations so their companies can make even more money, and cut Social Security and Medicare and programs for the poor—and thereby allow these 158 and others like them to secede even more from the rest of our society.

These people are, after all, are living in their own separate society, and they want to elect people who will represent them, not the rest of us.

How much more evidence do we need that our system is in crisis? How long before we make it work for all of us instead of a handful at the top? We must not let them buy our democracy. We must get big money out of politics. Publicly-finance political campaigns, disclose all sources of campaign funds, and reverse “Citizens United.”

The Quartet must be abandoned in favor of the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been gaining momentum in recent months absent any other viable alternative framework for peace.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

During several meetings I recently had with EU officials in Brussels, they argued that it is time to revive the Middle East Quartet, which consists of the US, EU, Russia, and the UN, to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I took the opposite position because I believe that the Quartet failed from the onset to breathe new life into the peace negotiations; in fact, it has become a major impediment to the peace process.

The Quartet’s three preconditions, which require Hamas to recognize Israel, accept previous agreements and obligations, and forsake violence before it can become a legitimate partner in the peace talks, are outdated and impractical because these preconditions are tantamount to surrender.

The Quartet’s demands on Hamas make it impossible for its leadership to negotiate under those terms—and without Hamas’ full participation as an integral part of the Palestinian delegation, no Israeli-Palestinian peace can endure even if achieved.

In fact, any Israeli leader who genuinely seeks a peace agreement should not demand that Hamas first meet the Quartet’s requirements. Having suffered the indignities of the blockade for so long, even if Hamas agreed to negotiate under duress from its current position of weakness a peace agreement or a long-term ceasefire (hudna), it would only be a question of time when they will rise again to reclaim their dignity.

Netanyahu supports the Quartet’s preconditions because he knows full well that Hamas will not accept them. Thus, the Quartet has de facto been providing Netanyahu with the political cover he needs to forestall any substantive negotiations, claiming that the Palestinians are bent on destroying Israel while playing Hamas against the PA and vice versa.

Although it is unlikely that the Obama administration will push for the resumption of peace talks during an election year, 2016 does provide a unique opportunity for the US and the EU, who are the only effective players in the Quartet, to pave the way for serious negotiations in 2017 and beyond, provided that they make the Arab Peace Initiative (API) framework (not the Quartet’s) central to any future talks.

Contrary to the prevailing view among many Israelis, the API has not been presented to Israel on a take it or leave it basis, and it provides several common denominators between Hamas and Israel to achieve a two-state solution while offering Hamas a face-saving way out.

The US and the EU can persuade several Arab/Muslim states, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, who enjoy considerable influence on Hamas, to exert political and material pressure on its leadership to formally adopt the API.

On more than one occasion (including in 2011, 2013, and 2014), Hamas clearly stated that it is willing to negotiate a peace agreement with provisions almost identical to the API. Hamas understands that Israel is there to stay and is now looking for ways to further ease the blockade and eventually lift it altogether, which can be facilitated in the context of the API.

In the same vein, the US along with the EU should relentlessly exert intense pressure on Israel to embrace the API as well. Currently, thousands of Israeli notables, including former President Peres, Yuval Rabin (the son of Yitzhak Rabin), former heads of security agencies including ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, much of the academic community, think tanks, retired generals, and more than half of the Israeli public support the API.

A poll commissioned by the Israel Peace Initiative in 2013 found that 55 percent of respondents support the API; that jumps to 69% if it is supported by the prime minister.

Moreover, there are several political parties in the opposition who view the API as central to reaching an enduring peace. Yair Lapid, the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, recently stated: “Convening a regional conference as the opening shot for a comprehensive regional arrangement is the most effective tactical and political tool for getting this process going. The framework of the discussions at this conference must be the Saudi-Arab initiative [the API] of 2002.”

The Initiative makes recognition of Israel conditioned upon Israel’s acceptance of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with some land swaps, agreed upon between Arab foreign ministers and Secretary of State John Kerry. In addition, the API would open the door for Hamas to return to the Arab states’ fold and no longer be labeled as a terrorist organization.

Indeed, Hamas is not a terrorist organization by any classic definition because many countries, including Brazil, Switzerland, Qatar, and Turkey, transact with Hamas as a normal entity. Israel itself deals with Hamas daily and on many fronts, including trade, travel, and tacitly on matters of security concerns, to maintain the informal ceasefire.

The adoption of the API by both Israel and Hamas will be a game changer, especially now that the Arab states are more disposed to normalize relations with Israel because of the regional turmoil and because both Israel and the Arab states have a common enemy in Iran.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is becoming ever more intractable each passing day. It is time for the US and the EU to chart a new path and disabuse themselves of the notion that they must stick to past frameworks for peace, especially the Quartet, when in fact it has not advanced the peace process one single iota.

Times have changed; the Quartet was defunct from day one, and it will not succeed now by trying to resuscitate it. Instead, the focus must be on the universality of the API, around which a majority of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the Arab states and the international community, can rally.

Israelis and Palestinians alike must focus throughout 2016 to assuage the psychological barrier by taking reconciliatory measures with the support and the encouragement of the US and the EU and pave the way for the resumption of credible peace negotiations with unwavering commitment.

Such commitment could lead to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, which the Israelis seek and only the API can provide.

The Quartet must be abandoned in favor of the API, which has been gaining momentum in recent months absent any other viable alternative framework for peace.

*Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

By Manoj Joshi*

The resumption of high-level dialogue between India and Pakistan ends a period of discontinuity in the relations between the two countries which have been marked by a steady process of engagement since the mid-1980s, despite periods of estrangement, such as after the nuclear tests of 1998, the Kargil War of 1999 and Operation Parakaram in 2002.

The Modi government came to power in New Delhi pledging a muscular approach to relations with Islamabad, which meant drawing new red-lines, such as the refusal to allow the Hurriyat to talk to Pakistani representatives, as well as a ferocious response to Pakistan’s ceasefire violations on the Jammu border. The Modi government seemed determined to isolate Islamabad by refusing to have any diplomatic contact, except on its own terms.

However, the government has realised that while it can control the narrative at home and be seen by all as a tough and nationalist-minded government, it cannot do so abroad. Most countries saw New Delhi’s actions as somewhat over the top. As for the border firing, they could not understand why India, which is the prime beneficiary of the ceasefire, was going out of its way to deliver a response that could lead to its breakdown.

More important, in 2014-2015, Islamabad re-emerged in the calculations of the big powers as the key to peace in Afghanistan. The US and China looked to Islamabad to ‘deliver’ the Taliban to the peace process, and even Russia, India’s old friend, began building bridges to Pakistan. This is as much a consequence of Pakistan’s geopolitical location, as the skill with which it has conducted its diplomacy.

Just a few years ago, Pakistan was being written off as a failing, if not failed, state. But ever since it picked up courage to take on the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and build bridges to the government in Kabul, it has returned into global favour. The key factor in this has been the arrival of Raheel Sharif as the Chief of Army Staff. Not only has he pressed home the battle against the TTP, but also taken up the challenge to restore order in Karachi. After initial tension arising out of Nawaz Sharif’s desire to go after Pervez Musharraf who overthrew his government and imprisoned him in 1999, the Pakistan Army and Nawaz have worked out a modus vivendi, and function more like a coalition government than autonomous, conflicting institutions. The Army chief defers to the Prime Minister, but in turn, Nawaz leaves matters relating to security to Raheel and focuses more on the economy and related issues.

The sequential visits of the two Sharifs to Washington DC, in October and November this year, were instructive. Nawaz went first and was feted by the White House, itself a sign of how the US is once again looking benignly at Pakistan. He was followed by the General in November. Raheel met Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defence Secretary Ashton Carter.

Clearly, far from being isolated Pakistan is being seen as a counter-terrorism partner and the lynchpin in the making of peace in Afghanistan. There have been carefully placed rumours about Pakistan-US nuclear deal.

The Americans have agreed to sell eight new F-16 fighters to Islamabad, and will probably resume military aid.

The one country that failed to see the signs of the shift in Islamabad’s standing in the international community was India. The government and Prime Minister Modi kept up a loud drumbeat on the need to combat terrorism through the past year. The rise of the Islamic State, and the attacks in Paris and elsewhere, ensure that terrorism is a major issue of concern to the world. However, the international community knows well that when Indian leaders talk about terrorism, it is really a means of hectoring Pakistan. When they look at the figures, they cannot but see that the incidence of terrorism and militancy originating in Pakistan and targeting India has gone down sharply in recent years.

It is for this reason, India’s friends abroad have pressured the Modi government to modify its hard-line Pakistan policy. A warning of sorts was visible in the inclusion in the US-Pakistan Joint Statement in the wake of the Nawaz Sharif visit that called for “a sustained and resilient dialogue process between two neighbours aimed at resolving all outstanding territorial and other disputes, including Kashmir.”

New Delhi can be content with the fact that in the last couple of months there have been other tectonic shifts which buttress its ability to engage Islamabad. The announcement of the death of Mullah Omar and the resulting power struggle has put a question mark on Pakistan’s ability to deliver the ceasefire in Afghanistan. The heightened Taliban bomb campaign in Kabul and the attack in Kunduz have brought home the limits of the Pakistani capacity to manage the Taliban to President Ghani. He has very pointedly moved to balance his earlier approach which was tilted towards Islamabad by reaching out to New Delhi.

India and Pakistan need to have an adult conversation on Afghanistan. By now, Pakistan should know that the idea of gaining ‘strategic depth’ by meddling in Afghanistan is not just a fool’s errand, but downright dangerous policy. By virtue of its long land border, Pakistan has important interests in the stability of Afghanistan. New Delhi should reassure Islamabad that it will not use Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan, provided Islamabad does not return to a policy of using Afghan territory to set up training camps for terrorists targeting India.

It is in the interests of India and Pakistan, as well as other regional states that Afghanistan’s long agony is ended. The Heart of Asia Conference, which will be held in Islamabad on December 9 and which New Delhi will host next year, provides an important multilateral platform in which win-win solutions can be found.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: www.mid-day.com

Russia will neither forgive nor forget Turkey the deaths of military personnel stationed in Syria and collusion with terrorists, said the Russian President Vladimir Putin in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly on December 3.

The ceremony began with a moment of silence to honor the memory of pilot Oleg Peshkov, who died on November 24 when the Russian Su-24 frontline bomber was downed en route back to Hmeymim Air Base after the airstrikes on encampments of radical Islamists in Syria close to the border with Turkey; and marine Alexander Pozynich, who was killed by terrorists during a rescue mission that followed.

“Today here in the St George’s Hall, a historic hall of Russian military glory, we have combat pilots and representatives of the Armed Forces who are taking part in the anti-terrorist operation in Syria. Gelena Peshkova and Irina Pozynich, who lost their husbands in the war against terror, have joined us too. My deepest respect to you and the parents of our heroes,” Vladimir Putin said.

Russia does not equate the Turkish people themselves with the certain part of the current ruling establishment in Ankara directly responsible for “a heinous war crime.”

“We will never forget their collusion with terrorists. We have always deemed betrayal the worst and most shameful thing to do, and that will never change. I would like them to remember this – those in Turkey who shot our pilots in the back, those hypocrites who tried to justify their actions and cover up for terrorists. I don’t even understand why they did it. Any issues they might have had, any problems, any disagreements – even those we knew nothing about – could have been settled in a different way. Plus, we were ready to cooperate with Turkey on all the most sensitive issues it had; we were willing to go further, where its allies refused to go. Allah only knows, I suppose, why they did it. And probably, Allah has decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey by taking their mind and reason,” stressed the Russian President.

He also harshly criticized the double standards policies.

“We know who are stuffing pockets in Turkey and letting terrorists prosper from the sale of oil they stole in Syria. The terrorists are using these receipts to recruit mercenaries, buy weapons and plan inhuman terrorist attacks against Russian citizens and against people in France, Lebanon, Mali and other states. We remember that the militants who operated in the North Caucasus in the 1990s and 2000s found refuge and received moral and material assistance in Turkey. We still find them there,” said Vladimir Putin, adding that Russia does not and will not react to this in a nervous manner or by “rattling the saber.”

The downing of Russian Su-24 bomber, an event that caused great shock among politicians, experts and the media, remains one of the most popular topics for discussion even nearly three weeks since the attack. In particular, Pepe Escobar, Brazilian roving correspondent for several news agencies, suggested that the November 24 incident could have been a geopolitical maneuver.

“The real target was not a Su-24, but the evolving possibility, after the Paris attacks, of a real coalition – the US, Britain and France on one side, the ‘4+1’ (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq plus Hezbollah) on the other side – finally converging their interests into a unified fight against Islamic State (terrorist organization banned in Russia, also known as IS, or Daesh in Arabic),” he pointed out.

From the expert’s point of view, Ankara is openly exploiting the Turkmen in Syria and a multitude of terrorists groups, including Daesh, to suppress the Kurds, topple the government in Damascus, and control new territories.

“The strategic importance of these Turkmen lands cannot be emphasized enough. It’s exactly in this area, reaching as much as 35 km inland, that Ankara wants to install its so-called ‘safe zone,’ which will be in fact a no-fly zone, in Syrian territory, ostensibly to house Syrian refugees, and with everything paid by the EU, which has already unblocked 3 bln euros starting on January 1 via the European Commission. The now insurmountable obstacle for Turkey to get its no-fly zone is, predictably, Russia,” Pepe Escobar stated.

With that taken into account, he said, the decision of the Turkish Presidnet Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open fire became a “suicide” attempt to stop Russian pilots from “turning its profitable assets into ashes.”

In the meantime, Han Ten Broeke, Dutch MP and Foreign Affairs Spokesman for the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy), described the news about the downing of the Russian Su-24 as an unpleasant surprise.

“I have no reasons to doubt the assessments of NATO. Therefore, Turkey has the right to defend itself. Nevertheless, it is a shame that this incident has taken place, because ever since the attacks in Paris the international community has tried to form a united front against ISIS. […] The last time this occurred was about 60 years ago, when the US sent F9F aircrafts to intercept Russian MiGs [on 18 November 1952],” the politician noted.

In his opinion, the situation is further complicated by the fact that Ankara, Moscow and Washington continue publishing reports on the incident that contradict each other, while the Turkish-Syrian borders is difficult to make out precisely even with the necessary radiolocation equipment on the ground.

Han Ten Broeke called for a solid investigation of both the Su-24 downing and the allegations that Daesh terrorists are cooperating with the Turkish authorities.

“There are different signs that indicate this. I have already stated in public that we suspect Turkish trade with ISIS, oil trade, trade with terrorist fighters and poor border controls with not only Syria, but also with Europe,” stressed the Dutch MP.

From his point of view, even though Russia and Turkey are now in a serious political deadlock on several issues, Moscow and Ankara must shift their attention towards the objective of forming an anti-Daesh international coalition instead.

Meanwhile, Kamal Sido, Head of Middle East Department of the Society for Threatened Peoples (STP), criticized the Turkish strategy in the region that had no place for a peaceful solution in Syria on the first place.

“Before 2011, Turkey was supporting Bashar Assad, but then the Turkish government began supporting primarily the Islamic terrorists – Islamic State, Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar ash-Sham, all these terrorist groups. They were arriving through Turkey, leaving for Syria and Europe. Money from various countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar – for Islamic terrorists come through Turkish banks. […] In these hours, these very moments, Islamic terrorists are striking the land where I was born, attacking the Kurds, the Christians, the Armenians, the Yazidis,” noted the human rights activist who was born and raised in the Kurdish region of Afrin in Syria, but moved to Germany in 1990.

The countries that publicly call for the same objective must not conduct any acts of aggression against each other, he stressed.

Also, the member of the Society for Threatened Peoples urged to disrupt the supply channels of radical Islamists in Syria.

In his opinion, it is now the imperative to hold talks between all parties involved, including Russia, the US, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other states.

“It is vital that the Vienna talks continue through joint efforts, and with participation of the Kurds. Turkey is against it,” Kamal Sido remarked, adding that the current President of Syria Bashar Assad “is also responsible for this war.”

“One day he must go, but he must not be replaced by a Turkish henchman. Assad must be replaced by a democratic ruler, not by a Muslim fundamentalist,” the human rights activist stressed.

In turn, John Laughland, Director of Studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in France, said he was profoundly shocked by the news about the downed Russian bomber jet.

“The Russian plane clearly posed no threat at all to Turkey – it was flying over Syria. Turkey has no responsibility to police the airspace above Syria,” the expert stressed, adding that the November 24 incident might have been a planned act of provocation.

In his opinion, Ankara is providing overall support to terrorists and Islamists in Syria using its NATO membership as a cover, and this situation is outright unwelcome.

Moreover, John Laughland suggested that the radical Islamists cannot be classified as terrorists per se, because their main objective is control over territory rather than acts of terror themselves, while Ankara does not shun exploiting them to undermine the stability of Iran and the “Shiite Crescent” [a term coined in 2004 by King Abdullah II of Jordan to denominate the crescent-shaped territory from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon, a prospective area of Shia dominance].

“Turkey, yes, is guilty of double standards in supporting at least some of the rebels in Syria. I suspect that the claims are true that it gives indirect financial support even to Islamic State,” the expert said.

He also approved of Moscow’s intention to avoid any military retaliation, stressing that Russia was the victim in that incident.

In the meantime, Kenneth Kristensen Berth, Member of Folketing for the Danish People’s Party, Vice-Chairman of the European Affairs Committee in the national Parliament, stated that the downing of the Russian bomber jet radically changed the background for the Syrian anti-terrorism operation.

“I think it is a very poor situation, because right now we are at war with Islamic State, and I think that this might interfere in what is necessary, and what is necessary is a coordinated strike against Islamic State,” the Danish MP pointed out.

Discussing Ankara’s unwillingness to apologize for the November 24 incident, the politician called it “a typical type of Turkish pride.”

“Turkey has very big difficulty acknowledging mistakes. That is also the case with the Armenian genocide, for instance, which the Turkish government has been denying for years, even though it is evident for all of us,” Kenneth Kristensen Berth stressed.

He also suggested that the allegations against Turkey in regards to contacts with IS and other terrorist organizations call for a very thorough review of all facts available.

“I’ve known about these allegations for some time, and I know also that other media has brought these things to light. I think that’s exceptionally worrying if it’s the case that a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is aiding and advancing a terrorist organization. I think it’s very important that we find out whether this is correct or not, because, of course, if Turkey is not doing everything in its power to stop Islamic State, then I think Turkey is on a breach with the NATO treaty,” said the Vice-Chairman of the European Affairs Committee in the Danish Folketing.

However, he said he was unable to comment on possibilities for situation’s development in the future, pointing out that this situation “the Russians and the Turks have to sort out for themselves.”

Meanwhile, Edward Lozansky, President and Founder of the American University in Moscow, suggested that Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his close allies likely forgot to analyze all consequences of attacking the Su-24.

“A series of self-contradicting statements from despot Erdogan shows that he is somewhat confused. It’s easy to see that while downing the Russian jet, he relied on at least moral and political backing from Washington and NATO. But it seems he did not account for all consequences of his reckless action. Obviously, Barack Obama and NATO authorities in their public statements supported Turkey’s right to defend the airspace, yet apparently the private phone and other talks with no journalists or witnesses present went by without too much words of praise at all,” the analyst suggested.

He also pointed that Washington and NATO finally supported Moscow’s initiative to lock down the Turkish-Syrian border for terrorists and arms smugglers, something that did not happen before.

In his opinion, the Russian-Turkish relations will recover only after a public apology, a material compensation to the families of the killed military men, and obligations to prevent such incidents in the future by all means necessary.

In turn, Bashdar Ismaeel, London-based journalist, political analyst, expert on Iraq, Turkey, Syria and the Middle East, pointed out that the incident took place at the very moment when a real sense of greater coordination in strikes against Daesh and other terrorists between Russia and the US-led coalition was starting to form.

“Turkey clearly wanted to send a strong message to Russia. This message carried a number of elements. Russia has been bombing Turkmen rebels in northern Syria that Turkey had already warned about, Russia intervened at a vital time in Syria and have somewhat revitalized Syrian President Bashar Assad, who for Turkey remains first priority before the removal of IS. And, of course, Turkey wanted to show that it remained the key regional player and that Syria was its sphere of influence, that the Syrian war could not be concluded without Turkey as a key voice and party,” the analyst suggested.

He also pointed out that the Syrian Kurds could easily lock down the terrorist supply routes with the help of Turkey and other armed groups, if it were not for Ankara’s aggressive opposition.

“Turkey has already shown that it prefers an IS regime that it can contain than a strong Kurdish area,” the expert explained, adding that the difference between the extremists and the so-called moderate opposition had become too hazy.

Discussing the consequences of the Russian Su-24 downing, he highlighted the fact that Turkey had to pay a big price for the incident.

“NATO will feel somewhat obliged to defend Turkey but they will hardly welcome such an escalation at such a sensitive time. It is counterproductive to all the efforts in trying to find middle ground with Russia. The incursion would have lasted seconds only and Turkey could easily have held fire for those few seconds and opted for a strong diplomatic protest whilst safeguarding political, strategic and economic relations with Russia,” Bashdar Ismaeel stressed, saying he was not surprised to see the measures Moscow replied with.

In addition, in his opinion, international tensions that spiked with the Su-24 downing still continue to rise, with yet another such incident threatening to lead to a completely unpredictable outcome.

“The Syrian skies are certainly crowded and there was always a danger that an ‘accident’ may happen but in this case the facts were clear. A Russian place is alleged to stray into Turkish airspace and there is no mistaking the Turkish action or the fact they must have known it was a Russian plane. It’s an action that could have very much been prevented,” the expert concluded.

On 24 November 2015, the Russian Air-Space Force Su-24M frontline bomber in the Syrian operation air group was downed by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish Air Force F-16C fighter, in an incident that took place at the altitude of approximately 6,000 km by the Syrian-Turkish border. The jet crashed in Bayir Bucak area of Latakia province in Syria.

The Russian Air-Space Force Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov, who was piloting the plane, was shot by terrorists in the air after he has ejected. An attempted rescue mission using a helicopter resulted in another victim of the incident, as Mariner Alexander Pozynich, one of the members of the helicopter crew, was killed in the shootout that ensued. The air navigator Captain Konstantin Murakhtin, escaped by landing outside the attack zone, and later returned to Khmeymim Air Base thanks to a joint operation conducted by Russian and Syrian special forces.

On the same day, the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after the national Security Council meeting made a statement that the Su-24 allegedly has incurred into the country’s airspace, and the pilots had been warned 10 times within the span of 5 minutes. However, shortly after the Western media reported that the Russian plane spent only 17 seconds in the Turkish airspace. At the same time, the Russian Ministry of Defense says analysis of objective monitoring data shows that the Su-24 bomber did not cross the border at all, while the F-16 fighter jet made a 40-second incursion into Syrian airspace, while the downed plane received no warnings at all.

The actions of Ankara were met with a stern reaction by Moscow and resulted in a severe decline in Russian-Turkish relations.

Anatoly Vishnevsky, the director of the Moscow Institute of Demography, says that population trends and especially the share of under-employed men in third world countries make it likely that the next place from which terrorism is likely to emerge is Africa.

A week ago, the distinguished Russian demographer drew that conclusion at the end of a public lecture on “Demography and Terrorism” at the Sakharov Center in Moscow and argued that the world should be preparing for that challenge now because it is almost certain to emerge in the coming years (lectures.gaidarfund.ru/articles/2487).

Vishnevsky noted that demographers have been warning about the consequences of the unprecedented “human tsunami” since 1950 when the world’s population began to shoot up from 2.5 billion to seven billion and when the vast majority of these people lived in impoverished third world countries.

Given their numbers, he said, one had every reason to expect that people in these countries would seek to change the world order so as to redress the imbalance against them. But the specific form this challenge has taken arises from what he called something “more important,” the massive number of men in these societies without adequate employment.

In the third world countries at present, there are approximately 1.9 billion men, of whom 1.6 billion are between the ages of five and 50. They are the ones who should form the backbone of the economies of these countries, but at present, many of them are unemployed or underemployed.

A large fraction of these men are in African countries, Vishnevsky said; and their numbers are especially impressive because they have learned to redress the impact of deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS by increasing the birthrate, something that means there are ever more young men there who are now looking for work.

This means, the Russian demographer continued, that “quite soon a new hearth of tensions” is likely to emerge in African countries, as unemployed and impoverished young men seek various means, including terrorist violence, to achieve their goals. At the very least, he said, developed countries should be focusing on this potential risk.

Vishnevsky’s analysis is important for various reasons, but perhaps the most significant of these is that he shifts the predominant focus from the ideological banners under which terrorist act to the underlying reasons why people in certain parts of the world are inclined to march under them.

As Slon observer Georgy Neyaskin points out in a comment on Vishnevsky’s remarks, it is certainly not the case that terrorism is explained entirely by demography; but one thing is clear: what is happening now was something those in power could have foreseen and possibly countered but did not do so (slon.ru/posts/61115).

One can only hope, he suggests, that those who are now threatened by terrorism will not repeat the mistake and compound their earlier failures to prevent or at least limit the further rise of that tactic of the weak of the world against the strong.

Newspaper coverage of the financial crisis portrayed people as ‘dehumanised consumers’ rather than ‘victims of a calamity’ – which may explain why they are not angrier about the UK’s economic position, a report has found.

Researchers from the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) at the University of Sheffield studied 1,000 quotes from named individuals in newspaper articles concerning the financial crisis, recession or austerity in five national newspapers between 2007 and 2014.

They wanted to explore whether there was a dominant neoliberal narrative in the UK media and whether its presentation of people as ‘spenders and consumers’ instead of rounded human beings may affect how we respond to the current economic situation.

They found a neoliberal narrative has permeated much of the newspaper coverage of hard economic times in the UK since 2007, with quotes and claims from political, market and civil society actors all drawing from a similar framework of reference: treating people primarily as ‘market citizens’, arguably stripping them of their social and political traits.

Commentary from civil society groups was identified as less likely to draw on a neoliberal framework, with individuals discussing the effect on mental health, childcare, social isolation and insecurity. However, civil society groups also drew on lots of different reference points to get their story across, which inevitably led to the emergence of a fragmented counter-narrative.

The study also found that while in opposition, the Conservative Party was willing to draw on language with a more human touch, sometimes using emotive terms – like Broken Britain – to heighten its criticism of the Labour government. In contrast, the Labour Party in opposition since 2010 did not make this shift.

One possible reason for this is the party’s effort to rebuild its image of economic competence. However, in not framing its comments differently, it is possible to see how the phrase ‘Tory-lite’ gained traction.

The author of the report, Luke Temple said, “Whenever the effect of the crisis, recession or austerity on people was discussed, it was generally framed in terms of their productivity or spending power. Issues like health or poverty were side-lined.

“In 2010 and 2011, Mervyn King, then the Governor of the Bank of England, made comments to the Trade Union Congress and the Treasury Select Committee questioning why the British public were not angrier about the dire and worsening economic situation. Part of the answer should focus on limited resources and depoliticisation. However, the evidence provided here leads us to suggest that part of the answer also lies in the permeation of a neoliberal narrative across the news coverage of these events.”

He added, “If economic crisis is reified as a macro problem outside of human control – almost as a natural disaster – and if human beings are presented not as the victims of this calamity but rather as dehumanised consumers, it is harder for emotions such as anger to emerge through solidarity and compassion.”

Six new joint research projects will see UK and Singapore-based researchers collaborating to develop new solutions that will enhance the resilience of systems and infrastructure to cyber attacks.

The UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Singapore’s National Research Foundation today announced the results of a joint £2.4 million ($5.1 million) research call, which will fund the projects over the next three years.

As connected global hubs and open economies, cybersecurity is of great importance to the UK and Singapore. Recognising the importance of collaboration in this area, a Memorandum of Understanding on Cybersecurity was signed by the UK’s Cabinet Office and Singapore’s Cybersecurity Agency during Prime Minster David Cameron’s visit to Singapore in July 2015. This joint research programme implements the joint R&D collaboration element of the MoU and has been welcomed by both governments.

Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General Matt Hancock, said, “The research partnership between British and Singaporean universities will help both of our countries keep pace with the evolving cyber threat. I have no doubt that these projects will produce ground-breaking cyber security research and help protect us from threats online.”

The Singapore-UK joint grant call, launched in May 2015, seeks to strengthen knowledge and capabilities in cybersecurity and foster closer collaboration in cybersecurity research between the researchers of both countries. The grant call closed in July 2015 with a total of 22 proposals received. All submitted proposals were evaluated jointly by cybersecurity experts of both countries. Six projects are awarded covering research areas in Intrusions, Data Analytics, Human Factors and Sector & Applications.

The projects that will be funded under this programme are:

The University of Oxford and the National University of Singapore will work on Security and Privacy in Smart Grid Systems: Countermeasure and Formal Verification

The University of Kent will work with the National University of Singapore on Vulnerability Discovery using Abduction and Interpolation

The University of Surrey and Singapore Management University will work on Computational Modelling and Automatic Non-intrusive Detection Of Human Behavior-based Insecurity

Imperial College and the National University of Singapore will work on Machine Learning, Robust Optimisation, and Verification: Creating Synergistic Capabilities in Cybersecurity Research

Imperial College and Singapore University of Technology and Design will work on Security by Design for Interconnected Critical Infrastructures

The University of Southampton and Nanyang Technological University will develop cybersecurity solutions for smart traffic control systems

By H.H.S.Viswanathan*

The significance of the FOCAC Summit held in Johannesburg (South Africa) on December 4 and 5 derives from both the context in which it was held and its outcome. It is only the second time (the first being in 2006) that it has been held at the Summit level. Ever since its establishment, FOCAC dialogue has been at the ministerial level. The higher level participation this time ensured further consolidation of China-Africa relations with President XI Jinping saying that “the relations have today reached a stage of growth unmatched in history.”

The Summit was well attended with the participation of almost 50 African Heads of State/ Government. Much to the disappointment of those looking for controversy and sensation, President Omar al Bashir of Sudan decided to stay away, not wanting to repeat the drama that happened in the last AU Summit in South Africa.

The two-day Summit ended with the issue of the Johannesburg Declaration and an Action Plan. An impressive financial assistance package of $ 60 billion was announced by President Xi. With the theme of “Africa-China Progressing together: Win-win cooperation”, the event addressed all the major aspects of China-Africa relations. The media coverage was impressive. Several parallel events like a Business Forum, 5th China-Africa Entrepreneurs Forum, a Photo Exhibition of the history of FOCAC and an Equipment Manufacturing Industry Show were also held to leverage the significance of the Summit. President Xi paid a State visit to Zimbabwe on his way to Johannesburg. A day before the Summit, Chinese companies signed business deals worth $ 930 million with 50 South African firms in sectors like steel, energy, medicine, fruits, wine and textiles.

Of the $ 60 billion financial assistance, $ 35 billion would be in preferential loans and export credit lines, $ 5 billion in grants, $ 15 billion for Capital for the China-Africa Development Fund and $ 5 billion for loans to develop African Small and Medium enterprises. The package covers ten cooperative projects in various sectors such as industrialization, agricultural modernization, infra-structure, financial services, green development, trade and investment facilitation and poverty reduction. Before the Summit, Chinese authorities announced that China will import commodities worth $ 10 trillion from Africa in the next five years. Looks too ambitious, but even a fraction of it can be a real boost for African exports. President Xi, in his address, said that the ten projects are aimed at tackling the “three bottle-necks” holding back Africa’s development namely inadequate infra-structure, lack of professionals and skilled personnel and a fund shortage.

Changed context

Given the slow-down in the Chinese economy and related problems, the quantum of the financial package surprised many. Chinese leaders have been talking about a “new normal” for the growth of the economy. China is to move away from investment and manufacture led growth to one driven by consumption. All this notwithstanding, China is not short of funds to promote cooperation with Africa.

On the African side also, there is a new scenario. With reduced demand from China for resources and the general fall in commodities prices many African nations dependent on them are facing the heat leading to decreased export earnings and the consequent budgetary problems. Under such circumstances, how will China-Africa trade evolve? The trade had an impressive growth in the 2000 to 2015 period, having increased from $ 10 billion to $ 220 billion. The same period also saw an increase in Chinese investment from $ 500 million to $ 30 billion. The number of Chinese companies having business in Africa increased to 3000. Can this trend be maintained in future? It is worth mentioning that the Chinese Commerce Ministry recently announced that China’s investments to Africa fell by 40% in the first half of 2015. There is no doubt that the two sides have to find innovative ways to keep up the momentum in the changed scenario.

Two other long-term factors have also to be taken into account. The first is the Vision Agenda 2063 which the African countries adopted earlier this year. It is an ambitious document talking of pan-Africanism and integration. In economic terms, it means that African development will be increasingly owned and driven by Africans themselves. The second factor is the evolving demography of Africa. Two-third of Africa’s population is less than 35 years of age. Not only China, but all international partners of Africa have to plan their strategies within these parameters.

More than a pure economic agenda

China’s approach to FOCAC goes beyond geo-economics; there are political and strategic interests involved. These aspects are clearly mentioned in the Johannesburg Declaration with emphasis on non-interference in internal affairs and rejection of use or threat of force (veiled criticism of the West) and rejecting attempts to misrepresent the results of the second World War (aimed at Japan). The most significant is the reference to “respect for each other’s core interests”. China obviously expects full African support in all international fora.

A major strategic outcome of the Summit was to upgrade the “new type of Strategic Partnership” established in 2006 to a “Comprehensive Strategic and Cooperative Partnership”. In this context, the recent 10 year Agreement signed between China and Djibouti for establishing a “logistical facility” in that country attains importance. Although not called a Military base, it would certainly enhance China’s power projection in that region in future. Such a development is not totally surprising. With its increasing political and economic foot-print in Africa, China was bound to take such a step sooner or later.

Chinese involvement in Peace-keeping in Africa has also expanded considerably. Today, China has the largest number of peace-keepers in Africa among the P-5 countries. In September at the UN, Xi pledged another 8000 peace-keeping troops and $ 1 billion in funding support to Peace Mission in Africa. The next FOCAC at the Ministerial level will be held in China in 2018.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

(EurActiv) — Finland said on Wednesday it would demand some exceptions from planned European Union restrictions on the use of firearms, citing national defence needs.

Finland shares a 1,340 km border with Russia and is one of the few European countries to still run mandatory military service for all men.

A European Commission report on the implementation of the Firearms Directive found that legal differences between member states and lack of a common framework provided significant obstacles to tracing firearms. Currently, guns that have been deactivated are no longer registered as firearms and can, therefore, be freely transported within the internal market.

Following deadly attacks by armed militants in Paris last month, the EU commission proposed tighter rules governing the issue and use of guns, including a ban for private persons to hold certain semi-automatic firearms.

Finnish parliament’s grand committee, however, concluded that such a restriction would harm the training of voluntary reservist clubs.

“We have tens of thousands of reservists who practice national defence training voluntarily. That is part of our whole national defence and it must be protected,” Minister of the Interior Petteri Orpo told reporters.

He said the Commission had already signalled that an exception based on defence needs is possible.

Pakistan’s government should immediately halt executions, reinstate the moratorium on the death penalty, and move toward abolition, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday in a joint letter with Amnesty International to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

In the year since the country’s six-year moratorium on executions was lifted, Pakistan has carried out more than 300 executions. Those executed include child offenders, defendants who received blatantly unfair trials, and, most recently, individuals tried in secret by military courts with no civilian oversight.

“Over the past year with the moratorium lifted, the Pakistani government has sent hundreds to the gallows with cruel disregard for the rights of those put to death,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The government urgently needs to find a better way to address militancy and common crime since the death penalty has long shown to be ineffective in tackling these challenges.”

On December 17, 2014, Prime Minister Sharif rescinded an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment following a militant attack on a school in Peshawar the previous day that killed at least 149 people, including 132 children. The authorities should bring the perpetrators of this horrific attack to justice in fair trials, but without resorting to the death penalty.

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as an inherently cruel punishment.

Interview with Michael Baron Von Ungern Sternberg

By Sara Massoumi

On December 15, the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency has overwhelmingly voted in favor of a draft resolution which brings an end to a 12-year investigation into the past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Also on July 14, Iran and the group of six world powers – comprising China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – reached a comprehensive agreement that drew a happy end to over a decade of exhausting tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Tehran’s nuclear activities and in return, terminate all the nuclear-related sanctions placed on Iran. Removal of sanctions would pave the way for expansion of mutual trade between EU and Iran. Germany was Iran’s first partner in industrial production since 15 years ago and now time is more ripe to amend relations between the two countries. Etemad Persian daily journalist, Sara Massoumi has interviewed H.E. Mr. Michael Baron Von Ungern-Sternberg, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Iran in this regard and other issues such as, crisis in Syria, defeating ISIS, Bashar Assad’s destiny and his role in Syria’s future, Germany’s foreign policy in the region after Paris terrorist attacks, Russia’s involvement in Syria, Saudi’s attack on Yemen, Iran – Saudi relations and… He believes that although “the nuclear agreement has opened doors for more cooperation but it has not solved outstanding issues in other areas. On Syria, there are some serious and well-known disagreements”. The following is the full transcript of the interview:

Q: In one of your interviews you mentioned that Germany looks at Iran as an important country in the region. However, prior to Iran’s Nuclear Deal with the P5+1, Germany – like other countries – was not willing to cooperate with Iran on regional issues, especially on the crisis in Syria or Iraq. Don’t you think that if the European countries separated Iran’s nuclear issue from the political issue in the region we wouldn’t have witnessed such crisis in the Middle East, Especially what we are seeing in Syria now?

A: From the very beginning of this gruesome conflict, the German position has been that Iran should be in some way involved in the discussion on its solution. But obviously the nuclear agreement has made a difference – there is an atmosphere of cooperation which did not exist before. So we do believe, and hope, that the nuclear agreement has opened doors for more cooperation. To put it differently: Of course the nuclear agreement has opened doors but it has not solved outstanding issues in other areas. On Syria, there are some serious and well-known disagreements. The Syrian crisis has been raging for five long years and there are some fundamental differences of opinion, including between Iran and Germany, not just between Iran and the United States or other countries. However, at this stage all major international and regional parties have agreed to convene in Vienna, and we all have to acknowledge that this is a very useful development. Moreover, something very substantial has been achieved during the last meeting: For the first time since the beginning of the crisis, a common document, outlining objectives such as a ceasefire, the fight against terrorism, and humanitarian issues has been agreed on.

So I think it’s true to say that we had serious disagreements, which had nothing to do with the Nuclear Deal. However, things have evolved and right now we should focus on the future.

Q: EU countries see two issues in Syria. One is removing Assad, either in the near future or in the long term and the second one, which seems more crucial today, is defeating ISIS. Which one is Germany’s priority?

A: Firstly, Germany’s priority is to have conditions under which Syria has a legitimate government, representing all Syrians, without human rights violations, with access to humanitarian aid. We are looking for a political process, which will produce such a result. Secondly, this legitimate government should control the entirety of Syrian territory, a disintegration of the country must therefore be prevented. This is our common aim, and it is now enshrined in the Vienna document. Except for the conflicting sides of Syria, all countries involved were present around the table: Regional powers, European countries, Russia and the United States. Consequently, they are all bound by this document now, which is a huge step forward.

Q: As you mentioned, it’s been five years since the crisis started in Syria. Don’t you think that if Europe dealt with Bashar al-Assad in a different way, like asking him for a re-election and reform, there wouldn’t be such terrorist groups and attacks in the region or even in the Europe?

A: First of all, this war started as a purely internal conflict. There were no European soldiers attacking the regime of President Assad nor any American soldiers doing so. It was an internal fight. Since then, many people have been killed, many more people have been displaced, millions have been forced to leave the country and it this has no connection to any European or American presence whatsoever. If Assad had been willing to heed the call of his own people five years ago, I think we might have avoided this.

One of our main aims in the beginning was to try and provide humanitarian aid, but this was impossible because there was no access. The government of President Assad simply did not accept any foreigners coming in. Even today it is actually very difficult to obtain sufficient access for UN institutions in charge of humanitarian aid. That’s a very big problem. Moreover, an independent Commission of Inquiry was set up on the situation of Human Rights in Syria, which was headed by Mr. Sergio Pinheiro. The report produced by this commission speaks a clear language. The crisis in Syria is a huge humanitarian problem but it is fundamentally a civil war between Syrians and the government, even though foreign extremist groups became involved at a much later stage.

Q: Does Germany see a place for Assad in the next election? For instance, Iran said that Assad can run for presidency and if Syrians vote for him, then he will take office again.

A: The process leading to free elections will certainly be complicated. But what we will see as one of the next steps is the opposition, engaging in a direct dialogue with the government. And eventually it is up to these parties to decide what will happen.

Q: Do you think they can decide? If they could, we wouldn’t have witnessed such a crisis for five years.

A: We certainly hope that there will be mediation from outside under the auspices of the United Nations. I don’t think that there are alternatives to the Syrian parties deciding themselves on their fate. The Security Council hasn’t been able to do so. As a result of the last session in Vienna, all parties agreed on a number of points: The Syrian Opposition has to engage into a dialogue with Assad, a transitional body must be agreed on. Finally, within eighteen months elections are to be held and a new constitution is to be drafted. And that, I think, is a very demanding roadmap but at least we have a plan now, and this plan has the blessing of the international community.

Q: The U.N has recently adopted a Human Rights resolution against Syria, which was supported by your country. In that resolution the UN demands foreign militias, which include Iranian groups, to leave Syrian territory immediately. Don’t you think Iran fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq helps the security of EU countries as well?

A: We never thought that the presence of foreign armed forces in Syria was helpful. There are many points in this resolution, and this is not the first resolution dealing with the issue of Syria from the Third committee of the UN General Assembly or the Human Rights Council in Geneva. We have always voted in favor of these resolutions, because it is important to closely monitor the human rights situation in Syria. In addition, these resolutions are strongly based on the reports by the commission of enquiry that I mentioned before.

In our statement, which was made after the resolution was adopted in New York, we made it clear that we should be looking forward. Of course that does not mean we were the ones who were pushing for specifically naming the Iranian presence in Syria. But what we did do, we supported the resolution as a whole.

Q: What impact did the Paris terrorist attacks have on Germany’s foreign policy in the region?

A: I think the impact of recent events in Paris is not limited to French, German or European foreign policy, it will have consequences on a global scale. In recent weeks we had to observe, once again, that terrorists are present in many places, not just in Europe. The Russians have been suffering as well and of course this has raised awareness of the risks caused by the existence of these groups.

Q: Then do you think Europe is going towards a stronger military presence in the Middle East?

A: We will see more military involvement. We hope that things can be solved in a political way. No option can be excluded a priori and there is already some military presence from European countries in different forms. Moreover, the German government has expressed its willingness to support the fight against IS with 1200 of our own troops. But we certainly do have a preference to sort things out diplomatically.

Q: And do you think ISIS is defeatable by diplomatic measures?

A: Well I think there is a certain common understanding in the international community on the way to proceed. You asked me about the increase of the military presence. If there is a common approach in the international community, then I think it will be very difficult for ISIS to go on with their operations as they have in the past. Clearly, to deal with ISIS a combination of different instruments is needed, among them diplomatic and military.

Q: Have the European countries reached a common understanding about the refugees? Because after the Paris Attacks we heard that you may close your borders. If so, what is going to happen to the refugees and if not, which countries will take in the most refugees?

A: There is an ongoing discussion about the refugees in Europe and there is no solution yet. When the crisis started there was extreme urgency because the refugees were there and somebody had to take care of them. So you couldn’t tell these refugees to wait for another three months until we find the perfect solution.  As a consequence, they came in and the numbers have been increasing since. However, it was and it still is very difficult to absorb this amount of people very quickly. So absorption capacity is an issue. The signal is that the Europeans want to assist refugees fleeing from war-torn countries, but obviously we can’t do everything.

Therefore, first of all, a fair burden-sharing agreement has to be reached between European countries. Secondly, we also understand that host countries in the region need some help. Therefore, Germany has been supporting the refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Finally, the humanitarian aid inside Syria is a major issue. We need to fix the problem of humanitarian access, we need to do something with the outside border of the European Union, making it more secure, and those who come in, have to be handled in a more controlled way.

To sum it up, as a principle we are not going to shut down our borders for refugees fleeing from civil war. That’s not the signal, we just believe that the whole international community needs to participate more actively, and that in practice absorption capacity is an issue.

Q: How do you evaluate Russia’s bombardment of ISIS territory in Syria? Do find it effective in the long term?

A: I don’t want to comment Russian policy. It’s not for me to do that.

Q: Does Germany openly support or disapprove these operations?

A: We are happy that the Vienna process is moving forward. And that is a huge step. We will see what can be done to make sure that the Vienna document gets fully implemented.

Q: But in the Vienna documents nobody asks Russia to stop the attacks.

A: As far as ISIS is concerned, there is an agreement that this group needs to be fought, that’s true.

Q: By force?

A: By all appropriate means

Q: Germany used to be Iran’s biggest economic partner before the nuclear issues in Iran. What is Germany’s plan today to return to those days?

A: Of course we would like to see exchange between Germany and Iran increase both in terms of trade and of investments. We think that this would be mutually beneficial and we are glad to see that, traditionally, there is a lot of good will vis-à-vis Germany in Iran.

However, there is competition both on the German and Iranian side and whether Germany will return to be partner number one in the future will also depend on the conditions offered to each individual company. We do believe that there is great potential, though. The intensification of investment would lead to the creation of new jobs in Iran, it would facilitate access to modern technology and generate income for German companies.

That said, closer ties between our businesses would also have positive repercussions on our political, cultural and scientific cooperation. Therefore I am hopeful and optimistic that we will be able to achieve good progress.

Q: We have always heard that EU countries criticize Human Rights violations in Iran or in Syria -as you mentioned- but we never heard about Human Rights violations in Saudi Arabia. Why do EU countries refuse to talk about Human Rights violations in Saudi?

A: No, that is incorrect. If there are human rights violations in Saudi Arabia we frankly tell the government of that country that we don’t think it’s good and these issues are important parts of our dialogue.

Q: And don’t you think that we need a Human Rights resolution for Saudi Arabia as well? Just a week ago the UN passed a Human Rights resolution on Iran, but we never see such a resolution for Saudi Arabia. Is it because Saudi is Europe’s trading partner?

A: Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are important trade partners, and I think we should not confuse these topics. Of course, we cannot have a specific human rights resolution for every country where we have difficulties with the human rights situation. As you probably know, also Germany is sometimes subject to criticism in the field of human rights. We do have special rapporteurs from the UN coming to Germany who express their objections to certain developments and we accept that.

But to have a resolution of the United Nations on a specific country is an exception; not the general rule. We have different mechanisms in the human rights area in the UN, among these the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) process, resolutions dealing with specific countries or special rapporteurs on certain Human Rights. All of these instruments are equally important. So, for the time being we have a resolution on Iran but if the situation significantly improves, this certainly will be reviewed. At this juncture we believe the situation here warrants a resolution. However, it is obvious that any resolution should be balanced and if there is progress in certain areas this should be acknowledged and reflected in the document.

Q: In his recent visit to Iran, Germany’s foreign minister talked about Germany’s plan to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Did Germany take any steps in that regard or has Saudi Arabia accepted Germany’s mediation?

A: You can’t force two sides who are not talking to one another to start a dialogue. You just can’t. You sure can offer your assistance, but it is impossible to impose it. And of course we are aware that sometimes, the prevailing conditions make it very difficult for both partners to start this process.

But I think we should not give up on this aim. To bring responsible people from Saudi Arabia and Iran to a table, to find areas of cooperation while at the same time reducing persisting frictions – all of these efforts will prove beneficial to the entire Middle East. Therefore I can only repeat my message, the offer is there, but as long as both sides are not willing to accept it, there is nothing we can change.

Q: It’s been more than eight months that we are witnessing Saudi attacking Yemen territory. Why don’t the Europeans take action in order to stop Saudi’s attack on Yemen? Is there a difference between Yemenis and Syrians?

A: Firstly, let me point out that there is great concern in Europe and in Germany about the situation in Yemen. In fact, the aim of our persistent work is to convince all parties involved to sit around the table and to support UN efforts in this regard. Similar steps are undertaken by UN representatives. We can expect to see direct talks in the near future and we hope for substantial results, because we believe the people of Yemen must be saved from the terrible situation they’re confronted with.

Q: In his recent visit to Iran, President Putin announced an official alliance between Iran and his country. Does the Iran and Russia alliance worry the Europeans?

A: The answer to your question depends on the nature of the alliance mentioned. We have no problem whatsoever if two countries like Iran and Russia, which are geographically close, enjoy a good cooperation. It’s perfectly normal that there should be economic exchange. If the cooperation ends up in greater stability, that is also a positive development. So it really depends where this cooperation is going and what it is aimed at.

Q: Some Analysts believe that Russia is trying to use the Syria Card to win the Ukraine issue. How is the situation in Ukraine now and do you think that EU countries will cooperate more with Russia to solve the Ukraine problem?

A: Germany has made huge efforts on all levels to defuse and ultimately solve the Ukraine crisis, again by negotiations. There have been numerous meetings in Minsk both at ministerial and head-of-state level. Fortunately, we can also claim that there has been some progress. Heavy arms are being removed, the agreed ceasefire is widely, albeit not universally respected. Let’s be clear on this: The UKR conflict directly affects our neighborhood and it has the potential to spark far greater disaster, we’re therefore moderately optimistic about recent developments. That said, I don’t see any merit in it linking it to the ongoing crisis Syria.

Q: Does the Paris attack lead Europe and Russia to shape an alliance in Syria?

A: I suppose no one can currently claim to know, what the repercussions of the Paris attacks ultimately will be. I do think, however, that we should make use of the current momentum to solve the crisis. There have been many efforts to try and move things forward in the framework of the United Nations. Unfortunately, the Security Council was unable to take decisive action, so let’s just work as hard as we can in Vienna. The rhythm of meetings is extraordinarily fast and the documents and the decisions that have been taken are very demanding. I think we should proceed on that path. The last couple of weeks have been quite productive.

By Armen Karapetyan*

As Armenia’s government hails the yes vote in a referendum on constitutional change, the opposition says the results were fixed by half a million fraudulent ballots.

Hundreds of people protested against the outcome in the capital Yerevan on December 7, the day after the referendum, and the opposition warned that more demonstrations might follow. It also said it would challenge the results before Armenia’s Constitutional Court.

The Central Election Commission formally approved the results on December 13, saying that after a review of the returns and the complaints it had received, the reform package had passed successfully.

The commission said 63.4 per cent of votes cast were in favour of the changes, with a turnout of 50.5 per cent of the 2.5-million-strong electorate. The yes vote works out at about 32 per cent of all registered voters including those who stayed away from the polls; a minimum of 25 per cent was needed for the outcome to count as valid.

The constitutional reforms will reduce future presidents to a largely ceremonial role, strengthening the positions of the majority in parliament and the prime minister it elects. Presidents will be selected by parliament rather than the electorate, and will serve for seven years instead of the current five. (See our earlier story Armenians to Vote on Constitutional Reform.)

Opponents of the reforms have said all along that the apparent shift to a more democratic system is designed to hand perpetual power to the Republican Party, whose head, Serzh Sargsyan, is due to stand down as Armenia’s president in 2018.

After the vote, the opposition was quick to allege violations on a large scale.

“There was massive fraud,” said Levon Zurabyan, deputy chairman of the opposition Armenian National Congress (ANC), which spearheaded the no campaign. “Half a million votes were falsified.”

“Representatives of the opposition, independent observers and journalists were subjected to intimidation and violence,” Zurabyan added.

Another opposition politician, Raffi Hovhannisyan, who heads the Heritage Party, described the referendum as an act of “treason”.

“[President] Serzh Sargsyan, [Prime Minister] Hovik Abrahamyan, governors and various mayors, officials, oligarchs, and those who serve the authorities took part in a state crime and fabricated the voice of the people,” he said. “Those who did this should resign. We should have free and fair elections.”

Reports of violations of voting rules appeared on social networks. Some users posted videos showing bribes being handed to voters as they left polling stations, extra papers being stuffed into ballot boxes, and threats being made against opposition members, journalists and local observers.

The police have said they will thoroughly investigate all claims of abuses, but opposition members and human rights groups are sceptical.

“After every [past] election, the authorities have declared that they will seriously investigate all allegations of fraud and violence during voting,” said Artur Sakunts, who chairs the Vanadzor office of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly, which observed the vote.

Sakunts says he has no doubt that those in charge of instructing police to investigate abuses are the same people who ordered the abuses.

A senior figure from the ruling Republican Party challenged the opposition to come up with hard evidence.

“We don’t deny that there were violations during the vote. But statements must be accompanied by facts,” said Eduard Sharmazanov, who is the party’s spokesman and deputy speaker of the National Assembly. “Secondly, if you count up all the violations during the vote, I can assure you that even then, it will not affect the final outcome.”

Sharmazanov said Zurabyan should provide proof that half a million votes were fraudulent, otherwise he would be “labelled as a liar”.

The referendum was widely criticised by international observers.

“The relatively low turnout, around 50 per cent of the population, reflects the fact that the referendum was driven by political interests instead of the needs of the Armenian public,” a delegation of observers from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) said in a statement the day after the vote.

The PACE team noted that parliament only had a few weeks to discuss the text and public debate was limited to two months.

It also noted a number of problems with the referendum process, including “large-scale, organised vote-buying and carousel voting” (where people go from one polling station to another to cast multiple ballots), pressure on election officials, government misuse of administrative resources by executive bodies, and inaccurate voter lists which contained “the names of many people residing permanently abroad or even deceased, leading to claims that these identities were usurped by people who then voted several times”.

Both the United State embassy and the European Union delegation in Armenia also voiced concerns.

“The credible allegations of electoral irregularities reported by both non-partisan observers as well as Armenian political parties are of concern,” the US embassy said in a December 8 statement. “We urge the electoral commission and the Armenian government to carry out transparent investigations of all credible reports of irregularities.”

The EU delegation echoed the call for a full and transparent investigation of credible allegations of fraud, warning that unless this happened, “the referendum would be a missed opportunity to increase the confidence in, and the integrity of, electoral processes in Armenia”.

Opposition groups fear that once the current president hands over the reins to a significantly weakened successor, he will still be in control, potentially as prime minister, a post that does not have the same two-term limit as the presidency.

In April, Sargsyan said he had no plans to become prime minister if the new constitution was approved. In more recent months, however, senior figures from his party have hinted that he might do just that.

At a press conference he gave three days before the referendum, Sargsyan avoided giving a direct answer to a question about his political plans, deepening suspicions that the reforms were designed for his benefit.

“I think we’ll talk about this after the 2017 parliamentary election,” Sargsyan said. “It is premature to talk about it now.”

Agasi Yenokyan, director of the Armenian Centre for Political and International Studies, believes the current head of state is particularly keen to block a return by Robert Kocharyan, the last president who cleared the way for Sargsyan to replace him in 2008. Relations seem to have soured, and Kocharyan has been critical of his one-time ally. Ahead of the referendum, he warned that the constitutional reforms would lead to “the monopolisation of politics“. (See Nothing Straightforward About Armenian Referendum.)

“The main goal is to create a party system in which there’s no place for Sargsyan’s main rival – our second president Robert Kocharyan, who does not have a party,“ said Yenokyan.

Amid the politics of the referendum, he added, “the voice of the people has no value”.

*Armen Karapetyan is the pseudonym of an independent journalist in Armenia. This article was published at IWPR’s CRS Issue 800

Climate change is rapidly warming lakes around the world, threatening freshwater supplies and ecosystems, according to a study spanning six continents.

The study is the largest of its kind and the first to use a combination of satellite temperature data and long-term ground measurements. A total of 235 lakes, representing more than half of the world’s freshwater supply, were monitored for at least 25 years. The research, published in Geophysical Research Letters, was announced today at the American Geophysical Union meeting.

The study, which was funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation, found lakes are warming an average of 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit (0.34 degrees Celsius) each decade. That’s greater than the warming rate of either the ocean or the atmosphere, and it can have profound effects, the scientists say.

Algal blooms, which can ultimately rob water of oxygen, are projected to increase 20 percent in lakes over the next century as warming rates increase. Algal blooms that are toxic to fish and animals would increase by 5 percent. If these rates continue, emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on 100-year time scales, will increase 4 percent over the next decade.

“Society depends on surface water for the vast majority of human uses,” said co-author Stephanie Hampton, director of Washington State University’s Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach in Pullman. “Not just for drinking water, but manufacturing, for energy production, for irrigation of our crops. Protein from freshwater fish is especially important in the developing world.”

The temperature of water influences a host of its other properties critical to the health and viability of ecosystems. When temperature swings quickly and widely from the norm, life forms in a lake can change dramatically and even disappear.

“‘These results suggest that large changes in our lakes are not only unavoidable, but are probably already happening,” said lead author Catherine O’Reilly, associate professor of geology at Illinois State University, Normal. Earlier research by O’Reilly has seen declining productivity in lakes with rising temperatures.

Temperature increases close to or above the average .61 degrees F rise were seen in some of the world’s most popular waters, including Lake Tahoe (+.97 F by hand, +1.28 by satellite), the Dead Sea (+1.13 F), two reservoirs serving New York City, Seattle’s Lake Washington (+.49 F), and the Great Lakes Huron (+1.53 F by hand, +.79 by satellite), Michigan (+.76 F by hand, +.36 by satellite), Ontario (+.59 F) and Superior (+2.09 F by hand measurement, +1.44 F by satellite).

Study co-author Simon Hook, science division manager at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said satellite measurements provide a broad view of lake temperatures over the entire globe. But they only measure surface temperature, while hand measurements can detect temperature changes throughout a lake. Also, while satellite measurements go back 30 years, some lake measurements go back more than a century.

“Combining the ground and satellite measurements provides the most comprehensive view of how lake temperatures are changing around the world,” he said.

The researchers said various climate factors are associated with the warming trend. In northern climates, lakes are losing their ice cover earlier, and many areas of the world have less cloud cover, exposing their waters more to the sun’s warming rays.

Previous work by Hook using satellite data indicated that many lake temperatures were warming faster than air temperature and that the greatest warming was observed at high latitudes, as seen in other climate warming studies. This new research confirmed those observations, with average warming rates of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.72 degrees Celsius) per decade at high latitudes.

Warm-water, tropical lakes may be seeing less dramatic temperature increases, but increased warming of these lakes can still have large negative impacts on fish. That can be particularly important in the African Great Lakes, where fish is an important source of food.

“We want to be careful that we don’t dismiss some of these lower rates of change,” said Hampton. “In warmer lakes, those temperature changes can be really important. They can be just as important as a higher rate of change in a cooler lake.”

In general, the researchers write, “The pervasive and rapid warming observed here signals the urgent need to incorporate climate impacts into vulnerability assessments and adaptation efforts for lakes.”

The study exemplifies the interdisciplinary work of WSU’s Grand Challenges, areas of research addressing some of society’s most complex issues. The study is also in keeping with the theme of the challenge “Sustainable Resources: Food, Energy, and Water,” which will develop strategies that link optimized agricultural practices, water management, and energy production.

Two new and completely outrageous Russian charges – that the Crimean Tatars are under the control of Turkish intelligence and that the Ukrainian Library in Moscow was involved in the preparation of terrorist actions in the Russian capital – point to a new round of increased dangers for Ukraine.

Since the shooting down of the Russian plane that violated Turkish airspace, the occupation authorities in Crimea have frequently suggested that “the Crimean Tatars are under the influence of Turkish intelligence services,” a charge, Mustafa Dzhemilyev, the leader of that nation, says increases the threat against it (qha.com.ua/ru/politika/aksenov-zayavlyaet-chto-krimskie-tatari-pod-vliyaniem-turetskoi-razvedki/152504/).

Speaking in Kyiv yesterday, Dzhemilyev said that “given that the Crimean Tatars are close and related to the Turkish people, then the wild anti-Turkish bacchanalia led by Putin concerns them as well.” And tragically, it is already having an impact in Crimea not only at the level of declarations but also of official actions.

“In Crimea,” he continued, dozens of families of Turks, including those in mixed marriages with Crimean Tatars, are being subjected to deportation, and all businessmen who have ties with Turkish firms are at the level of collapse.” And the head of the occupation says that Crimean Tatars are cooperating with the intelligence service of a country “hostile to Russia.”

“All this propaganda hysteria,” Dzhemilyev said, “very much recalls those methods with which the Soviet authorities at one time attempted to justify the deportation and genocide of the Crimean Tatar people.”

A second outrageous Russian claim concerns the Moscow Library of Ukrainian Literature. Up to now, the Moscow media have suggested that the raids against it and the charges against its director, Natalya Sharina, were about the supposed presence of anti-Russian materials.

But today, in a dangerous shift, the Nasha versiya portal says that the real reason that Moscow police raided the center is that they suspected that it was the base for the organization of terrorist attacks in the Russian capital or elsewhere in the Russian Federation (versia.ru/kak-ukrainskie-yekstremisty-svili-gnezdo-v-centre-moskvy).

Specifically, it said that “as has become known to the correspondent of ‘Nasha Versia,’ the investigation is above all interested in the details about the possible preparation by ‘guests of the Ukrainian library’ of terrorist acts in Moscow. Information, testifying to the preparation of terrorist acts has already been obtained by law enforcement personnel.”

In today’s overheated environment, such charges both against the Crimean Tatars and against the Ukrainians more generally suggest that at least some in the Russian capital are laying the ground work for a new demonization of Ukraine in preparation for possible offensive moves against its people and state in the near future.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said the western military alliance NATO plans to send air defense support to Turkey, partly to minimize the risk of Ankara shooting down another Russian warplane, while assuaging its fears of a spillover from the conflict in Syria.

The air defense support mission of NATO, expected to be approved by the Western defense alliance’s council on Friday, has been under preparation for 10 months, long before the recent Turkish shooting incident with Russia. NATO sources said the shooting down had galvanized allies to come forward with more support and tailor the assistance to help lower tensions between Moscow and Ankara by taking a role in managing Turkish airspace.

The package, set to be approved without debate, includes interceptor aircraft, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar planes and a naval unit with command ships and frigates with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. It will have a dual function of defending Turkey while contributing to a U.S.-led coalition air campaign against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. But the NATO presence may also act as a soft constraint on Ankara.

“It’s a face-saving show of allied support for Turkey while trying to get them to behave more intelligently,” said Nick Witney, a former head of the European Defence Agency now at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Several European states of the NATO are openly seeking to protect entire European continent from any possible Russian attacks any time in future. By sending some of NATO’s fleet of mushroom-topped AWACS surveillance planes to patrol the airspace along Turkey’s border with Syria, chiefly to coordinate several allied air forces operating out of Incirlik Air Base, NATO will help manage Turkish airspace.

The shoot-down triggered a war of words between Moscow and Ankara and prompted President Vladimir Putin to impose trade and tourism sanctions on Turkey. NATO allies do not dispute Ankara’s version of the facts, but they are keen to engage Russia in talks to avoid incidents that could flare from Moscow’s aggressive patrolling of alliance air borders around Turkey, the Baltic States and the North Sea.

Another NATO source said the NATO rules of engagement are more cautious that those of Turkey. While the US-led alliance publicly backed Turkey after its fighters downed a Russian bomber that strayed into its airspace from Syria on November 24 in the first such incident since the Cold War, several allies were privately alarmed and urged restraint.

A Turkish official in Ankara said Turkey and NATO were looking to develop a system whereby problems in Turkish and NATO airspace could be avoided but it was too early to share details. Stoltenberg said strengthening air defenses for Turkey, which has long expressed alarm over the civil war raging near its border, was a commitment that went back well before the shooting down of the Russian plane.

The US military is working separately with Moscow on “de-escalating” the situation Syria, to prevent accidents between its own air forces and Russia’s which are leading rival coalitions. Many allies oppose reviving the mothballed NATO-Russia Council – a consultation forum the West suspended in protest at Moscow’s seizure and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine last year. Sources said that publicly the NATO had no option but to back Turkey because the US has to show that they take Article V of the alliance’s mutual defense clause seriously. In private, however, some allies are increasingly making the point that support cannot be unconditional and some members also ask as to why not escort the Russia aircraft out of your airspace as we do in the Baltics, alluding to past incursions by Russian fighters close to ex-Soviet NATO members Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

According to NATO sources, the NATO will increasingly take over management of Turkish airspace, so the Turks will have to be mindful of the fact that “we will have eyes in the sky that can give a second opinion on any situation”.

The AWACS fleet reports to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), but Turkish air force pilots will continue to be under the orders of President Tayyip Erdogan, who is believed at NATO to have given his commanders pre-delegated authority to shoot down air intruders that ignore repeated warnings. AWACS monitor airspace within a radius of more than 400 km (248.55 miles) and exchange information via digital data links, with ground-based, sea-based and airborne commanders.

“What would probably happen is that SACEUR will insist that if an airborne contact is being tracked through a NATO AWACS, i.e. non Turkish, any action the Turks chose to take be coordinated with NATO commanders and in effect NATO would have a red card,” said Justin Bronk, a specialist in combat air power and technology at Britain’s RUSI defense think-tank.

NATO already oversees airspace over the Aegean Sea from its southern headquarters in Naples, Italy, providing an objective “recognized air picture” to limit incidents between allies Greece and Turkey, which dispute air borders in the region.

Diplomats said the USA and its European allies are in the awkward position of urging Ankara to do more against Islamic State in Syria – including sealing a section of the border crossed by fighters and oil smugglers – while encouraging it to avoid further incidents with Russia and to keep alive a peace process with the Kurds in southeastern Turkey.

Meanwhile, since the Turkish incident, Russia, is seeking to further escalate war in Syria in he name of shielding the discredited Assad regime, has moved a modern S-400 air defense system that can hit missiles and aircraft from up to 400 km (250 miles) away to its Syrian base at Latakia. It has also upgraded its strike aircraft with SU-34 fighters.

Turkey, the US, as well as their allies, are closely watching the Russian moves in the region in order to act swiftly in case of emergency.