In a Feb. 17 blog post, Cardinal Newman Society writer Matthew Archbold called it “simply disingenuous” to use current contraceptive coverage by Catholic colleges to defend a controversial rule issued by the Obama administration.

The new federal mandate will soon require virtually all employers to offer health insurance plans that include coverage of contraception, sterilization and drugs that induce abortions, even if the employer has religious or moral objections to such coverage.

At a Feb. 16 Congressional hearing on religious liberty, The Catholic University of America president John Garvey argued that the mandate would require Catholic colleges across the country to violate their consciences.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) attempted to counter Garvey’s statement by submitting a list of Catholic colleges that currently provide contraceptive coverage.

However, Archbold pointed out, many of these approximately two dozen schools cover contraception for their employees for health reasons but not for purposes of birth control. Many others are required by state law to provide contraceptive coverage.

Archbold offered an analysis of the list submitted by Cummings, which Cardinal Newman Society determined to have originated from the National Women’s Law Center, which advocates abortion.

Many schools on the list, including the University of Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, University of Dallas and King’s College, provide coverage for contraceptives but not for the purposes of birth control, said Archbold.

Numerous others, including Loyola University of Chicago, Santa Clara University and Marquette University, are mandated by state law to cover contraceptives, he added.

Only a handful of schools on the list, including Georgetown University, Loyola University of New Orleans and Dayton University in Ohio, cover contraception for non-medical use without being required by law to do so, he observed.

Archbold decried the idea that “the actions of Georgetown and a few others” should be allowed to “act as a mandate to every other Catholic institution in the country.”

“Georgetown should not be allowed to become the federally appointed new magisterium of the Catholic Church,” he said.

Archbold emphasized the importance of fighting mandates at both the federal and state levels.

He also stressed the need to strengthen the identity of Catholic colleges in America while addressing the actions of those that have fallen out of line with Church teaching.

Previous research has suggested that family history can be an indicator of a patient’s risk of heart disease but at present family medical details are not systematically collected and used by GPs in cardiovascular risk assessment.

This first-ever clinical investigation into systematically collecting family history as part of cardiovascular disease risk assessment has identified a further five per cent of patients who would benefit from prevention measures. The researchers from the University’s Division of Primary Care also found that the gathering of family medical data is simple, low-cost and acceptable to patients.

Leading the study, Professor Nadeem Qureshi said: “Recently there has been great interest in performing genetic tests to identify individuals at high risk of heart disease, but our study has found that simply taking a detailed family history may be as effective, if not more, to identify these individuals. We are thrilled our research has been published in the prestigious international journal, Annals of Internal Medicine which has highlighted the study in its Editorial, agreeing that it is time to take systematic family history collection more seriously.”

The large randomised controlled trial was carried out in 24 doctors’ practices in the East Midlands and South West England over a six month period. The practices were organised into 12 pairs of one control and one intervention practice each. 748 patients aged 30 to 65 with no previously diagnosed cardiovascular risk were studied.

In all patients the medical staff calculated a standard cardiovascular risk score by inputting core risk factors like age, sex, smoking status, blood pressure and cholesterol into a risk calculator. GPs usually use this score to predict a patient’s 10 year risk for cardiovascular disease. In the intervention groups, clinicians also had patients fill in a questionnaire on family history of coronary heart disease. The patient’s standard risk was multiplied by 1.5 if a family history of premature heart disease was identified. This is because a patient is more likely to develop Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) if they have a father or brother younger than 55 years who had CHD or a mother or sister younger than 65 with the disease.

Doctors invited patients identified as having a high risk (20 per cent or more) for developing heart disease in the next 10 years for a consultation. The risk was explained and advice offered on lifestyle changes such as diet, exercise and giving up smoking.

The study found that the additional use of systematic family history in cardiovascular risk assessment almost doubles the proportion of individuals identified at high cardiovascular risk.
The research also concludes that the systematic identification of familial risk for CHD offers a potentially low-cost approach to targeting limited resources for screening and prevention interventions in those at high cardiovascular risk. The use of a self-completed tool to do this appears acceptable to patients without causing anxiety, and could lead to more CHD being prevented.

According to a post on the official Google blog, since launching Flight Search back in September, the company has been hard at tweaking the quality and features of the service. This mobile aspect is simply the next logical step in making it easy for Google Flight Search users to find flights.

As suggested, mobile users can now: Find flights quickly with results that load instantly and a list that’s easy to scan. Discover places to go on a map – see ticket prices for various destinations by surfing the map. Filter by price, airline, or flight duration.

The Swiss government has agreed in principle on extending due diligence requirements of banks and improved legal assistance on tax matters with other countries.

The finance ministry has been mandated to prepare concrete measures by next September in a bid to strengthen Switzerland’s financial centre, which is facing sustained pressure by several countries, including the United States.

Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the report discussed in Wednesday’s regular cabinet meeting was designed to outline the strategy for a “credible, tax compliant and competitive Swiss financial centre.”

She said the aim is to settle past tax problems with individual countries through amended deals and a withholding tax to ensure that investment income and capital gains of Swiss bank clients living abroad are taxed in line with international regulations.

Widmer-Schlumpf said the cabinet agreed on three tenets, including upgrading due diligence rules to prevent banks accepting untaxed assets. Besides these additional duties for banks, their clients would also be required to make a declaration on the fulfilment of their tax obligations in their home countries.

“We are convinced that this strategy allows us to live up to a legitimate demand of bank clients for privacy and to the equally legitimate demands of foreign countries to tax their citizens,” she told a news conference.

Widmer-Schlumpf said the cabinet continued to refuse the adoption of an automatic exchange of information, notably demanded by the European Union.

“The government believes that an automatic exchange of information would not be efficient and would contradict our policy of protecting the privacy of bank clients.”

US deal

Widmer-Schlumpf said the strategy report, which was delayed in November, was not directly linked to a scheduled debate in parliament next week over an amended tax accord with Washington.

If the House of Representatives follow the Senate, legal assistance will be granted to US authorities investigating suspected tax dodgers even if the bank client is not named but based only on evidence of on certain “patterns of behaviour”.

But she added that a smooth passage of the bill next week was in the government’s interest.

At least 11 Swiss banks are under investigation by Washington in the wake of a 2009 accord to transfer data concerning around 4,500 US bank clients suspected of violating US tax laws. The move was designed to stave off a potentially disastrous legal action against Switzerland’s main commercial bank, UBS.

But it also chipped away at Switzerland’s tradition of banking secrecy, which helped build up a $2 trillion offshore wealth management industry.

Approval of tax deals is also pending with neighbouring Germany and Britain.

Mixed reaction

Wednesday’s government policy statement met mixed reaction from political parties.

The centre-left Social Democrats said they welcomed the cabinet policy of “cleaning up the financial centre”, force banks to adopt a clean money strategy and reject untaxed money. However, it called on the cabinet to “let action speak now.”

The centre-right Radical Party, traditionally close to business interests, praised the government for taking more time to present concrete measures and refusing to cave in to pressure from the left.

However, the non-governmental organisation Berne Declaration, which works for equitable relations between the industrialised world and developing countries, slammed the strategy as mere window dressing for a domestic audience.

The final Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was held last week. The purpose of this PrepCom was to adopt rules of procedure for the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, which will be held in New York July 2–27. This conference is intended to complete the negotiation of the ATT and thus open the treaty for signature and ratification. The outcome of the PrepCom makes it even more vital for the U.S. to establish its red lines and stand its ground before and during the July conference.

The Conference Will Make Decisions on the Basis of Consensus

When the Obama Administration announced in 2009 that it would support the negotiation of an ATT, it did so with an important caveat: The treaty conference had to operate “under the rule of consensus decision-making,” meaning that a formal objection from any national representative to the chair on any matter of substance prevents agreement. But the U.N.’s draft rules of procedure allowed two-thirds majority voting on all matters of substance except the adoption of the final treaty text, as well as on amendments to the rules themselves. This opened the way for the July conference to amend the rules by a two-thirds majority and then to adopt the treaty by a similar majority, over any U.S. objection.

When the PrepCom considered the draft rules of procedure, the U.S. and a number of other nations urged that all matters of substance at the July conference be subject to a strict consensus requirement, while other delegations—including Mexico—supported the U.N.’s weaker proposals. In the end, the PrepCom adopted rules that require the July conference to “take its decisions, and consider the text of the Treaty, by consensus.” In other words, the U.S. will not be limited to an up-or-down vote on the final treaty text. Instead, it will have the opportunity throughout the July conference to object to and block progress on any portion of the ATT that it finds unsatisfactory.

The Conference Will Be Held Mostly in Closed Session

At the July conference, the U.S. will be pressed to accept an unsatisfactory treaty. One way to counter this is to use the conference to show that the U.S. is not the only nation that has concerns about the effectiveness and scope of an ATT. But if the conference is to serve this purpose, it should be public. If it is not, other nations with concerns will be able to hide behind any U.S. objections in the final plenary session.

Before the PrepCom, the U.N. planned to hold only the conference’s plenary meetings and meetings of its Committee of the Whole in public. Unfortunately, the PrepCom did not significantly alter the relevant provisions of the draft rules of procedure, and thus most of the July conference will be open only to national delegates, intergovernmental organizations, and U.N. officials, not to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In general, diplomatic negotiations should not be open to NGOs, which do not have the legitimacy of representatives of democratic governments. But the closure of most of the July conference’s sessions means that the objections of most nations will receive little publicity; thus, the attacks of the activist NGOs that support the ATT are likely to be concentrated on the United States.

The Dilemma the U.S. Faces in the Negotiations  

The U.S. strategy so far has been to try to avoid playing the role of treaty spoiler, on the grounds that this will prevent the U.S. from serving as a rallying point for the activist NGOs and nations that support the ATT. This strategy will be difficult to use at the July conference, where the consensus requirement and the number of closed sessions will place the U.S. in the position of having to object repeatedly and in private to unsatisfactory treaty provisions. If the U.S. does not object, the treaty will be adopted by consensus. If it does, it will be depicted as the treaty spoiler.

One press report quotes a senior U.S. official as stating that the U.S. wanted decision making by consensus so that it would have the ability to “block a weak treaty.”[1] If this report is accurate, then the U.S. dilemma is acute: The stronger the U.S. tries to make the treaty, the more the U.S. will have to use its power to block consensus on weaker versions, and the more it will be depicted as the spoiler. Furthermore, many nations will demand a treaty that they will characterize as strong but the U.S. will find unacceptable. For example, Mexico wants to impose a national gun and ammunition registry on the United States.

In the same report, the U.S. official also states that vetoing the final treaty at the July conference is “the nuclear option,” i.e., the last resort. Signaling the U.S.’s unwillingness to veto is poor negotiating strategy, but, more fundamentally, the official’s statement implies that the U.S. is going to try to negotiate a treaty it can accept. This means the U.S. has to have clear red lines for the July conference, as well as the willingness to uphold them during the negotiations by breaking consensus. It will not be easy for the U.S. to get what it wants if it is unwilling to use the “nuclear option” or to play the role of spoiler. 

What the U.S. Should Do

The PrepCom chair originally proposed that the U.N. be entrusted with the responsibility of editing the views of the member states on an ATT into a background document to be distributed in advance of the July conference. The PrepCom sensibly rejected this idea, which would have allowed the U.N. to skew the terms of the conference debate, and it has instead invited U.N. member states to submit statements of no more than 1,500 words on the provisions of an ATT by March 31. The U.N. Secretary-General is to compile these statements into a background document for the July conference.

The U.S. should use this opportunity to establish its red lines for the July conference. In particular, the U.S. should make clear in its March submission that it will not accept the inclusion of hunting and sporting weapons or ammunition in the ATT. Nor will it accept treaty language that impinges on rights protected by the Second Amendment, requires any new internal controls, legitimates arms trafficking by dictators or terrorists, inhibits its ability to support friends and allies, or creates any additional burdens for U.S. manufacturers, importers, or exporters.

Finally, the U.S. should state clearly that if the July conference does not reach consensus on a treaty text, it will resist any effort by one or more nations to break away from the U.N. process and negotiate an ATT outside that process. The national interests of the U.S. would be best served by having no ATT, because any ATT negotiated through the U.N. will begin by assuming that dictatorships and democracies possess the same sovereign rights. The only advantage the U.N. process has is that the U.S. has the power to say no. The U.S. should use that power to limit the damage the ATT does to its interests, the rights of its citizens, and the responsible conduct of diplomacy.

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:

[1]Louis Charbonneau, “Collapse of Arms Trade Treaty Talks Narrowly Averted,” Reuters, February 17, 2012, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-arms-treaty-idUSTRE81H03P20120218 (February 21, 2012).

A Task Force, comprising retired seniors and heads of all government departments having national security responsibilities, with the convener of the National Security Advisory Board as its Chairman, has been holding sessions to review the existing systems and suggest improvements, changes and modifications of the processes, procedures and practices, to bring about a qualitative change in the internal and external national security posture of the country. The Task Force is also expected to examine what remains to be done with respect to the recommendations of the Task Force set up after the Kargil war. It is likely to submit its report by end of March, 2012.

India

The Task Force faces a daunting task. Ensuring comprehensive security is getting more and more complex every day. The external environment has become vitiated by new perspectives of political permissiveness, which have brought in their wake questionable doctrines of unilateralism, pre-emptive strike and regime change. Globalization has made economic penetration a much simpler activity. Technological advances render territorial frontiers insignificant. Emergence of a single super power after the Soviet Union’s disintegration has not resolved the equation of balance of power. Three emergent powers in Asia, China, Japan and India, are engaged in aggressive competition for status, markets and resources. China, in addition, is involved in a hectic pursuit of military power, to equal that of the US, in the coming decades. The world security architecture remains, therefore, in a constant flux, with new alignments, realignments and conflicts surfacing in dramatic ways.

This growing complexity is compounded by issues of water and land, resulting in migration, refugees and demands for more dam constructions, potentially creating new areas of conflict.

Threats are arising also from the appearance of newer forces, operating world wide. The concept of absolute sovereignty is no longer sacrosanct. Nations are willingly surrendering a part of their sovereignty to a larger grouping, as in the European Union, in search of greater national security. Some nations are now claiming a right to interfere in a country’s affairs on the ground events within the country are affecting their interests. Libya is an example of how its internal human rights scenario paved the way for external intervention, forcing a regime change.

Free movements of unstoppable ideas are another area of deep concern to many nations though democracies need not fear such intrusions. Closed societies are, however at risk. The demise of the Soviet Union owed much to the dissemination of concepts relating to democracy, human rights and freedom of conscience by the west through Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe. The advent of Arab spring is also attributable to this phenomenon.

In this context the influence of social Medias like Internet, Face book and Twitter has to be recognized. The Arab spring owes a lot to the facilities provided by their instantaneous communication abilities. The same methodologies come in handy for cybercrimes and cyber wars and even the most technologically advanced nations cannot ensure total immunity for themselves.

The competition for resources and markets, already mentioned, if it becomes cutthroat, can be another source of destabilization. The Soviet Union had finally lost out because its economy could not keep pace with the demands of its military, which wanted to match the West.

The rise and rise and rise of political Islam is perhaps potentially the most troublesome phenomenon of today’s world. Political Islam accepts no compromise and is successfully encroaching on new ground all the while. In Europe as well as in Australia multiculturalism has all but been declared to be a failed exercise. The line dividing political Islam from Islamism is a very thin one. In all countries, experiencing an Arab spring, Islamists and non secularists are coming to the fore. Even in Turkey, the almost century of Ataturkian model of secular governance, is doddering. Nobody can say today with certainty what will be the shape of its future development. Some, of course, are keeping their fingers crossed, wondering if Samuel Huntington’s dire predictions about civilisational clashes will come about.

Keeping a watch over such a vast spectrum of forces, developments and possible threats has now become a national security imperative. Will the Task Force be taking an objective view on steps that must be taken or be constrained by the narrow compulsions of the Executive to retain absolute executive powers in its hands over intelligence and investigative agencies?

The present national security support systems have proved quite inadequate as several episodes repeatedly have demonstrated. There have been instances of zero intelligence, inadequate intelligence, inaccurate intelligence, miserable coordination and poor analysis. To set the systems right and to upgrade the quality of products and performance, a set of minimum reforms are necessary. In this context the following need to be considered.

The intelligence and investigative agencies in the West have been armed with legislative backing. This blocks unwarranted executive control and interference from outside sources and ensures administrative and operational autonomy to the agencies to pursue their own line of thought in investigation and intelligence work.

Covert operations are important operational but optional tools for intelligence work which are available to agencies in many democracies but not in ours. Covert action covers a range of activities such as destabilization or a coup in another country, training of rebels and guerillas, financing of foreign political groups, subversion of foreign media, black propaganda and even kidnapping or assassination. It is self evident that all such activities cannot be legally carried out merely on the strength of an executive directive from the highest in the land. In the US, the National Security Act of 1947 vests the President of the US with discretion to order any such measure for the security of the nation, including assassination, and the CIA as the executing agency, is duty bound to carry out the orders. No legal action can be taken in the US against CIA’s operatives for such activity.

The option for covert action should be available to Indian agencies also. But such an option has to come with a legal immunity. This reinforces the argument for giving the Indian agencies a legal basis for their existence.

The laws should provide the freedom to the agencies to devise their own systems and methodology for recruitment of their personnel, Collection of Humint (intelligence through human sources) is not a child’s play. It tests the resourcefulness, skills and dedication of an intelligence officer. Humint penetration is a difficult task anytime. It becomes all the more difficult when the target is a non state adversary, like resistance or terrorist groups such as the Indian Mujahedeen operating in India. Recruitment to intelligence services requires the scales of enrolment be set up very high, much above the standards of ordinary recruitment. It will be evident that to recruit a higher caliber of individuals, the compensation packages to be offered will have to be matching.

Unfortunately, in our country there is a basic reluctance to accept this reality. The result is that no recruitment has taken place for the junior most direct entry into the Research and Analysis Service of the R&AW for the last several years. No wonder there are complaints that R&AW is not pulling its weight. In the Intelligence Bureau, an earmarking scheme had been in operation for several years from 1955. Under this scheme the top four or five selected for IPS each year by the UPSC used to get earmarked for the IB for their entire careers. The scheme had enabled the IB to develop a very strong cadre of deeply motivated young officers but the scheme was given up when others protested that they did not have a corresponding benefit. The IB had lost out to service jealousies.

Such jealousies do arise among agencies also, leading to turf battles, poor coordination and even non-cooperation. It would be advisable for the Task Force to look closely into this phenomenon, to delineate respective jurisdictions in very clear terms and to prevent one from straying into the field of another.

The role of NTRO, National Technical Research Organization, created on the recommendations of the Kargil Task Force, also needs to be clearly set out. Many turf disagreements have prevented this organization from reaching its potential. Whether NTRO should remain totally independent or be brought under another overreaching entity is a question worthy of a deep scrutiny. The need to avoid duplication requires to be kept in mind.

Two other major issues confronting the Task Force would be the reluctance of the States to carry out police reforms as mandated by the Supreme Court and the conflicting postures on the creation of the post of a Chief of Defense Staff.

Police reforms are not seeing the light of the day simply because the States are unwilling to let police administration go out of their clutches. Pliant and subordinate police machinery becomes an effective tool for management of diverse political and party interests whereas an independent police will be inclined to place duty above favor. The roots of the problem go back to the Police Act of 1861 which made police subservient to the Raj and its officers. Unless this subordination is removed by another law, the situation is hardly likely to be improved.

The issue of CDS is shrouded in mutual reservations of the civil and the military and fears about loss of turf within the military itself. The issue has defied resolution over the past several years. This question in all probability may, therefore, be left to linger in limbo some more time.

On all other major matters the Task Force has an admirable opportunity to create history by recommending the establishment of autonomous independent national security architecture. It owes it to the nation to do so.

(AK Verma is a retired Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. He was the chief of R&AW at the time of IPKF operations.)

Meanwhile, an appeal by the Syrian rebel army to be armed by the international community was not totally rejected last night by the State Department. “We still think that a political solution is what we need,” spokesman Jay Carney said late Tuesday. The U.S. wanted to take no action that would contribute to a further militarization of the situation in Syria. This could bring the country down to a dangerous path. “We can not exclude any additional steps,” added Carney.

The White House also expressed support for the idea of a daily cease- fire to send humanitarian aid to civilians in Homs. For its part, the Syrian National Council (SNC), the leading body of the Syrian opposition, has urged the international community to deliver humanitarian assistance to Homs. The President of SNC Burhan Ghalioun called on Arab League Secretary General, the International Red Cross Committee, as well as the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN to lift the siege on Homs and allow convoys of food and medicine to reach the besieged areas.

By Jabin T. Jacob

2012 MARKS a sensitive anniversary in Sino-Indian relations – 50 years of the conflict over their disputed boundary in 1962 that led to a quick and humiliating defeat for India. In half a century, however, relations between the two countries have been radically transformed in several areas – bilateral trade is booming and China and India share concerns over regional and global issues such as the situation in AfPak, energy security, climate change and the reform of international organisations.

China - India Relations

And yet, these new interactions and common interests have created their own set of problems such as a mounting Indian trade deficit, or the competition for energy resources. Meanwhile, the persistence of their boundary dispute further ensures that relations remain beset by mistrust and a sense of rivalry.

Changing Attitudes

Against this background of both expanding engagement as well as growing suspicions at the regional and global levels, the 15th round of Sino-Indian Special Representatives (SR)-level talks held in New Delhi in mid-January this year, was the latest in a process of bilateral boundary negotiations over three decades. This round of talks was especially noteworthy given that they had been postponed over the issue of the Dalai Lama addressing a Buddhist conclave in New Delhi about the same time as the SR talks had been scheduled in November 2011. Later, in early January, the Chinese denied a visa to an Indian Air Force officer from Arunachal Pradesh who was part of an official Indian military delegation to China.

Such situations would have previously resulted in prolonged acrimony between the two sides. But in a sign of growing maturity in bilateral ties, the fourth Sino-Indian Annual Defence Dialogue took place as scheduled in New Delhi in early December. The SR talks too, were rescheduled without further ado with the two SRs also speaking at each other’s embassies to set a positive tone for the talks.

What explains this willingness on both sides to stick with the talks despite the various problems or provocations? For India, the ruling UPA government clearly cannot afford any foreign policy fiascos on top of severe domestic challenges to its legitimacy. China, meanwhile, has its own reasons, including problems with its neighbours elsewhere, such as on the South China Sea issue; the so-called ‘return’ of the US to the Asia-Pacific; and its upcoming leadership transition.

China and India also perhaps realise they can ill-afford mutual hostility at a time of global economic uncertainty. Instability in the AfPak region too, will require at least some degree of coordination between the two sides, especially post-2014. Thus, the global and regional contexts are possibly pushing China and India towards cooperation given that neither side at present possesses the ability to make decisive moves by itself.

New Boundary Mechanism

The boundary talks are now officially in the second stage of a three-step process involving agreement on principles, a framework and finally, a boundary line. The latest SR talks resulted in a new Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs intended to ensure real-time contact between the two foreign ministries in case of an intrusion across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) by either side. According to a recent Indian media report, over 500 Chinese intrusions were recorded in the last two years in all three sectors of the disputed boundary with over 300 in 2011 alone. Given that the two sides disagree on even where the LAC lies, such incursions are not surprising and can be expected to continue.

Doubts have been raised by Indian analysts about how soon officials sitting in the two capitals will be able to react to a developing situation on the LAC, and whether the new mechanism constitutes simply another layer of bureaucracy. However, the new system could also be interpreted as a necessary move owing to the leadership transition on the Chinese side slated for late 2012. Dai Bingguo, the Chinese SR since the inception of the talks in 2003, will make way for someone new. In the event, the next SR-level talks are unlikely to be held for well over a year from now, and with LAC incursions showing an upward trend, the new mechanism, is perhaps, a necessary one.

One Step Back, Two Steps Forward?

There is a further interpretation possible. Could the new mechanism possibly be a signal that the SR-level talks on the boundary resolution have reached a dead end? Despite declarations that the SR-level talks on the boundary will continue, it could well be that it is the new border mechanism that will deal with the actual nitty-gritty of the boundary dispute that arises from the current status quo.

Meanwhile, China and India could use the SR-level talks to ensure greater coordination between them in addressing issues of global concern – an important political goal for both sides. Indeed, official statements have admitted that the SRs already discuss a range of issues besides the boundary dispute.

During the two-day talks, the two sides also agreed to prepare a joint record on the progress made so far on the boundary issue. Beijing and New Delhi should ensure that any such record is also available in the public domain. This would be a significant step indicating that the two countries realise the importance of preparing their respective populations for the inevitable compromises any resolution of the boundary dispute will entail – including possible territorial concessions.

Jabin T. Jacob is Assistant Director, Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), Delhi, India and Assistant Editor of the journal, China Report. He is presently a Visiting Research Fellow in the South Asia Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

At the same time the Board of Royal Dutch Shell plc announced the appointment of Andrew Brown as Upstream International Director. He will be a member of the Executive Committee and will be based in the Netherlands. Brown has worked for Shell for over 27 years in various upstream leadership roles. Currently he is Executive Vice-President Qatar and holds a degree in Engineering Science from Cambridge University.

Brinded is currently Executive Director Upstream International. He first joined Shell in October 1974 and has served the company in Brunei, the Netherlands, Oman and the United Kingdom. In 1998 he became Managing Director of Shell UK Exploration and Production and from 1999 until 2002 he was Shell Country Chairman in the UK. He has been a member of the Royal Dutch Shell plc Board (and its predecessors) since 2002. Prior to his current role, he was Executive Director in charge of Exploration & Production.

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Executive Peter Voser commented: “Malcolm Brinded has had a most distinguished career over many years and has made an important contribution to Shell’s success during that time. He leaves the Upstream International business in a strong position, well-placed to deliver on its targets and pursue the next stage of Shell’s growth.”

By analyzing changes in coverage rates by wage-level and race over the last 30 years, the report, “Health-Insurance Coverage for Low Wage Workers, 1979-2010 and Beyond,” fills a major gap in the available research and shows how low-wage workers, especially Latinos, have been uniquely affected by declines in employer-provided health insurance.

Over the last three decades, employer-provided health coverage has fallen for all workers, but the decline has been steepest for low-wage workers, the report notes. In 1979, 43 percent of low-wage workers had employer-provided health insurance. In 2010, the most recent data available, only 26 percent had health insurance through their employer.

Other forms of health insurance have not made up for falling employer-provided coverage. In 1979, 16 percent of low-wage workers had no health insurance of any kind. In 2010, 39 percent of low-wage workers had no health insurance from any source, private or public. Only 13 percent of low-wage workers had some form of public coverage, including Medicaid. For Latinos, the numbers are sharper: almost 40 percent of Latino workers have no coverage at all.

The report also estimates the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on future coverage rates for low-wage workers. Based on outside projections and the experience of Massachusetts, whose state system shares many features with the ACA, the report concludes that full implementation of the ACA would cut non-coverage rates for low-wage workers to below 20 percent, from the current level of close to 40 percent.

“Low-wage workers face enormous challenges obtaining health insurance for themselves and their families,” said John Schmitt, a senior economist at the CEPR and the author of the report. “The Affordable Care Act could have done more, but complete implementation will greatly expand coverage for low-wage workers,”

The report defines low-wage workers as the bottom 20 percent by hourly pay and uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) to calculate coverage rates from all sources of health insurance, including workers’ own employers, other family members’ employers, directly purchased policies, Medicaid, and other public sources.

The report was prepared for a conference on low-wage work, to be jointly hosted Thursday, February 23 and Friday, February 24 at Georgetown University by Georgetown University’s Kalmanovitz Initiative on Labor and the Working Poor and the Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at the City University of New York.

“Skyrocketing inequality and stagnating wages create an imperative need for research on the causes—and solutions—for economic polarization,” said Jennifer Luff, Research Director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative. “Raising standards for low-wage workers through programs like affordable health insurance is critical to reversing these trends.”

The relationship between India and Vietnam has flourished significantly after the post Cold War era. India’s support for recognition of a unified Vietnam and Hanoi’s backing for India during the formation of Bangladesh acted as magnetism for building the relationship to a Strategic Partnership. Both countries marked the 5th anniversary of their Strategic Partnership (2007-2012) and celebrated their 40th anniversary of Cooperation and Partnership in Vietnam’s South Ho Chi Minh city in January this year.

India - Vietnam Relations

The partnership builds on the pillars formed by the late Vietnamese President Ho Chin Minh and Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The partnership has been developed in all fields including politics, security and defence, trade and investment, culture, tourism and human resource development. India’s plan to formulate a ‘Look East’ policy as early as 1991, to capitalize on East Asia’s economic growth helped both countries to build a strong relationship in the last four decades.

The Arc of Advantage and Prosperity

The two countries signed an agreement in 2003 in which they envisioned creating an ‘Arc of Advantage and Prosperity’ in Southeast Asia. Their partnership represents a dominating force multiplier against Chinese ambitions and growing presence of both military and civilian power in the South China Sea. India’s relationship with Vietnam is within the framework of ASEAN, East Asia Summit and Asian Regional Forum (ARF) and international organizations like the WTO and UN.

Vietnam’s unique geo-strategic location provides it with a political advantage amongst all major powers in East Asia. Similarly, India’s geographical position in South Asia makes it an important actor in the strategic calculus surrounding the Indian Ocean. India and Vietnam share a history of a strained relationship and disputed borders with China. This fact generates a degree of commonality of interests in the foreign policy agendas of both countries towards China.

Vietnam holds a strategic position in India’s policy of ‘looking to the East’. From US$200 million in the year 2000, bilateral trade turnover has grown nearly 14 times in 2010. At present, the trade for the year 2011 was US$3.5 billion, and both countries estimate to meet their trade target of US$7 billion by 2015.

The giant leap in strategic cooperation can be seen from India’s investment of US$400 million in Vietnamese hydrocarbon sectors with Oil and Gas Cooperation Videsh Limited (OVL) investing US$225 million in oil exploration. However, this joint energy project between India and Vietnam in the South China Sea infringes on China’s territorial sovereignty, as per the reports from the Chinese media. The major reason has been that the present oil and gas exploration projects between India Vietnam enter waters under Chinese jurisdiction.

Another major collaborative effort in the field of Science and Technology is the establishment of the Advanced Resource centre in Information and Communication Technology on September 16, 2011, which has been setup under a US$2 million grant by India to Vietnam. It can be used for Web Portal Creation, GIS application and the Development of Web Information systems.

In terms of defence cooperation, Indian defence personnel have been paying visits to Vietnam since the end of the Cambodian crisis. In the post-Cold War period, there has been cooperation with regard to the training of Vietnamese military officers in India and visits by high-level military delegations. Vietnam has given India the right to use its port of Nha Trang in the South, and has ordered 6 Kilo-class submarines from the Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg, which are likely to be inducted in 2012.

The Thrust in Future

The major area of cooperation in future will be to utilize Vietnam’s 60 shipbuilding yards and repairing yards to build cargo ships of up to 6,500 dead weight tonnage (DWT) and repair vessels of up to 50,000 DWT. There exists tremendous cooperation in construction of naval ships and building of submarines for the Vietnam Navy and cooperation between the Indian Coast Guard and the Vietnam Sea Police should be more effective to address the threats from piracy and terrorism.

India’s initiatives, in the form of Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and greater engagement with mainland Southeast Asian nations have been aimed at securing its extended neighbourhood. It is time for India to explore more impending areas for cooperation and to proactively engage with Vietnam along with developing countries from East Asia. India must address the major areas of concern affecting its relationship with Vietnam, like the continuous economic assistance pertaining to trade and investments, commercial and infrastructural developments and providing military and logistics support to Vietnam from China.

Vietnam in the 21st century will remain a focal point – a zone of attraction due to its geo-strategic location neighbouring China. Major powers, namely United States, Japan and India, will act as a catalyst to run its economic development and support Vietnam to counter the rise of China.

Vietnam will remain a zone of engagement for India and other major powers to explore areas of cooperation for energy security and military. How India utilizes this opportunity in the coming years to explore and discover newer areas of cooperation with Vietnam as well as to develop political, economic and military prowess for peaceful means, so as to counter China’s hegemonic rise the 21st century, remains to be seen. By now New Delhi is aware of China’s ambition and rising power in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean Region (IOR) region. India must utilize its missed opportunities with Vietnam and maintain an effective and competent partnership.

Praful Adagale and Vinayak Lashkar are Ph.D. Research Fellows at the Yashwantrao Chavan National Centre of International Security & Defence Analysis (YCNISDA), University of Pune.

Originally published by Diplomatist (Special Issue on India – EU Summit 2012),  February 2012 and reprinted with permission.

According to AFP, the five inspectors who arrived in Tehran two days ago to discuss Iran’s nuclear program have ended their trip without any concrete results.

This is the second time the IAEA inspectors have travelled to Iran in the past month. A delegation of high-ranking IAEA officials headed by the deputy chief of the international agency, Herman Naeckarts, were on their second visit to Iran.

According to AFP, the delegation was supposed to meet with Iran’s Nuclear Agency officials and nuclear scientists and visit the Parchin Military Base, which is used for experimenting with high-impact explosions.

However, the delegation was not allowed to visit the nuclear sites. Yukiya Amano criticized this decision, saying: “During the two visits, IAEA inspectors have requested to visit Parchin Military Base, but Iran has not agreed with this request.”

Amano maintained that the IAEA entered the current negotiations with a positive attitude, but no agreement has evolved through these talks,

Iran’s representative to the IAEA announced that the second round of talks with the IAEA has led to further agreements regarding cooperation and exchange and that the talks will continue in the future.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast responded to the inquiry whether the IAEA inspectors had called for interviews with Iranian scientists, saying: “Iran and the IAEA delegation are discussing the framework of talks. The negotiations will set the framework for cooperation and future talks.”

“We must wait and see the outcome of the delegation’s visit in terms of the framework of the talks with the G5+1” Mehmanparast added.

The latest reports indicate that the Islamic Republic is set to resume talks with the G5+1 in the near future in Turkey.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and it will not back off from it despite harsh international measures and punitive sanctions.

The trial of former president, his sons, the former interior minister and six senior police officers comes to an end. Mubarak is accused of ordering to shoot peaceful demonstrators against his regime during the January 2011 protests as well as corruption cases. Egypt’s public prosecutor demands death penalty for Hosni Mubarak.

At the hearing, prosecutors told Judge Ahmed Refaat that the medical wing of Cairo’s Tora prison was prepared to receive the ousted leader, state television reported, following mounting calls to move him from hospital to prison.

“Cargo containers that are part of the global supply chain — the flow of goods from manufacturers to retailers — are vulnerable to threats from terrorists [including weapons of mass destruction],” state the government analysts who assembled data for the new report.

It may seem unbelievable to most Americans that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that more than ten years after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, the vast majority of cargo containers entering the U.S. go unchecked. Incredibly, it’s true and the alarming details are outlined in the GAO report published this week by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 and the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take actions to improve maritime transportation security.

Also, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) required, among other things, that by July 2012, 100 percent of all U.S.-bound cargo containers be scanned. Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for container security programs to address these requirements.

Sadly, the GAO report reveals that the DHS agency responsible for screening cargo, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), still lacks the ability to check 100% of the containers that enter the U.S. through seaports each day. Under the 9/11 Commission Act, all U.S-bound cargo containers must be scanned because they are vulnerable to threats from terrorists and could be used to smuggle nuclear and radiological materials.

To meet the goal, DHS has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on faulty systems that didn’t get the job done. In fact, the agency dropped more than $200 million on 1,400 radiation portal monitors that weren’t up to the task, according to a blog published by a public-interest group that investigates and exposes government corruption and ineptitude — Judicial Watch.

“Uncertainty persists over how DHS and CBP will fulfill the mandate for 100 percent scanning given that the feasibility remains unproven in light of the challenges CBP has faced implementing a pilot program for 100 percent scanning,” state the GAO investigators.

In addition, the GAO reveals that several years ago it asked Homeland Security officials to perform an analysis to determine whether 100% scanning is even feasible, but the agency hasn’t bothered doing it.

Congressional investigators have logically concluded that CBP is “no longer pursuing efforts to implement 100 percent scanning” by the mandatory July 2012 deadline.

The GAO reveals that several years ago it asked Homeland Security officials to perform an analysis to determine whether 100% scanning is even feasible, but the agency never did it. Congressional investigators have logically concluded that CBP is “no longer pursuing efforts to implement 100 percent scanning” by the mandatory July 2012 deadline.

The GAO’s findings could not have come at a worst time, on the heels of an international study on maritime trafficking that reveals weapons, drugs and banned missile are regularly smuggled aboard reputable ships owned by major companies in the U.S. and Europe.

As an example it lists the case of weapons traffickers who evaded international embargoes on Iran and North Korea by hiding illegal goods in sealed shipping containers using a tactic pioneered by drug smugglers.

The GAO report concludes: “Uncertainty persists over how DHS and CBP will fulfill the mandate for 100 percent scanning given that the feasibility remains unproven in light of the challenges CBP has faced implementing a pilot program for 100 percent scanning. In response to the SAFE Port Act requirement to implement a pilot program to determine the feasibility of 100 percent scanning, CBP, the Department of State, and the Department of Energy announced the formation of the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) pilot program in December 2006.”

The biggest merit of the bailout plan, agreed in the early hours on Tuesday (21 February), was to ensure the rest of the eurozone is insulated from the Greek debt crisis, analysts and politicians agree.

“It’s an important result that removes immediate risks of contagion,” Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti said.

The complex deal wrought in overnight negotiations buys time to stabilise the 17-nation currency bloc and strengthen its financial firewalls, but it leaves deep doubts about Greece’s ability to recover and avoid default in the longer term.

Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg had a particularly blunt assessment.

“Of course the Greeks remain stuck in their tragedy; this is a new act in a long drama. I don’t think we should consider that they are cleared of any problems, but I do think we’ve reduced the Greek problem to just a Greek problem. It is no longer a threat to the recovery in all of Europe, and it is another step forward.”

Towards a quiet euro exit

The deal included a commitment by Athens to continue its austerity-infused cure, with EU officials saying a new wave of salary cuts and privatisations should put the economy back to a growth path as of 2014.

But no one seems to believe this to be a realistic target. A confidential report compiled by the troika – the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the European Central Bank – warned that Greece’s “fiscal outlook has deteriorated” so much that its debt-to-GDP ratio could still be 160% by 2020.

Jennifer McKeown, senior European economist at Capital Economics, said: “The austerity measures [Greece] will have to implement and increased monitoring by the troika amidst public outrage will make things harder and drive it deeper into recession.”

“There is a risk of a eurozone exit later this year.”

Eurointelligence, an economic commentary and analysis website run by Financial Times associate editor Wolfgang Münchau, said the deal had “paved the way for a quiet Greek exit”.

The bailout plan, it said, “was a cynical exercise” in which even those who agreed the deal did not believe in it.

Conservative leader Antonis Samaras, a strong contender to become next prime minister, said the rescue package’s debt-reduction targets could only be met with economic growth.

But on the day the deal was struck, Greece revised its deficit forecast for this year up from 5.4% to 6.7%, making this target more difficult to attain.

“Without the rebound and growth of the economy … not even the immediate fiscal targets can be met, nor can the debt become sustainable in the long-term,” he said during a visit to Cyprus.

Writing in the Financial Times newspaper, Poland’s former deputy finance minister Gregorz Kolodko was even more pessimistic, saying Greece was heading for catastrophe.

“After the latest meeting of eurozone finance ministers, resulting in the decision to grant Greece a second €130-billion bailout, one might keep saying that things are on the right track.”

“But they are not. They are heading for a catastrophe that is already unfolding, albeit in slow motion. Cheating the public and miscalculating and misleading the market is neither a strategy, nor a policy. It is sheer stupidity.”

Vassilis Korkidis, head of the Greek Commerce Confederation, said: “We sowed the wind, now we reap the whirlwind… The new bailout is selling us time and hope at a very high price, while it doggedly continues to impose harsh austerity measures that keep us in a long and deep recession.”

In Brussels, EU officials defended the agreement, saying more austerity and privatisations will put Greece back to growth within two years.

Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos recently invited his Macedonian counterpart Nikola Gruevski to meet in Brussels during the 1-2 March Summit, the first between the two since Papademos was appointed on 11 November 2011. Greece is expected to hold elections before Easter.

“For the name issue, our position is that it should be resolved through meaningful negotiations under the auspices of the UN; therefore, I encourage you to work towards this goal in a constructive manner,” Papademos wrote in a letter to Gruevski.

Macedonia said it “welcomed the consent” of Greece for holding a high-level bilateral meeting, hinting that Skopje has been more active than Athens in initiating such contacts. However, until yesterday afternoon (21 February), Macedonia’s mission to the EU was unaware if Gruevski would attend.

Greece and Macedonia have been locked in a dispute over the smaller country’s constitutional name since it became independent from the crumbling Yugoslavia in 1991. Greece, which once imposed a punishing embargo on its neighbour, claims the name implies territorial ambitions on its northern province of the same name.

ICJ ruling and NATO bid

The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in December that by blocking Macedonia’s NATO bid in April 2008, Greece breached a bilateral agreement signed in 1995. Under the accord, Greece said it would not prevent its neighbour’s accession to international organisations so long as it is referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM).

In the meantime, Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov wrote to the heads of state and government of NATO countries, asking them to “repair the injustice” of the 2008 summit. In view of the next NATO summit due in May in Chicago, Ivanov asked the 28 leaders to take into account the ICJ ruling and accept his country as NATO member.

Following the ICJ ruling, Macedonia could realistically expect to be accepted as NATO member under the name the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Greek President Karolos Papoulias met with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on 16 February and reportedly conveyed the message that his country wanted to reach a “mutually acceptable solution” over the name dispute. Reportedly, Papoulias also complained that Skopje persisted in appropriating history and even asked Rasmussen to help overcoming the problem.

PM avoids Commissioner

Papademos and Gruevski will put a brave face and meet, but it is doubtful that they would make any progress on their name dispute, one diplomatic source told EurActiv.

Another diplomat saw the glass as half-full: even if the meeting turns out to be a photo opportunity, that would already be something positive, the EU source said.

The reason for the pessimism stems for the latest visit of UN negotiator over the name dispute, MatthewNimetz, who met on Monday Gruevski in Skopje.

According to European Commission sources, the meeting was disappointing. Nimetz is due in Athens today.

Asked if Gruevski was going to hold meetings at the European Commission, a source from the EU executive said no such request had been made. The official added that Gruevski was avoiding visiting the Commission and seeing Enlargement Commissioner Štefan Füle, who has been very critical of recebt nationalistic actions in Skopje, seen in Athens as “provocations”.

In the hope of keeping alive some of that spirit of awareness about the ongoing injustice of Guantánamo that flickered briefly to life around the anniversary, I’m planning to cross-post some of these articles, and I’m beginning with an article written for the National Law Journal by the military defense attorney Todd Pierce, someone I regard as both a friend and a colleague. I have met up with Todd on my visits to Washington D.C. in November 2009, in January 2011 and last month, and we have also communicated by email, regarding his involvement in the military commissions at Guantánamo, first under George W. Bush, and now under Barack Obama.

Specifically, Todd was involved in the case of Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, who received a life sentence in November 2008 for producing a video for al-Qaeda, after a one-sided trial in which he refused to mount a defense, and he was one of the lawyers involved in appealing the ruling, arguing that it was an assault on the First Amendment, which, if left unchecked, could lead to all manner of foreigners — including, for example, investigative journalists like me — also being targeted.

Al-Bahlul lost that case, and languishes still in Guantánamo, but Todd continues to work as part of the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel for the military commissions, and for the 10th anniversary, he expressed his particular concern that the actions of the lawyers — including Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and Robert Delahunty — who twisted the law out of all shape to justify the abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration in its “war on terror” are still being defended by two law professors, Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, whose books argue that “the threat of terrorism constitutes a state of emergency necessitating the suspension of our Constitution,” and, in doing so, draw on the ideas of Carl Schmitt, described by Todd as “the Nazi ‘Crown Jurist’ of the 1930s.”

I hope you enjoy the article, which certainly led to some fascinating conversations around the time of the anniversary. Personally, I think it is important to point out these connections, as, even though the supporters of unfettered executive power are no longer in the White House, the legacy of the Bush administration lives on, and, in some ways — in accepting arbitrary detention, for example, and in blocking all efforts to hold senior Bush administration officials and lawyers responsible for their crimes — remains fundamentally unchallenged.

The Guantánamo facility at 10: an assault on our constitutional government
By Todd E. Pierce, National Law Journal, January 10, 2012

The 10th anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as a detention facility and the diversion of terrorism prosecutions into a new military commission system is now upon us. Consequently, I thought I would take this opportunity to briefly explain why I, an Army Reserve Judge Advocate General officer with more than 30 years of active and reserve military service, would volunteer as defense counsel for prisoners being held there.

I might add that I consider myself to be a conservative. In the United States of America, that means to conserve the legal order that this nation was founded upon, the Constitution. In fact, as a member of the military, I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did not take an oath of allegiance to the “leader,” or to the “state,” as required in some other nations. Thus, it came as something of a shock to me when Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and Robert Delahunty began issuing legal opinions that the Geneva Conventions, a treaty incorporated into our law, were quaint and did not apply, or that the president could, at his or her sole discretion, suspend them.

I will admit a particular sensitivity to the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, as my father, along with thousands of other American and Philippine prisoners of war, survived the Bataan Death March. This was despite the best efforts of soldiers who set aside the Geneva Convention of 1929 because of their oath of allegiance to the Japanese emperor. Following that war, my father’s former captors and their legal advisers were put on trial and convicted of war crimes, including waterboarding and punishing prisoners without fair trials, as required under the 1929 Geneva Convention. This treaty was replaced by the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 due to the mistreatment of prisoners like my father.

Back in 2001 and 2002, when these legal opinions were being issued, astute critics immediately recognized that these opinions were regurgitated leftovers of President Richard Nixon’s belief that if the president did something, it could not be illegal — the dictator’s prerogative. But this crude anti-American notion had been refined into the “unitary executive theory” [PDF]. Vice President Richard Cheney seemed to take credit for it. But more astute commentators noted that these ideas were actually legal theories expounded by Carl Schmitt, the Nazi “Crown Jurist” of the 1930s. But that seemed a little extreme, or at least bad manners, to point out.

Once the unitary-executive theory began to gain credibility, other advocates of this form of government came out of the shadows, perhaps from “the dark side.” One was Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield in The Wall Street Journal in 2007, who opined about the benefits of “one man rule.” But it remained to two law professors, dedicated to the study of arcane legal texts, Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, to openly resurrect Schmitt’s authoritarian legal ideology. Or, as they put it, “political theorists interested in emergency powers, and some academic lawyers as well, are much taken with Schmitt; nearly every discussion of emergencies pores over the canonical texts yet again.”

In fairness to Vermeule and Posner, leaving them to pore over the Nazi’s canonical texts, it should be remembered that Schmitt was not a founder of the Nazi movement. Schmitt only joined the Nazi party when it triumphed over its rival elements in the German military establishment. Schmitt had been legal adviser to those rivals, particularly General Kurt von Schleicher. But what should equally be remembered is that this military faction was seeking to impose its own brand of militaristic dictatorship on Germany, along with an expansionistic foreign policy. These German generals aspired to the form of governance most recently practiced by the dictator Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

Schmitt’s writings consistently were an apologia for dictatorship and centralized power, whether under military dictatorship of the German High Command or under the Nazis, having further developed his ideas from his book, Die Diktatur. These ideas culminated in 1934, when he justified the murders following the “Night of the Long Knives” as the “highest form of administrative law.” Most odiously, he legitimated the authority of Hitler afterward with a paean translated in English as “The Leader Defends the Law.”

In Terror in the Balance, Posner and Vermeule argued that the threat of terrorism constitutes a state of emergency necessitating the suspension of our Constitution. Consequently, “Constitutional rights should be relaxed so that the executive can move forcefully against the threat. If dissent weakens resolve, then dissent should be curtailed. If domestic security is at risk, then intrusive searches should be tolerated.” Posner and Vermeule followed this in 2010 with The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic. Cribbed from Schmitt’s Legality and Legitimacy, it seeks to legitimize the administrative state of the sort Schmitt worked to create. Any concern with this centralization of power in our system is dismissed as “tyrannophobia.” Evidently, a mental disorder that our founders were afflicted with. As in Schmitt’s “dual state,” they seek to move us toward a constitutional breakdown through the creation of an administrative state under the exclusive control of the executive, “the Extraordinary Lawgiver” in Schmitt’s terminology. Or as Posner and Vermeule ask and answer: “What comes after the Madisonian regime of liberal legalism and the separation of powers? Our answer is a new political order in which government is centered on the executive.”

Why does all of this matter? In part, because constitutions and constitutional ideas matter. As evident in Yoo and Delahunty’s legal memos asserting unitary executive authority, the legal theory underpinning Guantánamo and the military commissions were an assault upon the structure of our form of constitutional government; lawfare. It was not the inevitable conclusion required by the Sept. 11 attacks, but the exploitation of a tragedy to import a foreign legal ideology, a legal bacillus, into our legal system.

But it matters also because on this 10th anniversary, Guantánamo and the military commissions are metastasizing into our whole legal system. As the French war against the anti-colonialist insurgents of Algeria highlighted, the growing disrespect for “legal niceties” would come to be applied in France itself against political adversaries. Could that happen here? Posner and Vermeule suggest that dissent to policy may need to be controlled, that is, free speech curtailed. Putting aside the potential for misuse against political enemies, is that even desirable for national security? Our allowance of dissent led to our withdrawal from the Vietnam War before the collapse of our economy which, with hindsight, few question any more. Contrast that with the Soviet Union’s defeat and total collapse resulting from its war in Afghanistan, purely at the insistence of the Communist leadership.

We have used the vague and overbroad charge of “material support for terrorism” as cause to investigate anti-war groups in Chicago and Minneapolis, predictably chilling speech and dissent. Critics have suggested that recent legislation passed [the National Defense Authorization Act] would now require the military to detain such dissidents. Or what about gun store owners, gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association, all of whom could be accused of having a hand directly or through propaganda in providing firearms downstream to drug cartels in Mexico, alleged to have ties with Mideast terrorist groups? Military detention for them?

We must ask ourselves, because we are passing this nation on to our children and their children: Were the authors of the American Constitution wrong or suffering from a mental disorder (tyrannophobia as described) in believing that blind faith was not sufficient as a bulwark against incompetence, if not tyranny? My father and my uncles, along with the rest of the Greatest Generation, did not think so when they fought against the political ideas of Carl Schmitt in World War II. I think Schmitt’s ideas are still worth fighting against today.

Todd E. Pierce is a major in the U.S. Army and has been assigned to the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel since 2008. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.

Concern that the league will be annuled has been fuelled by the cancellation of the Egyptian national team’s scheduled friendly matches against Uganda, Guinea and Niger and the postponement until June 30 of an African Cup of Nations qualifier against the Central African Republic on instructions of the interior ministry. Once new dates have been agreed, the qualifier may be played in Qatar to ensure security.

Egypt

The decision on the national team’s matches suggests that the interior ministry and the EFA have backed away from an earlier plan to allow resumption of league matches behind closed door on March 15 when the 40-day period of mourning for the dead soccer fans ends.

Club officials are pressing the EFA to follow the example of the Tunisian soccer association that earlier this month ordered its league to play behind closed doors. The federation reversed its decision days later under pressure from its members and has since authorized resumption with fans attending matches. Some argue that cancellation of the Egyptian league would hand a victory to the instigators of the Port Said incident.

“The Interior Ministry’s letter, which demanded that Egypt’s friendly games be cancelled, came as a killer punch to our plans to resume the competition. We have no option but to follow the instructions of the authorities. We will wait to see whether security will improve. I hope the authorities will reverse that decision soon, because cancelling the league will have dire consequences on Egyptian football on all fronts,” said acting EFA president Anwar Saleh in an interview with state-owned newspaper Al Ahram.

The fate of the Premier League season has been hanging in the balance since early this month when 74 people, mostly militant fans of crowned Cairo club Al Ahly SC, were killed in a riot immediately after a match against Port Said’s Al Masry SC.

The fans or ultras – well-organized, highly politicized, street battle hardened militant groups modelled on similar organizations in Serbia and Italy – believe that security forces failed to intervene in the brawl as punishment for their key role in last year’s overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak and their hard line opposition since then to military rule. Ultras battled security forces on a weekly basis during the soccer season in the last four years of Mr. Mubarak’s rule in a bid to deprive his regime from controlling the beautiful game.

An Egyptian parliamentary inquiry into the deaths in Port Said blamed fans and lax security for the worst incident in the country’s sports history. The inquiry’s preliminary report also suggested that unidentified thugs had been involved in the violence.

Egyptian judicial sources said they expected that security officials would be among 50 suspects who will be referred for criminal proceedings in connection with the incident.

Several key Al Ahly players, including Mohamed Abou Treika, Mohamed Barakat, Ahmed Fathi and Emad Mete’b, have said they will not play until the results of the official investigation are announced.

Some players favour cancellation of this season’s league despite the financial risk to clubs on the grounds that the risk of renewed violence is too high and that they won’t have sufficient time to recover from the trauma of the Port Said incident and to prepare for matches.

“It’s impossible to resume the Premier League this season, because there won’t be time to clear the backlog of matches. I’m not against the resumption of sports activities after the end of the mourning period, but resuming the Premier League will only cause more chaos,” said Al Ahly goalkeeper Ahmed Naggi.

Egyptian clubs as well as the fans fear that the clubs which last year suffered financially because of a three-month suspension of the league in the walk-up to and aftermath of Mr. Mubarak’s downfall could be bankrupted by a cancellation of the leagues. The clubs which have yet to be professionally restructured so that they can become truly financially independent are currently dependent for their revenues on advertising and sponsorship.

The Mubarak regime, which saw soccer as a tool to shore up its tarnished image, distract attention from unpopular policies and a means to manipulate national emotions, had little interest in allowing clubs to be independent, self-sufficient entities.

In an alliance of strange bedfellows critics of the interior ministry’s apparent intention to cancel the league include both clubs owned by the police and the military as well as Al Ahly which sees the cancellation as handing victory to the security forces whom it holds responsible for the deaths of its supporters .

“Life must go on, despite this catastrophe. But I don’t mean that resuming the Premier League means forgetting the victims of Port Said. Rescinding the League will cause Egyptian clubs many technical and financial problems. Resuming the League is something urgent for all the workers in local sports associations,” Helmi Toulan, coach of Ittihad al-Shorta, the Premier League team owned by the police, whom many Egyptians despise as the enforcers of Mr. Mubarak’s regime and hold responsible for the Port Said incident, told Melody Sports TV.

Farouq Gaafar, coach of El-Jaish, one of several clubs owned by the military, suggested in an echo of Mr. Mubarak’s approach that “the resumption of the Premier League will help people overcome their grief, provided that there is adequate security.”

Underlying the debate about the fate of the league and the political implications of the Port Said incident is the growing gap between Egyptian public opinion and the youth and soccer fan groups that were at the core of last year’s protests that toppled Mr. Mubarak. A majority of Egyptians eager to see their almost bankrupt country return to normalcy and economic growth have come to see the youth and soccer fan protests in support of an end to military rule and the dismantling of the Mubarak order that often escalate into vicious street battles with security forces as an obstacle.

“Our young people would not have reached this feeling of desperation, if they had not been abandoned by others, who, a year ago joined them in celebrating the toppling of the Mubarak regime. Although they shared the same aspiration that this moment would be the start of building a free, democratic and progressive country, the majority of the Egyptians seem not to have the strong will and persistence to continue the momentum until their dream comes true.

It is only those youthful enthusiasts that launched this revolution, who were eager to continue their efforts to fulfil its goals Instead of appreciating their exertions and the great sacrifice they have continued to pay for the welfare of the whole nation, we have allowed some malicious campaigns to distort their image and depict them as thugs some of the time and rioters most of the time. What is even worse is to accept the accusations being directed to them as agents of some foreign powers seeking the downfall of Egypt and its divisions into small states, without thinking of the price young Egyptians might pay in confronting the military or civil police. They are subjecting themselves to the risk of death or serious injuries that might disable them for the rest of their life,” said Manal Abdul Aziz writing in The Egyptian Gazette.

Russia would like to return to the sort of relationship it had with Iraq in the period before the Gulf War and thus enjoy the benefits that formerly accrued to it. However, apart from having a stake in the energy sector in Iraq and in developing the arms trade, Russia has still not formulated a general strategy although the path it is following is a familiar one.

As of December 2011, the U.S. military presence in Iraq had come to an end. To predict what Moscow’s Iraq policy will be from now on, you need to review the background of negotiations between Russia and Iraq in recent years.

Iraq

Following the American occupation, most discussion has centered on the question of Iraq’s internal structure but this is not of vital importance for Russia. This is because since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Eurasia been the main priority for Russian foreign policy. Afghanistan’s location means that any instability there is of intense concern to Russia but the same is not valid for Iraq. So, just as in the past, policy toward Iraq in the new period now beginning is mainly directed at economic gains.

In 2008, the Kremlin cancelled 93 percent of Iraq’s $12 billion debts to Russia and signed an agreement providing for the remaining $900 million of the debt to be repaid over a 17-year period. In return for this, Lukoil, the giant Russian petrol company, obtained the right to return to the West Kurna field, which with its reserves of 13 billion barrels, is one of Iraq’s biggest. What’s more, in April 2009, Russia and Iraq agreed to reopen negotiations on the agreements signed before the U.S.-led invasion.

At the same time, statements by Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, that Russian companies would play a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq were widely covered in the Russian press. The cancelation of Iraq’s debts from the Soviet period contained much greater symbolism than these figures. A clear indication of them came when al-Maliki visited Russia in 2009 and stated that following the cancelation of the debts, Russian-Iraq relations could now pave the way for development.

Syrian model for Iraq

The steps so far discussed are reminiscent of the preferential treatment for Syria used by Russia during the decade after 2000 to develop its relations with the Middle East. It is worth recalling that relations between Moscow and Damascus were at a low ebb during the first half of the 2000s; to reinvigorate them, Russia canceled 73 percent of Syria’s debts from the Soviet period. Relations then became much closer and within a short period, Syria had assumed the position of Russia’s closest ally in the Middle East. Russia’s notion of developing trade relations and canceling debts from the Soviet era aims at opening the way for an approach based on creating an alliance. Conversely, since in the long term the U.S. influence in Iraq in non-military dimensions will continue to exist for a good while, Russia’s moves may be seen as an attempt to claim its share of the “energy pie.”

The Middle East is one of the regions where there was a sharp decline in Russian influence after the end of the Cold War, so economic relations became the sole prop for Moscow. The Second Gulf War brought Russia up against the danger that it might lose its most important trading partner in the Arab world. Although it fiercely opposed the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States, it understood that protecting its economic interests was dependent on not breaking off relations with the U.S., and so it followed a pragmatic policy. While stepping up its cooperation with Iraq in the field of energy, Russia is trying to counter-balance the U.S. in the international arena in a way appropriate to the Great Power status it is carving out for itself.

This article was first published in Hurriyet Daily News.

A military campaign against Iran will become a heavy burden on the global economy, experts warn. Meanwhile, Iran is creating cyber protection forces, strengthening the defense of nuclear facilities and contemplating a preemptive strike against the enemy.

The US, China and Russia have spoken out against using force which has been proposed by Israel to settle the crisis surrounding Iran.

The oil price may grow to $300 per barrel in case of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. State Department spokesman Joseph Cirincione believes that a military operation against Iran will lead to a large-scale war and will only encourage Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States has been trying to convince Israel that a military action against Iran is futile and that the issue should be settled at the negotiating table. To this end, US National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. President Obama has invited Mr.Netanyahu to the United States on March 5th .

China is sure that Israeli strikes against Iran will send shock waves across the region, the country’s foreign ministry spokesperson said. Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin has made it clear that Moscow is doing its utmost to avert a military scenario. However, the Israeli leadership doesn’t rule out war.

In the meantime, global markets have been fluctuating on reports involving Iran, Alexander Pasechnik of the National Energy Security Foundation, says.

“Israel is adding more fuel to the fire as it tries to persuade the US and Britain to start a war against Iran in order to prevent it from producing nuclear weapons. World exchanges have long been on the alert over the news. All this will invariably lead to a rise in prices. Unlike Libya, Iran will be difficult to subdue. Given the increasing US military presence in the Gulf, preparations for war are well under way. This is a dead-end scenario. Should oil prices go up several times, the most vulnerable economies will just “crash”.”

Rather than trying to scare the international community out of the campaign, the Iranian authorities are getting ready for it. Iran is planning to create a cyber protection force and has launched war games with the participation of aircraft and missiles to be able to defend nuclear facilities against a possible attack from Israel. IRGC Commander General Mohammad Hejazi has said that Iran might choose to carry out a preventive strike if its national interests are in jeopardy. Oriental Studies expert Vladimir Sazhin comments.

“General Hejazi’s statement is meant for nothing more but an intimidating effect. It threatens to stop its oil supplies to France and Britain or carry out preventive strikes. But Iran’s military potential is incomparable to Israel’s and its allies’, so a preventive strike looks hardly possible.”

Countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, of which Russia is a member, hope that a military strike against Iran will be avoided. Nevertheless, the Organization’s Secretary-General Nikolay Bordyuzha has said that the CSTO is taking steps to be able to face the situation in case of war.

A delegation of IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran a few days ago. This could offer a good opportunity for ending the crisis. However, judging by the previous experience, the Iranian authorities are not keen on cooperation with the IAEA and chances of resolving the issue through IAEA inspectors are small, to say the least.

Both US bodies made statements yesterday saying that new tactics would have to be adopted in order to curtail Regime forces’ bombardment of the city of Homs.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the US did not want to “take actions that would lead to the further militarization of Syria,” while at the same time signaling that “additional measures” would have to be adopted if the international community fails to reach an agreement on a resolution.

The press secretary did not elaborate as to the nature of these so-called “additional measures.”

State department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland echoed these sentiments, saying that if Assad did not “yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures.” She then said that no possibilities “had been taken off the table.”

The statements hint at a shift in US policy where before the Obama administration had categorically ruled out the possibility of military aid.

There is a strong contingent in the US congress pushing for the arming of the Syrian opposition, with Senator John McCain once again calling for military aid on Monday, although he emphasized that the US should not do so directly.

Meanwhile, the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) said on Wednesday it was coming to the view that military intervention is the only solution to the nearly year-old crisis that has killed thousands in Syria.

“We are really close to seeing this military intervention as the only solution. There are two evils, military intervention or protracted civil war,” Basma Kodmani, a senior SNC official, told a press conference in Paris.

However, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chief of staff warned against support until US intelligence had more information on the opposition forces at work in Syria.

“I think it’s premature to take a decision to arm the opposition movement in Syria, because I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point,” he said to news agency CNN.

RT’s Gayane Chichakyan investigated the possible consequences of the US push for regime change in an interview with former US presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. He cited the possibility that the addition of military aid could be the catalyst that pushes Syria into chaos.

“I’m against putting weapons in and aiding the anti-Assad resistance, because an all-out war there could be a disaster that leads to a failed state there,” Buchanan told Chichakyan.

Friends or foes of Syria?

The US and other UN members are due to meet in Tunisia on Friday in a Friends of Syria group forum. The group is pushing for the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and representatives of the Syrian opposition will be in attendance at the meeting. The possibility of military intervention is unlikely to be discussed with humanitarian aid and possible sanctions on Damascus taking central stage at the forum.

Russia will not attend the meeting as it believes the Friends of Syria group to be biased in favor of the opposition. Aleksey Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Russia’s Lower House of Parliament explained Russia’s stance on the meeting to RT.

“The sole purpose of that conference is not to find a way out of the current situation, but to promote the idea that the conflict can only be resolved if Assad leaves,” said Pushkov.

He went on to say he had met with President Assad and representatives of two opposition organizations and that he did not get the impression that it was “the people vs. Assad in this conflict”.

“A faction of the people is opposing the regime, while another part supports Mr. Assad, while yet another faction does not want Syria to fall into chaos,” Pushkov said.

China’s presence at the Friends of Syria forum is also unconfirmed. The Asian nation vetoed a previous Security Council resolution on the Syrian conflict along with Russia on the basis it was unbalanced.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that Beijing was “currently researching the function, mechanism and other aspects of the meeting.”

The preliminary death toll was announced by local emergency services. Media spoke earlier about at least 550 injured and another 40 passengers blocked in the wreckage.

The incident took place on the first work day to follow a four-day summer carnival, a national holiday.

The nine-car train with some 1,000 passengers rammed the buffer stop at 26 kph, crushing the locomotive and the first three cars, a spokesman for the emergency services said. It remained unclear what caused the disaster.

Officials say dozens of others also were injured at protests held in the capital, Kabul, Parwan province and the eastern city of Jalalabad.

VOA reporters in Jalalabad saw Afghan security forces in riot gear face off against protesters, who were throwing stones and setting fires. Police also used water hoses from vehicles to try and control the crowd. One protester at the scene told VOA that police had opened fire from a checkpoint and hit one of his friends.

Protesters told VOA that they want the Americans out of their country and that words alone cannot change the disrespect that Muslims have suffered.

Meanwhile, crowds in the capital, shouted chants of “Death to America” while hurling stones at officers, setting fire to cars and buildings and blocking some main roads. The protest prompted the U.S. Embassy to place its staff on lockdown and suspend all travel.

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter met Wednesday in Kabul with Afghan leaders, including President Hamid Karzai, to again apologize for the incident.

A day earlier, the commander of the international coalition, U.S. General John Allen, issued an apology and ordered an investigation into the report that coalition forces “improperly disposed” of a large number of Islamic religious texts, including the Quran.

“I assure you…I promise you…this was not intentional in any way. I offer my sincere apologies for any offense this may have caused, to the president of Afghanistan, the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and most importantly, to the noble people of Afghanistan.”

The circumstances surrounding the incident are unclear. Unconfirmed reports suggest that NATO troops stationed at Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul attempted to dispose of a load of Qurans by setting them on fire, but were stopped by Afghan employees there.

Afghan protests against the destruction of the Muslim holy book have turned deadly in recent years. In April 2011, about 20 people were killed during several days of protests across Afghanistan after little-known U.S. pastor Terry Jones burned a Quran at his small Florida church.

The Prime Minister said Europe must focus on creating a firewall capable of preventing contagion within the eurozone after a second massive rescue package for the debt-laden country was finally delivered.

European ministers cautiously welcomed the deal but it has been dismissed by some experts as undeliverable.

At a press conference in Downing Street tonight Cameron said: “Greece has made its choice and we now have to focus on the next step, which is constructing a firewall which is large enough to prevent contagion within the eurozone.” Eurozone governments approved the the rescue package for the ailing nation following more than 12 hours of talks in Brussels.

But the deal is based on long-range forecasts of Greek’s best-case scenario for slashing its debts over the next eight years and forthcoming elections in the country will make it politically difficult to keep on track.

Finance secretary George Osborne insisted the bailout was good for Britain and would “hopefully” allow Europe to “move on”.
He said: “Of course, resolving the Greek situation is only part of resolving the eurozone crisis, but I think we took a really significant step towards that last night and that is good for Britain, because resolving the eurozone crisis would be the biggest boost that Britain could get for its economy this year”.

The Chancellor described the package as the “crucial missing ingredient” in securing a sustainable debt position for Greece.
“The other significant point about last night’s deal was that the rest of the eurozone signalled a willingness to stand behind their currency and stand behind Greece and frankly, all along, the failure to deal with the Greek situation has caused uncertainty,” he added.

Analysts were less enthusiastic about the long-term prospects of the bailout.

Later, Cameron’s official spokesman said: “We have not agreed to anything.

“This was a eurozone agreement and there is no proposal on the table for additional IMF support”.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said the bailout “closes the door on the scenario of an uncontrolled default”.

He added: “There is no alternative to fiscal consolidation and to structural reform in Greece if Greece wants to regain competitiveness so that it can once again generate growth and jobs.

“I think this message has to be clear and the best way of showing our solidarity with Greece is to speak the truth”.

At bilateral talks Cameron and Spanish counterpart Mariano Rajoy united to push for action on growth in the European Union. Both leaders were among the signatories on a letter from 12 members states calling for “bold decisions” at next week’s summit to rebuild confidence among citizens and businesses.

The PM said a “very strong collection” of countries was backing the letter but indicated he was keen for eurozone powerhouses France and Germany to throw their weight behind the plans.

“It’s obviously completely open to the French and the Germans to support this letter,” he said.

Latin America and the Caribbean celebrated their 45th anniversary as a nuclear-weapon-free zone amidst allegations of British deployment of nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic and with no specific regime for the transport of radioactive waste.

Earlier this month, the Argentine government accused the United Kingdom of deploying a nuclear-powered submarine armed with nuclear warheads to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the southern Atlantic Ocean that has been the subject of a sovereignty dispute between the two countries since the 19th century.

Argentina stressed that such a move would violate the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, better known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco, whose Additional Protocol II was signed and ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, the world’s five nuclear powers when the treaty was adopted in 1967.

Under this additional protocol, the nuclear powers pledged “not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons” against the countries of the region.

But the transport through the region of nuclear weapons and radioactive waste was not contemplated in the treaty, the first of its kind, which was signed by the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean on Feb. 14, 1967 in Tlatelolco, Mexico and entered into force in April 1969.

The transport of weapons “is one of the major challenges that needs to be addressed in the region,” says Costa Rican Gioconda Ubeda, secretary general of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), the intergovernmental body that enforces the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

The transport of radioactive material is also an issue of concern for Central America and the Caribbean, but there are differing stances among the parties to the treaty as to whether or not this issue should be included on the OPANAL agenda, she added.

Ubeda, the OPANAL secretary general for the 2010-2014 period, spoke with Tierramérica during the activities held in the Mexican capital to mark the 45th anniversary of the world’s first nuclear-weapon-free zone.

These zones “were created as dikes, as islands, to shield these territories which, through political will, should evolve to become a driving force towards the ultimate goal of completely eliminating nuclear weapons,” said Ubeda.

TIERRAMÉRICA: How should the transport of nuclear weapons and radioactive waste in the region be addressed?

GIOCONDA UBEDA: The transport of nuclear weapons was left out of the treaty. There were lengthy discussions that are well documented in the minutes, but no agreement was reached. This is one of the major challenges that the region needs to address.

Each individual state is responsible for the application of international law, as well as maritime control in their own territorial waters. It is not that the conditions do not exist to address it, but I see it more within the sphere of each state.

In terms of radioactive waste, it is not contemplated in the treaty, but there are binding international legal instruments that deal with the issue, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is a subject related to the environment, which has another sphere of implementation.

In the meantime, there is valid concern in the Caribbean and Central America over the transport of this waste through the region and the eventuality of an accident. This is an issue that needs attention. But it is not on the OPANAL agenda, and there are conflicting stances among the states parties as to whether or not it should be included.

TIERRAMÉRICA: What does it imply for the region that the United States has a nuclear arsenal?

GU: We do not agree with nuclear-weapon-free zones being used as a security mechanism for the application of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which emerged during the Cold War.

This is a situation we have become accustomed to. Latin America’s response was to say to the major powers, “We have decided to be a nuclear-weapon-free zone and we ask you to respect this and assume a commitment through the additional protocols not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or establish missiles in the region.”

This was achieved, yet not only the United States, but rather any country that has nuclear weapons always signifies a risk, because the threat is not only for a particular region.

This spirit of Tlatelolco clearly reflected this concern. The zones were created as a means to pursue the goal of freeing the world of nuclear weapons. And so we continue to be concerned no matter where those weapons are.

TIERRAMÉRICA: How have the nuclear-weapon-free zones evolved?

GU: Our view is that they were created as dikes, as islands, to shield these territories which, through political will, should evolve to become a driving force towards the ultimate goal of completely eliminating nuclear weapons

Now it is a matter of building bridges between the dikes and supporting the construction of new zones, like one in the Middle East, which has been under discussion since 1995, although the first real progress was only made last year.

It is our responsibility to share our experience, because we continue working to preserve the nuclear-weapon-free zone, and our agenda includes working towards the universal goal of freeing the word of this threat.

TIERRAMÉRICA: What can be done to unblock the international process of non-proliferation and disarmament?

GU: If I had the answer to that question, I think I would be named to one of the high leadership positions in the United Nations. This is a question that needs to be addressed by negotiating effective measures that lead us towards vertical non-proliferation (preventing the expansion of existing national nuclear arsenals) and horizontal non-proliferation (preventing the expansion of the number of countries with nuclear arsenals) and the commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Some agreements have been reached, and now it is a matter of ensuring their implementation, for example, for countries with arsenals that are no longer useful to withdraw them from circulation.

It is also important for firmer steps to be taken towards disarmament. This is an issue in which the nuclear powers play the most important role.

There is also a need to try to strengthen the regime of non-proliferation. The nuclear-weapon-free zones contribute through non-proliferation within these territories, but we need to advance much further, because we cannot see non-proliferation without measures that lead to total disarmament.

The police had been following “Artemio”, whose real name is Florindo Eleuterio Flores Hala, with financing from the United States. Since 1984, he had dominated the Alto Huallaga River Valley in north-central Peru, one of the country’s main coca-growing regions.

Even though Shining Path’s founder Abimael Guzmán was captured in 1992 and sentenced to life in prison in 2006, “Artemio” remained on the loose, mainly due to his ties to drug trafficking operations.

A member of his security group, who had been recruited by the police, was said to have shot “Artemio” when discovered, and then escaped. “Artemio,” wounded, was moved by his companions to a medical post to be cared for, and then taken to the village of Cachiyacu, where he was abandoned. Then a combined patrol of the army and the police found him there.

“Don’t shoot. I’ve lost,” said “Artemio,” according to press reports.

During the 28 years that he headed the regional Huallaga region, “Artemio” is said to have ordered 500 attacks, leaving 1,000 police, soldiers and civilians killed.

According to Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, between 1980 and 2000, in the central jungle where “Artemio” operated, 6,000 indigenous Ashaninkas were killed by Shining Path and another 5,000 were captured as a slave labor. Ten thousand others were displaced. Between 30 and 50 communities were wiped out.

Still, another column of Shining Path is operating in the Apurimac-Ene River Valley, in the jungle departments of Ayacucho and Cuzco, that is led by Víctor Quispe Palomino, known as “José”. Like “Artemio,” the US government has offered a US$5 million-reward for “José”.

Instead, Anonymous is saying that the National Security Agency (NSA) is guilty of propagating fear among America.

A popular Twitter account associated with the hacktivist group Anonymous is saying that the NSA is engaged in fear-mongering after a recent Wall Street Journal report alleged that government officials feel that the computer group could eventually disrupt power grids across the globe. According to sources close to the NSA, the Journal filed a report that reveals comments allegedly made by the agency’s director, Gen. Keith Alexander, during engagements at the White House and elsewhere.

According to the Journal, the NSA fears that Anonymous could “bring about a limited power outage through a cyberattack” within the next year or two.

Neither Alexander nor the NSA have publically addressed whether or not they feel that the hacktivist group poses an actual threat to the world’s power grid, but according to the YourAnonNews Twitter account, these allegations exposed by the Journal are both baseless and outrageous.

“Why would Anons shut off a power grid? There are ppl on life support / other vital services that rely on it. Try again NSA. #FearMongering,” reads a recent tweet from the account. Other tweets sent from the account on Tuesday call the alleged comments from Gen. Alexander “fear-mongering at its best” and “ridiculous.”

Although Anonymous has no official spokesperson, organization or membership, the YourAnonNews account has in the past confirmed and announced Anon-related activity. It is considered one of the most reliable conduits for events pertaining to the Anonymous agenda and has more than half-a-million followers subscribed to its tweets.

According to the Journal’s report, the NSA is concerned that Anonymous hackers could increase the intensity of their online assaults, which in the past have indeed been damaging, although not to the degree that Gen. Alexander thinks is possible.

“The industry is engaged and stepping up widely to respond to emerging cyber threats,” one electric-industry official speaking on condition of anonymity tells the paper. “There is a recognition that there are groups out there like Anonymous, and we are concerned, as are other sectors.”

Other sources cited by the Journal believe that foreign cyberspies with a vested interest in disrupting activity in America may employ the services of hacktivists aligned with Anonymous in order to recruit a team of able-minded individuals already weary of the US government. From there, they fear, competing nations could have the know-how to take down national power grids in the future. Lacking no requirement for “membership” in Anonymous, however, has already allowed thousands of participants from across the globe to identify as members of the hacktivist collective.

Over the weekend, the also-popular AnonOps Communications website advertised that the group will continue high-profile assaults on “corrupt corporate and government systems” and will publicize the results at the end of the work-week as part of the ongoing FuckFBIFriday campaign. In recent weeks, the FFF campaign has crippled the websites of the FBI, CIA and Department of Justice, among others.

The holiday comes as a number of European countries facing overwhelming national debt are cutting budgets, benefits, and jobs.

But in Portugal, revellers refused to let the sobering economic news damper their spirits. Tens of thousands of Portuguese turned out in elaborate and colorful costumes for the Carnival parades and samba dancing.

“It’s a day of total relaxation. The crisis is here to stay, but carnival is carnival. We’ll always come here, always.”

In Brazil’s Rio di Janeiro, the party has been raging since Friday, in one of the world’s most well-known Carnival celebrations. Hundreds of thousands of tourists and residents have gathered in neighborhood street parties. Some dress in nun and priest costumes, reflecting the religious origins of the festival. But today’s alcohol-fueled parties are otherwise mostly secular affairs.

In the southern U.S. city of New Orleans, preparations for Tuesday’s parade began months ago. Groups known as “Krewes” come up with concepts for their elaborate floats, and artists spend months building them.

“We started in September making the flowers. But the whole process starts earlier. It starts with the idea-making process, then they have to draw pictures, and it continues on. The art director and the artist get together and decide what is going to be the theme for the year and what each float is going to look like.”

New Orleans’ celebration is one of the most popular in North America.

The Kaleme opposition website reports that Mahsa Amrabadi has been sentenced to five years in jail for “assembly and collusion against national security.” Four years of her sentence is suspended; however, one year of it must be served immediately.

Amrabadi is charged with refusal to denounce opposition leaders MirHosein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, attending the Quran-reading gatherings of political prisoners, giving interviews and writing reports for newspapers, visiting independent members of the clergy and defending the rights of her husband, detained journalist Massoud Bastani.

Amrabadi was arrested for the second time last March by intelligence officers of the Revolutionary Guards and was released on bail.

She was first arrested in June of 2009 during the widespread crackdown on election protesters who claimed the presidential elections were rigged. She was sentenced to one year in prison.

Amrabadi has collaborated with several reformist newspapers.

Her husband, Massoud Bastani, was arrested in the post-election crackdown of 2009 as he was inquiring about the arrest of his wife. Bastani was later sentenced to six years in prison for his journalistic activities.

Journalists became one of the chief targets of post-election crackdown in 2009, and according to the journalists’ rights group Reporters Without Borders, more than 30 journalists and 24 netizens are currently behind bars in Iran.

International human rights groups and, until recently, several governments, including the UK, US and Australia, widely criticized the lack of accountability in the report by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

The commission set out in May 2010 to investigate the final phase of fighting between 2002 and May 2009, when the government declared victory over the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Critics called for an independent inquiry, denouncing the report for ignoring alleged human rights abuses, an issue also raised in the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.

But weeks before the next UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva and nearly three months after the LLRC submitted its final report to the president on 20 November 2011, the US is calling for a resolution to prod Sri Lanka’s government to act on the recommendations.

“While it has shortcomings on accountability, the commission addressed a number of crucial areas of concern to Sri Lankans and made substantive recommendations on reconciliation,” said US Assistant Secretary Robert Blake at a recent meeting in Colombo.

Where to start

Jehan Perera, executive director of the Colombo-based National Peace Council, told IRIN he felt the release of a full list of detainees in government custody was the most important and “easiest to implement” of the dozens of recommendations.

Thousands of prisoners who went missing during the war remain unaccounted for, some of whom have been missing for more than two decades, he added. “If such a list were out, it would bring closure to a lot of families.”

Ruki Fernando, head of the human rights in conflict programme at the local NGO, Law and Society Trust (LST), picked a day of commemoration for those who lost their lives. “A number of recommendations by the LLRC have the potential to build trust amongst communities,” he said.

Other provisions he highlighted include the de-militarization and establishment of full civilian administration in the former conflict hotspot northern region; financial compensation for all survivors, or those who lost lives, limbs and possibly also property, according to the report; addressing disappearances; ensuring access to places of religious worship, including those in high security zones; and the use of both Sinhala and Tamil – the respective major languages for the former warring sides – for the national anthem.

Assistant Secretary Blake said the LLRC recommendations on devolution of authority, demilitarization, rule of law, media freedom, disappearances and human rights violations and abuses, “if implemented, could contribute to genuine reconciliation and strengthening democratic institutions and practices”.

Game changer

Attention is shifting from forcing an international investigation to encouraging implementation of the recommendations because they are, at least, a starting point for reconciliation, say local activists.

The longstanding problem, said LST’s Fernando, was that the Sri Lankan government had steadfastly refused to cooperate with any international mechanism to move past war.

“The report offers an opportunity to move forward. Now it is up to the government to show it is committed to do that,” said Perera.

But Fernando was pessimistic.

“Looking at the scorecard after the LLRC report is not encouraging – there have been at least 22 abductions reported after the LLRC report [was released]; bodies are found in Colombo; peaceful campaigns [to locate the missing] in the north were obstructed in December and January; a protester was killed and others injured even last week in Chilaw [North Western Province),” he said.

Army inquiry

Two days after the US expressed its support for a resolution, the national army announced its appointment of a five-member panel to investigate whether troops executed prisoners and killed civilians during the final phase of fighting.

Human Rights Watch criticized the panel as a “transparent ploy to deflect a global push for a genuine international investigation, not a sudden inspiration nearly three years after the war”.

The Attorney-General has also announced it is conducting follow-up interviews with witnesses who provided LLRC testimony to gather more information for further examination.

The UN Human Rights Council session is scheduled for 27 February to 23 March.