international relations today- (Book 2) by Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal Jnu

International Relations Today-2 - Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal ________________________________________

Chapters

Chapter-1:

Can President Trump end unrelenting repression in Kashmir?

Chapter-2:

US-Russia tensions and Russian desire to engage with Middle

Chapter-3

Contours of Russo-France relations!

East!

Chapter-4:

Can god die? Can cow die?

Chapter-5 : to become

ICC Champions Trophy 2017: Pakistani bowler Aamir leads Pakistan champions!

Chapter-6

Cricketism: How Bowler Aamir led Pakistan to final of Champions

Trophy 2017?

Chapter-7: Zionist fresh expansionism moves in Palestine: Does Trump back it? Chapter-8: Putin reiterates NATO is obsolete! Chapter-9: USA, Russia in talks over “safe zone” in Syria! Chapter-10: Pakistan, India to be full members of SCO Chapter-11: Trump’s visit and split in divided Islamic world! Chapter-12: Kashmir towards an open public revolt for sovereignty! Chapter-13: End of Zionist occupation in Palestine? Chapter-14: Kashmir unrest: Youth struggle to provide alternate narrative, authorities try to run them aground!

Chapter-15: Indian strategy to defame freedom struggle in Kashmir! Chapter-16: Israel treats Palestinians as slaves or prisoners!

Chapter-17: Trump must put together the Palestine pieces to make peace Chapter-18: Denuclearization of West Asia: Dangerous Israelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nukes should be dismantled! Chapter-19: Daring North Korea fires Scud-class ballistic missile toward Japan! Chapter-20: Israeli detention conditions and Palestinian prisoners! Chapter-21: Denial of mass crimes by Sri Lanka: UNSC must initiate punitive measures!

Chapter-22: Indian coercive strategy has made Kashmiris more alienated than ever before! Chapter-23: Elusive Syrian peace! Chapter-24: President Trump calls on Pope Francis at the Vatican! Chapter-25: Tasks before reelected Iran President Hassan Rouhani!

Chapter-26: President Putin calls for Eurasia integration! Chapter-27: Peace talks restart in Geneva over Syria: Will they do any good?

Chapter-29: Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia signs massive arms deal with Arab ally! Chapter-30: Iran: Hassan Rouhani reelected President! Chapter-31: Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New Silk Road project: Focus on South Asia! (3 parts) Chapter-32:

Cricketism: How Bowler Aamir led Pakistan to final of

Champions Trophy 2017?

Chapter-33: Mideast: How quickly will Netanyahu be able to control Trump?

Chapter-34: Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 100 days as US president! Chapter-35: Overcoming Isolationism: Foreign policy of Trump Chapter-36: Japan dispatches warship to protect US vessel

Chapter-37: India: AIADMK unification ruled out: Pannerselvam and

Palanisamy factions to mobilize party people in support of their claims! Chapter-38: Can Russia and China overtake USA?

___________

Chapter-1: Can President Trump end unrelenting repression in Kashmir?

A sovereign Kashmir: Random thoughts- 279) -Dr. Abdul Ruff

_________

World today is facing a lot of serious problems for which USA is the chief cause and even instrumental. Two major issues- Palestine in West Asia and Kashmir in South Asia - continue to derail peace momentum globally. Of these, genocides of Kashmiris in Jammu Kashmir, being perpetrated by India, remain the crucial problem that has not received the attention it does deserve.

Like Israel, India also puts pressure n world powers not to interfere in Kashmir issue. Similarly, Indian sources do not let any news paper or media publish anything that supports the Kashmir cause or against Indian occupational crimes. Clearly, upon enduring constant repressive and fascist methods by Israel for decades of its occupation and proliferation of illegal settlement construction operations in Palestine, Palestinians are on their way to gain full and complete sovereignty from Israel by legal means as the UN has approved Palestine as a defacto member and now all-powerful UNSC passed a resolution to remove and end further Jewish settlements in Palestine.

For the first time in years since 1948 when Israel was imposed on Mideast, USA as refused to use its veto to protect increasingly fascist Israel and defend its occupational crimes and expansionist operations. The establishment of Palestine sooner than later, thus, is a foregone conclusion. President Trump, though plays politics not to offend America’s close terror ally Israel, is reportedly supporting a soverign Palestine state and two-nation solution in Mideast. Probe of Indian occupational crimes A recent civil society’ fact-finding report notes that the concentration of security forces in JK is among the heaviest in the world. An estimated 700,000 Indian Army, paramilitary and state police forces watch over a population of just 14 million. Literally every Muslim in Kashmir is under Indian military surveillance and terror cum fake encounter target.

Trump needs to address the problems Kashmiris face under Indian brutal occupation as Kashmiris face very similar problem as of Palestinians as its neighbor occupies their nation Kashmir and keeps attacking and killing Muslims there. Soon after the establishment of Palestine, USA should also take up the issue of Kashmiri struggle for sovereignty back and ensure security of Kashmiris Muslims as India, its military and media care only about security of Hindus living in JK, supporting Indian case in Kashmir. Indian media want every Muslims in Kashmir is killed if they don’t accept Indian brutality occupational crimes in Kashmir as their ill-fate. India simply cannot accept any protest in Kashmir. The population of Jammu Kashmir, now India’s only Muslim-majority state, confronts unrelenting repression by heavily-armed central and state government security forces, including indiscriminate pellet-gun barrages, arbitrary and repeated arrests, and deliberate blinding and killing of unarmed protestors.

As Kashmir is reeling under continuous demonstrations and regular curfews imposed b the JK government to make life very difficult for the Kashmiris, last month a volunteer group, led by Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and Anuradha Bhasin of the Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy (PFPD), visited Muslim dominated Jammu and Kashmir, formerly a soverign nation but now India’s northern-most state for 10 days to study real situation in the most militarized zone on earth. The expert report extensively documents widespread and shocking human rights violations by the Indian state and blatantly criminal behavior by security personnel.

For years, both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party as ruling dispensation alternatively play mischief with Kashmiris. India’s Hindu supremacist BJP government and its local partner, the J&K People’s Democratic Party (PDP), responded with ferocious violence to the mass protests that convulsed the Kashmir Valley during much of the summer and fall. While India targeted Muslims only in its occupied Jammu Kashmir, it never bothered about Azad Kashmir, the portion that is occupied by Pakistan, but of course without nay brutality meanly because Kashmiris do not oppose Pakistani occupation as a crime but a boon to protect themselves from Indian atrocities. In late September, the BJP government in India, seeking to increase its Hindu vote banks, plunged South Asia into its gravest war crisis in at least 15 years. Wanting to showcase its military prowess, New Delhi ordered illegal and highly provocative cross-border raids inside Pakistan-held Kashmir ostensibly in reputed retaliation for the September 18 attack on the Indian military base at Uri, then vowed it would continue to impose an ‘unacceptable’ price on Pakistan until all attacks on India from Pakistan ceased. When the 25-member fact-finding group visited Kashmir between November 11 and 20, the Indian and Pakistani armies were mounting massive military barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistan-held Kashmir, effectively blowing apart the shaky truce that has prevailed between the rival nuclear-armed states since 2003. Kashmiris on both side of LOC feel heavily terrorized. Turning point India for years has adopted different strategies to silence Kashmiris from raising objections to Indian military misrule of Jammu Kashmir but has failed. New Delhi could not successfully use its government in Sri Nagar to work for Indian cause in the region. But military misadventures have harmed Indian cause of continued occupation of Jammu Kashmir. Even after seeing the secret graveyards in Kashmir, revealing what has happened to those Kashmir Muslims who fought against military of India and imposition of extra military laws to give a free hand to the state killers in Kashmir, Kashmiris continue their struggle for sovereignty. The worst and strongest ever Kashmiri national protests erupted following the July 8 ‘encounter killing ’by summary execution by India, which cannot tolerate any opposition from Muslim leaders for state repression and murders, of a 21-year-old leader of an Islamist, Kashmiri separatist insurgent group, the Hizbul Mujahideen. Rattled by the size and tenacity of the protests, the BJP government blamed them on “Pakistan-supported ‘terrorists” and ratcheted up pressure on Washington and Islamabad.

Its aims were two-fold: to draw attention away from the popular protests in J&K and their brutal repression at the hands of the India state forces and fanatic media and to compel Pakistan to end all logistical support for the quarter-century long insurgency in Indian-held Kashmir. The ‘civil society’ fact-finding report notes that the concentration of security forces in JK is among the heaviest in the world. An estimated 700,000 Indian Army, paramilitary and state police forces watch over a population of just 14 million. The fact-finding volunteers traveled to the Kashmir Valley districts where the recent protests have been most widespread and gathered much evidence of the violence and humiliations that the Indian military and state police have imposed on the local populace. Moreover, because of the legal immunity granted the state police under the JK Public Safety Act (1978) and the army and paramilitary forces in Kashmir under India’s notorious Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, they can and do act with impunity. The report states ‘unarmed and symbolic protests in Kashmir have been met with sustained attack by the Indian army, police and paramilitary, including with the use of pellet guns, (chili-based) PAVA shells and firearms. Several deaths have been caused by targeted killings of unarmed civilians by armed forces even in the absence of protests or demonstrations. The volunteers further found that most pellet-gun wounds have been above the waist, indicating that security forces have deliberately sought to blind and kill protesters. ‘Most deaths we came across’, say the volunteers, ‘have been caused by injuries waist-above, without any warning fire. Deaths and injuries caused by pellet guns too are all above the waist and preponderantly at eye level causing blinding or long-term ophthalmic damage.’ Indian security forces invariably justify their violence by dubbing its victims as ‘antinational.’ In fact, this is a catch-all phrase that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP government routinely employ against persons or organizations expressing even sympathy with the victims of the state repression in Kashmir. The report documents how families that pursue legal remedies against the security personnel responsible for the killing of their loved ones are subjected to raids, repeated arrests and even torture from the out-of-control security establishment. Casualty counts vary, as the government is trying to cover up the scale of its repression and families often fear informing authorities that a member has been injured for fear of reprisals. But close to a hundred civilians have been killed since the protests erupted in early July. Many thousands more — the J&K daily Greater Kashmir claims 15,000 — have been injured. Collective punishments, including destruction of property and animals and revenge attacks, akin to those Israel’s security forces mete out to the Palestinians, are the

norm in Kashmir. The fact-finding report bears witness to this: ‘In the towns and villages where there were killings by the Indian Army, police and paramilitary, we met with ordinary people who narrated a cycle of search and seizure raids following killings, and of indiscriminate firing, including at funerals and memorial gatherings. In several of these instances the Indian Army, police and paramilitary broke windows and destroyed household goods, livestock, and food rations in peoples’ homes.’ In several villages and towns they visited, the armed forces, during their search and seizure operations, routinely destroy the local electricity transformer or substation, denying the entire village or locality access to electricity.’ The mass character of the protests in the Kashmir Valley have given the lie to the Modi government’s claims that the opposition to Indian rule is simply or mainly the product of Pakistani intrigue and ‘Pakistani-sponsored terrorism.’ The Kashmiri separatist groups supported by Islamabad were in fact taken by surprise by this summer’s eruption of mass protests. The report describes the widespread popular disaffection with an Indian state that has repeatedly violated JK’s special autonomous status within the Indian Union, imposed ‘presidential’ or central government rule, rigged elections, and for decades resorted to mass repression, including ‘disappearances’, torture and summary executions. ‘From common people’, says the report, ‘we heard articulate accounts of what they have faced from the Indian state and, in particular, of the sustained attack on their democratic rights from 1989 onwards. The failure of the Indian state and every government since independence to address the political sentiments of Kashmiri people is a source of both hurt and enormous resentment.’ Indian parties speak in one voice against Muslims The Modi government’s violent repression of the popular protests in JK has been politically aided and abetted by the opposition parties, including the Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its Left Front.

Interestingly, all of them unequivocally defend the right of the Indian bourgeoisie to rule over Kashmir, have helped in the cover-up of the atrocities being carried out by Indian security forces in Kashmir, and have hailed the provocative military strikes that Indian Special Forces troops carried out inside Pakistan in late September. India bases its claim not on the support of the Kashmiri people, but on the document of accession to the Indian Union signed by the last member of the British-backed Hindu princely dynasty that ruled Jammu and Kashmir.

India claims its prerogative to kill every Muslims in occupied Kashmir who refuses to accept Indian occupation. The reactionary character of the false Indian-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir is exemplified by the legal basis of their respective claims to ‘undivided’ Kashmir i.e., to all of the territories that had belonged, prior to Partition, to the British Indian Empire princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan’s claim is based on the reactionary ideology that underlies the Pakistani state: Kashmir is rightfully Pakistan’s because it is a majority-Muslim area contiguous to the Muslim ‘homeland’ in the subcontinents northwest. Kashmiris, besieged between these two illogical claims, have been the target of both Indi and Pakistan. Shockingly, the ruling as well as opposition parties are together when it comes to attack Muslims either in India or Kashmir or anywhere in the region. Observation As a mere formality, India continues to claim ownership of Jammu Kashmir and reiterates that Kashmir is an integrate part of India. The Kashmir tragedy and the reactionary military-strategic rivalry between India and Pakistan with which it is inextricably enmeshed are the outcome of the reactionary communal Partition of South Asia. In 1947, South Asia’s departing British imperial overlords and the rival factions of the ‘national’ bourgeoisie divided the subcontinent into an expressly Muslim Pakistan and a predominantly Hindu India. While the India ruling class and its state machinery have repressed the people of Jammu Kashmir, the Pakistani corporate lords have run roughshod over the basic rights of the people of Pakistan-held Kashmir and systematically sought to manipulate the Kashmir question for its own profit ends. The democratic rights of the Kashmiri people will be secured and the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war between India and Pakistan lifted only through a joint struggle of the common masses of the subcontinent to put an end to capitalist rule and establish genuine the Socialist regional system. That could help end blood bath in the region, in Kashmir, end terror attacks, open the way for the improved governance for the causes of people. Notwithstanding the pressure tactics from Indian government being applied directly and through its former rulers UK and US government directly as a so-called strategic partners in terror machinations, and through the Zionist criminal regime, one hopes President Trump would rise to the occasion to help and save the

remaining Kashmiri Muslims by forcing both India and Pakistan to allow the Kashmiris to have rebirth of Kashmir to exist as a soverign nation in South Asia. Meanwhile, Indian and Pakistani governments and political calls need to consider the normalcy of the region that is being harmed by the nuclear race and LOC conflict, usually fanatic Indian media mischief to promote state arrogance towards Muslims and Kashmir.

--------------------Chapter-2: US-Russia tensions and Russian desire to engage with Middle East! -Dr. Abdul Ruff ________

For years Middle East has been the region with which USA and its western allies have had trade both ways. Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s place in the region has been limited only to arms deals. But as USA has been at odds with the rulers of the region, now the Kremlin is eager to tap the Arab resources by trade. However, Moscow is also keen not to offend USA in the process of increased trade mainly because at the end of the day, USA would have all strings to pull the Arab nations to its side. Ever since Russia occupied Afghanistan, Washington has developed special relations with Arab world to contain and sideline communist Russia.

Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legislative branch in recent months has become more active in international issues and parliamentary diplomacy, especially in the Middle East. Although the parliament does not play a direct role in forming and implementing Russian foreign policy, which is the prerogative of the president and the Foreign Ministry, it can still assist in this sphere.

When Russia’s Foreign Ministry is hesitant to discuss sensitive issues with other countries, parliamentary diplomacy serves as a convenient intermediary. Parliamentary delegations convey certain positions, discuss offers and counterproposals, and in general are an effective communications tool between countries.

Lately, both chambers of the Russian parliament have become more persistent in such endeavors in the Middle East. This seems natural, as Russia is becoming increasingly involved in the region and there’s a growing understanding that it’s impossible to settle regional issues without Moscow’s involvement. Thus, in addition to its military presence in Syria and diplomatic efforts in the region, Moscow is now testing parliamentary diplomacy as an additional tool of effective communication with its Middle Eastern counterparts.

During the past six months, Valentina Matviyenko, the speaker of parliament’s upper chamber, the Federation Council, visited three Arab states — Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — and Iran. Her most recent visit to Saudi Arabia came after the April 4 chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria, and the subsequent US airstrike April 7 on Syria’s Shayrat air base.

The speakers of both chambers of Russia’s parliament are permanent members of the Security Council, which places them very close to President Vladimir Putin and increases the status of their visits and negotiations. Matviyenko — a retired diplomat herself with postings in Malta (1991-1994) and Greece (1997-1998) — enjoys the personal trust of the Russian

president, which enables her to be virtually “Putin’s messenger” on almost any foreign trip. Tours in the Middle East are no exception.

The diplomatic track spearheaded by Matviyenko is being equally adopted by the speaker of the lower chamber, Vyacheslav Volodin, who has been active on the international track since he took over the position in November 2016. Although Volodin lacks a diplomatic and foreign affairs background compared with Matviyenko, he is a hardworking, young “doer” and has experience as a public relations consultant for political campaigns, including Putin’s campaign. He has also been one of the chief architects of Putin’s domestic policies, which makes him — like Matviyenko — a messenger for the Russian president if not a confidant.

So far, Volodin’s visits and talks have mainly centered on the post-Soviet area, but he is bound to expand the geography of his visits. One reason Volodin’s presence raises the stature of parliamentary diplomacy is his appointment as head of the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s (CSTO) Parliamentary Assembly. CSTO, an intergovernmental military alliance of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, aims to create a comprehensive system of collective security among post-Soviet states. One of CSTO’s main priorities nowadays is anti-terrorist activity. Given that the Islamic State is increasing its presence in Afghanistan, threatening to ultimately infiltrate Central Asia, it creates quite a serious threat to CSTO member states’ security. With this in mind, CSTO monitors the security and stability of its members, including real and hypothetical threats coming from the Middle East. It’s highly likely that delegations will soon expand their visits there to build bridges for future cooperation, mainly in security.

As Iran and Pakistan are seeking CSTO observer status, Volodin’s mission is likely to include building close interparliamentary ties in Tehran and Islamabad. If the assembly is successful, it will signal to other Middle East states that they can take advantage of parliamentary communication channels with Russia.

In April, both Volodin and Matviyenko received an official invitation from their Syrian colleague Hadiya Abbas, the speaker of the People’s Council of Syria (Syria’s legislature) to visit Damascus. Volodin accepted the invitation and extended it to his counterparts in the US Congress and European parliaments.

“If any of them want to join the Russian delegation, we will consider this an additional opportunity to build relationships with other parliaments,” Volodin said. The rationale was to get European and US legislators to see the situation in Syria with their own eyes, rather than relying on anti-regime media reports. Getting such firsthand knowledge, even just in governmentcontrolled areas, would definitely help Western lawmakers develop an alternative image of the situation on the ground.

Another vital element in this type of Russian diplomacy is the role of both Russian chambers’ International Affairs Committees (IAC). One of their main tasks — apart from the legislative support of Russia’s foreign policy — is to discuss and ratify international agreements, legalize the use of armed forces abroad and develop interparliamentary cooperation. This is why people with

solid diplomatic or international experience usually head the committees. For instance, the current head of the upper house’s IAC, Konstantin Kosachev, is a seasoned career diplomat, having served three terms as chairman of the lower house’s IAC until 2012, when he was appointed head of the body known as Rossotrudnichestvo (Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation).

Conceived in many respects as a Russian analog of US Aid for International Development, Rossotrudnichestvo administers civilian foreign aid. Interestingly, Kosachev’s predecessor in the upper chamber’s IAC, Farit Mukhametshin, headed Rossotrudnichestvo before him and also was an experienced diplomat with ambassador postings in Uzbekistan and Moldova.

Russia has a solid foundation in interparliamentary diplomacy, which is a good prerequisite for increasing its role abroad. Therefore, an interparliamentary communication channel might become an additional tool of Russian diplomacy in the Mideast. This channel has served not only to convey certain messages and disseminate information in other states, but also to build trust. In this regard, it seems parliamentary diplomacy can only have a positive impact on Russia’s foreign policy dealings in the Middle East.

US-Russia tensions While Russian officials have vocally complained about the Donald Trump administration’s increasingly frequent strikes on government forces and progovernment paramilitaries in Syria, the Kremlin remains focused on cooperation with Washington and is unlikely to respond to US actions as long

as that is the case. If the US administration’s objective is to establish greater credibility in Syria to deal with Moscow from a position of strength, as Trump and other US officials have said, it may be working, at least so far. In addition to striking a Syrian air base with cruise missiles in April in what US officials called a punitive response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, the United States conducted air attacks on pro-government troops in May and June. US officials described the latter actions as necessary to protect “coalition and partner forces” in At Tanf, near Syria’s border with Iraq.

In April, a Kremlin spokesperson said the cruise missile attack, a major departure from the Barack Obama administration’s restraint in confronting Syria’s government, was a “significant blow” to US-Russia relations. Moscow simultaneously — but temporarily — suspended an agreement on deconflicting US and Russian air operations in Syria. More recently, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has refused to recognize US “deconfliction zones” in Syria and denounced the repeated airstrikes as violations of international law. Russian defense officials have referred to US assertions that pro-regime forces threatened American partners as “absurd.” Despite this, and notwithstanding Lavrov’s personal expression of concern to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, American-Russian discussions of Syria seem to have continued largely undisturbed. In fact, US officials privately refer to this one as perhaps the only area in which continuous dialogue is taking place between the two countries.

Why is Moscow continuing efforts to work with the United States despite these strong public positions? According to Dmitry Suslov, a Russian expert on American foreign policy at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics and the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (analogous to the US Council on

Foreign Relations in representing the foreign policy establishment), Russia’s arguments about international law are mainly diplomatic, intended to win sympathy for Russian policy from others — including in Europe, where the Kremlin sees growing frustration with the Trump administration — and to deflect attention from US and Western charges that Russia has violated international law. As Suslov explained to Al-Monitor, “There is a full recognition that international law matters little for the Trump administration.”

Beyond this, Suslov argued, Russian officials do not believe that the United States is likely to increase its military commitment in Syria substantially and do not see US intentions to either begin a general war on the Syrian government or oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, he said, Moscow views the attacks as “a political pressure campaign” to establish greater credibility on the ground in Syria in advance of “serious US-Russian negotiations” — something Suslov colorfully characterized as a form of “artillery preparation” before the real battle, meaning “tough negotiations.” Suslov, who is also a program director at Russia’s Valdai Foundation, suggested that Russia’s government sees three other US motives: seizing the initiative in Syria from Russia, encouraging pro-Assad troops to fight the Islamic State (IS) rather than the forces under US protection and “showing that [Trump] is tougher than Obama” to American domestic audiences.

Seen from Moscow, Suslov said, these policies are “not friendly” but nor are they sufficiently “hostile or irritating” to preclude US-Russia talks. Perhaps most important, the Trump administration’s approach is “not a grave threat to Russia, since it is not perceived as being aimed at ousting or destroying [the] Syrian regime by force or at pushing Russia out of Syria.” This

perspective, amid hopes that a negotiated solution may be possible, is why Russia has responded only rhetorically to America’s increasingly assertive actions in Syria. Suslov said that Russian officials perceive the Trump administration as “absolutely” more credible than the Obama administration in its approach to Syria. “These strikes prove that the Trump administration is not ready to sacrifice its allies (both Kurds and Sunni Syrian non-IS and partly non[Jabhat al-] Nusra opposition) and is serious in pursuing the goals the administration has defined for itself in Syria beyond destruction of IS (limiting Iran’s presence and influence, preventing [the] regime’s ‘victory,’ consolidating zones liberated from [IS] and not controlled by the regime, retaking military and political initiative back from Russia).” To the extent that this perspective has truly taken hold in Moscow, the Trump administration’s approach to the long and bloody Syrian conflict may be working so far. The ultimate test will lie in the administration’s ability to convert its new credibility and initiative — the position of strength Trump has sought to create — into a successful diplomatic outcome that protects and advances US interests in Syria and the Middle East, satisfies American public opinion (including at least some of the president’s critics) and works with US allies, partners, rivals and foes to produce a sustainable peace. It is a big job, especially at a time of extreme polarization in the United States, but it is not impossible.

__________

Chapter-3: Contours of Russo-France relations! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

Anti- Islamic and anti-Russian mindset of the West is all well known. While Europe hates Islam more than what the USA does, both USA and Europe hate Russia for reasons known to the world. Like Islam which as the final religion of the universe is seen by anti-Islamic forces and nations as a serious threat to their own religions, Russia is also viewed as a threat to global capitalism and imperialism in which the western powers trade in, thereby forcing the world surrender to their joint military will. Though Russia is also somewhat anti-Islam and no more a communist or socialist nation, the West still is suspicious of its actions and very carefully monitors its moves and jointly works for future wars with Russia for global domination.

The western powers aim at weakening the Russian power and strangle Islam and remove Islamic faith from the face of the earth so that colonialism, capitalism, fascism, Zionism and imperialism could stay permanent global fixtures. Russian attitude towards France is positive as Russia views European civilization rather pensively. However, French view of Russia is not quite encouraging. In a 2013 BBC World Service poll, 25% of French people viewed Russia's influence positively, with 63% expressing a negative view, while 49% of Russians viewed French influence positively, with 10% expressing a negative view. Russian relations with France need, therefore, to be seen as a part of the hate politics of the western powers of which France is one. Generally, France is known for its neutrality in world affairs and regional conflicts except in case where USA dominates the regions. Even during the height of Cold War, France did not pick a side between the USSR and the USA and we had good economical and diplomatic relationships. The relationship like between France and Russia has been normal without any serious direct conflicts on any matter but its close ties with USA always stood between them, at times harming even their normal relations. Putinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Visit Newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Paris on May 29, 2017 in an unscheduled meeting of the latter to France in which the former chose to lecture Putin on issues like Ukraine, Chechnya, Syria, and Russian interference in the French electoral campaign.

Obviously, the Russian strong man could not digest the â&#x20AC;&#x153;smartâ&#x20AC;? act of Emmanuel Macron during their first ever meeting as presidents. Such a behavior by a host president toward a foreign dignitary is unusual in international politics and it hurt

the egoist Putin who later in an interview bombarded the French novice unable to comprehend the niceties in international relations.

Emmanuel Macron just expressed his displeasure and anger for Putin for his support for his opponent candidate in the French presidency poll which he won in a highly surprising manner.

Just before that Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin had a pleasant walk in the Gallery of Battles at the Versailles Palace as they arrived for a joint press conference following their meeting in Versailles, near Paris.

Putin strongly defended his right to welcome Marine Le Pen in the Kremlin during the presidential race. Putin met the newly-elected Macron during a trip to see the official opening of a new exhibition dedicated to Russian ruler Peter the Great. The exhibition, “Peter the Great: a Tsar in France,” will run in the Great Trianon Palace in Versailles until the end of September. The special event celebrates the 300th anniversary of Peter's first visit to France and the start of full diplomatic relations between the two states.

A few hours after his return from Versailles, Vladimir Putin chose to give an interview to the right-wing newspaper Le Figaro. With hardly veiled resentment, he took issue with his host, newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron, and rebuffed him on the major points of contention that came out during their May 29 press conference: Syria, Ukraine, and interference in the French electoral campaign. In Versailles, Putin listened sternly to Macron’s moral lesson about Ukraine and human rights in Chechnya, said little, and looked impatient to leave. Now, he played the deciding match—without the contender, on his own terms, and at the new Russian Orthodox center he had belatedly opened on the banks of the Seine. Vladimir Putin’s methods are well-known to seasoned Russia observers abroad. He is stubborn, denies even established facts—like Damascus’s use of chemical weapons against civilians. He angrily dismisses foreign leaders’ positions on the Ukrainian conflict. And he speaks insincerely about the Russian state media’s smear campaign against Macron and the supposed hacking of his movement’s website and emails. The new French president is learning the hard way what it costs to have a “very frank and direct” exchange with the master of the Kremlin. The Russian president has spent seventeen years at the helm. Macron, meanwhile, is taking his first steps

in international power politics and probably misread his guest’s reasons and expectations for this meeting. Putin was seeking honor and respect, recognition of his stature as dean of the “concert of nations,” and also a benign French response to his aggressive military policies for “restoring legal order and peace” in Syria and Ukraine. An experienced Putin was not looking for a frank, honest discussion on issues of war and peace. And he certainly did not expect Macron to open the press conference with strong criticisms of state violence against gay men in Chechnya and to hint that he, Putin, should fix this. Vladimir Putin did not come to Versailles to negotiate a way out of the Syrian tragedy or finding solutions to world issues. He came to drag Macron into his political logic, in which the global struggle against terrorism predominates, no matter what. To Moscow, the most offensive part of the failed show was that the Russian authorities had worked hard to obtain this invitation from the Elysée Palace. They wanted Macron to repair the humiliation of October 2016, when François Hollande advised Vladimir Putin against visiting Paris to inaugurate the new Russian Orthodox center. At the time, the Russian military was helping Bashar Assad’s army in their brutal assault on Aleppo. The Kremlin’s preference for armed conflict over negotiation has a deeply corrosive effect on its relationship with France, despite a “centuries-long friendship.” Trust is gone. In France, Italy, Germany, Greece and Romania, the capitalist media lords see a clear link between Russia’s military participation in the war and refugees crossing European borders. Even the most pernicious fake news and propaganda cannot whitewash the glaring facts: True, Russia’s use of military force creates more insecurity and does not help us fight back against terrorists in all cities. But Americans want that to crate alarm about so-called “Islamic terrorism”. Retrospect Russo-European relations have been strained for quite some time due mainly to the sanctions imposed, along with its boss USA, on Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea. France and entire Europe considers the Crimea annexation illegal while Moscow has only taken back its territory from Ukraine. Neither USA nor Europe could do anything against Russia’s bold takeover of Crimea expect criticizing Putin.

France–Russia relations date back to early modern period, with sporadic contact even earlier, when both countries were ruled by absolute monarchies, the Kingdom

of France (843–1792) and the Tsardom of Russia (1547–1721). Following Russia's victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War, the foundation of Saint Petersburg as the new capital in 1712, and declaration of an empire in 1721, Russia became a major force in European affairs for the first time.

France–Russia diplomatic ties go back at least to 1702 when France had an ambassador (Jean-Casimir Baluze) in Moscow. Following Russia's victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War, the foundation of Saint Petersburg as the new capital in 1712, and declaration of an empire in 1721, Russia became a major force in European affairs for the first time. The geographical separation between the two countries meant that their spheres of influence rarely overlapped, but both were crucial states in the European balance of power.

After the French Revolution, Russia became a center of reactionary antagonism against the revolution, and when Russia had a successful October revolution in 1917 France opposed that. Napoleon Bonaparte (later Emperor Napoleon I) came to power in 1799, Russia remained hostile. The establishment of a French-backed Polish state, the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 threatened Russia and caused tensions that led to the French invasion of Russia in 1812. This was major defeat for France and a turning point in the Napoleonic Wars, leading to Bonaparte's removal.

Imperial Russia's foreign policy was hostile to republican France in the 19th century and very pro-German. Germany, Austria and Russia-had as its stated purpose the preservation of the monarchical order in Europe against the France of the Third Republic. After the defeat in the Franco-German war of 1870-71, French elites worked hard to keep France diplomatically isolated. France's challenges to Russia's influence led France to participate in the Crimean War, which saw French troops invade the Crimean peninsula. Imperial Russia's foreign policy was hostile to republican France in the 19th century and very pro-German. Rejected by Germany, Russia cautiously began a policy of rapprochement with France starting in 1891 while the French for their part were very interested in the Russian offers of an alliance. In August 1891, France and Russia signed a "consultative pact" where both nations agreed to consult each other if another power were to threaten the peace of Europe.] In 1893-94, French and Russian diplomats negotiated a defensive alliance meant to counter the growing power of Germany. The alliance was intended to deter Germany from going to war by presenting the Reich with the threat of a two-front war; neither France nor Russia could hope to defeat Germany on their own, but their combined power might, which in turn was meant to deter Berlin from going to war with either Paris or St. Petersburg.

Russia played a complex role in the Napoleonic wars. At the Vienna Congress of 1814-15, Russia played a major diplomatic role as a leader of the conservative,

anti-revolutionary forces. Russia was again hostile when the Revolutions of 1848 broke out across Europe, bringing Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (later Emperor Napoleon III) to power in France.

Under the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894 if Germany attacked France, then Russia would attack Germany or its close ally and if Germany or its close ally like Italy attacked Russia, France would attack Germany. After France was humiliated by Britain in the Fashoda Incident of 1898, the French wanted the alliance to become an anti-British alliance. In 1899, the Franco-Russian alliance was amended to deal with any power threatening the "equilibrium of forces in Europe" instead of just the "general peace" as before, and in 1900 the alliance was again amended to name Great Britain as explicitly the power that threatening the "equilibrium of forces in Europe". To that end, it was agreed that if Britain should attack France, then Russia would invade India and the French provided a loan so that the Russians could start the construction of a railroad from Orenburg to Tashkent. Tashkent in its turn would be the base from which the Russians would invade Afghanistan as the prelude to invading India. Despite their alliance, both Russia and France pursued their own interests.

In 1908-09 during the Bosnia crisis, France declined to support Russia. Japan later fought Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. France remained neutral in this conflict. At the time, Nicholas seriously considered abrogating the alliance with France, and was only stopped by the lack of an alternative. In 1911 during the Second Moroccan Crisis, the Russians paid the French back for their lack of support in the Bosnia crisis by refusing to support France when Germany threatened war against the French over Morocco Further linking France and Russia together was a common economic interests. Russia wished to industrialize, but lacked the capital to do so while the French were more than prepared to lend the necessary money to finance Russia's industrialization. By 1913, French investors had put 12 billion francs into Russian assets, making the French easily the largest investors in the Russian empire. The industrialization of the Russian Empire was largely the result of a massive influx of French capital into Russia.

During World War I, France was allied with Great Britain and the Russian Empire. The alliance between the three countries formed the Triple Entente. However, after the communist Bolsheviks seized control of the Russian government in 1917, Russia left the war. Soviet era

France's bilateral relations with the Soviet Union have experienced dramatic ups and downs due to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and France's alliance in the NATO. Previous Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev made a visit to France in October 1985 in order to fix the strains in the Franco-Soviet relations. Nevertheless, France's bilateral activities continued with NATO, which furthermore strained the bilateral relations between France and the Soviet Union. After the breakup of the USSR, bilateral relations between France and Russia were initially warm. On February 7, 1992 France signed a bilateral treaty, recognizing Russia as a successor of the USSR.

One of the major news has been the sale of Mistral class amphibious assault ships to Russia. The deal which was signed at 2010, is the first major arms deal between Russia and the Western world since World War II. The deal has been criticized for neglecting the security interests of Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia. Before Syrian Civil War, Franco-Russian relations were generally improving. Ever since the financial crisis took hold, European powers have been forced to court emerging markets more and Moscow meanwhile wanted to diversify its own economy.

Era of terrorism, reactivated by USA and NATO following the Sept-11 hoax perpetrated to destabilize oil rich Arab world and totally destroy Afghanistan brought Russia and France together alongside USA. François Hollande and Vladimir Putin agreed on ordering their respective armed forces to "cooperate" with one another in the fight against the terrorist organization. The French President has called upon the international community to bring "together of all those who can realistically fight against this terrorist army in a large and unique coalition."[16] The French-Russian bombing cooperation is considered to be an "unprecedented" move, given that France is a member of NATO. Seeking closer ties between Russia and Europe alongside USA, a Russian newspaper recalled that "WWII had forced the Western World and the Soviet Union to overcome their ideological differences", wondering whether ISIS would be the "new Hitler". According to French counterintelligence sources in 2010, Russian espionage operations against France have reached levels not seen since the 1980s.

Like in other western countries, the increasingly fanatic corporatist media continues to create illusions about the “dangerous” Russian boar and terrorize the people on “monstrous” Russia. Since (Jewish) President of France Sarkozy and his open "Atlantist" foreign policy, it has become more complicated, and Russia is more and more seen as an enemy more than an ally. The whole Ukrainian situation and the refusal to sell the French made Mistral boats to Russia are a good example of that. There is in the French media network (TVs, radios, newspapers) an almost systematic propaganda against Russia, so most of the French people are highly misinformed on the matter.

Observation

Notwithstanding the visible cooperation and coordination between them in Syria and elsewhere, the West-Russian conflict is real. The deliberate smear campaign by western media against Russia is real. Russia through Putin is taking an opportunity to make a comeback on the European stage, after the G7 summit in Sicily held without him. For the new French president Emmanuel Macron, Versailles was an eye-opening experience. He say a calm and iron like leader in his guest from Moscow. Vladimir Putin cannot be seduced, lectured or talked into a rational, “fully inclusive” (Macron’s words) multilateral diplomatic negotiation. There is no bait that he is willing to take.

Putin wants to talk with Western leaders on his own terms—and those terms alone. He has shown he is not willing to compromise in order to restore a broken partnership with Europe. For Macron, the path forward is clear—the further strengthening of the EU and Franco-German tandem and of Europe’s political, economic and military unity. Given the current unpredictability of US policies and its shaky commitment to NATO, European states will likely close ranks. In this renewed strategy of common security and foreign policy, France might play a leading role. And Putin, seeking genuine ties with Europe, may have given to the world one more incentive to ensure ideas of narrow national interest do not get in the way of a unified European position toward the Russian leadership. Recent history has shown that France or any other European country for that matter is incapable of making its foreign policy choices on its own and all of them have to take cognizance of what Washington wants from them in order advance its own so-called national interest at global level. History reveals the Russo-France relations can never be stable, unless, of course, world order changes entirely. There is no chance for any open conflict between Russia and France, however. Russo-France ties, meanwhile, have to adapt themselves to the existing reality and US directives from time to time!

_______________________

Chapter-4: Can god die? Can cow die? -Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal ________

Eyeing national votes of majority Hindus, Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fanatic Hindutva parties led by BJP claim the animal cow to be a Hindu god the Modi government is busy punishing throe who possess cow for meat or selling cow meat. They target Muslims in order to gain sympathy of Hindus for their votes. But the fact remains only a small minority among Hindus is Hindutva minded. . The Hindutva elements who now rule much of India try to tame the Hindus to an ideology that would keep Hindutva forces thrive in the country. Cow become an issue that way. Humans came into being only after the needy food was made ready for them to consume and live, including animals. Concept of god is being mutilated to accommodate HIndutvaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vote techniques. BJP calculates that if Muslims are insulted and attacked or killed they gain sympathy of Hindus. Fire broke out on June 17, 2017 at Om Agricultural Farm in Gokarneshwar Municipality-1 in Kathmandu Nepal, said Metropolitan Police Circle, Bouddha. 45 cows charred in Gokarneshwar fire. Many are injured seriously. According to police, the fire broke out at around 11:00 am due to short circuit. The treatment process of the injured cows is initiated, it is said. The fire was brought under control with the help of Nepal Army and Nepal Police personnel and the locals. Similarly, cow sheds, generator and tonnes of animal feeds also were destroyed in the fire. The point the death of cows makes it amply clear that cows are not gods and gods do not die. Gods therefore need not be reborn as well.

Only creations of God die or decay. If some politician or sanyasi argues Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creation should not be eaten or drunk, then humans cannot ear t or drink anything. Cow is as much an animal as bull or goat is or birds like chicken. BJP et al taht seek votes n issues like mosque, Pakistan and cow, should understand that is not a good show of political will. Even God could not save those cows that were killed in Nepal and that are being slaughtered across the globe for meat. Dont the PM Modi and BJP/RSS stalwarts know that their cow god is the meat stuff of whole world and India also exports that meat to many countries to earn foreign currency. Difference between humans or animals and god is the later id eternal. Man has chosen those eatables that are good and not harmful to their health. If BJP government brings i a legislation to ban meat of all animals and birds taht would be genuine, therefore. A government should not be partial towards some animals, while neglecting many others. Indians in modernity are capable of choosing what is good or bad. Maybe their choice of Hindutva parties as the rulers is not correct. BJP thinks people have elected them to push through all nasty agendas of Hindutva. Not at all. They also believe only such ultra fanaticism could help the Hindutva forces stay in politics and power in India Elections are mere calculations and alliances of several parties. BJP got votes of many other alliance partners for them cow Is not a god. India suffers badly form the hysterical attitude towards life. Media project their favorite cricketers and film stars as gods or demigods. Their fanatic and poisonous propaganda has made inroads into the streams of society. Since most Indians do not any idea about God, they want to see gods in film stars who make hug wealth even by illegal means and cricketers, who make 100s by mutual understanding and mafia fixings. Can frauds be gods as well? BJP/RSS leaders whiling worshipping cricketers as their gods, also use religious issues for votes. Suddenly they found a unprotected cow shivering on the street and want every Indian to worship it. . ________

Chapter-5:

ICC Champions Trophy 2017: Pakistani bowler Aamir leads Pakistan to become champions!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

India’s humbling defeat in recent years took place at the Oval as Pakistan shocked the world by producing an incredible display of bowling-baiting to thrash fierce rivals India which the defending Indian team, media, betting agencies projected as the favorites and win the Champions Trophy 2017 at the Oval. Inspired Pakistan thrash India by 180 runs. (Pakistan 338-4 (50 overs): Fakhar 114, Azhar 59, Hafeez 57. India 158 all out (30.3 overs): Pandya 76, Amir 3-16, Hasan 3-19) Pakistan set Kohli's side a competitive target of 339 as India upon managing the toss asked Pakistan to bat first. This kind of total is unusual and it cannot be chased down by the Indian opponents without help from the Pakistani bowling team. But Indian batboys did not expect a serious bowling team of Pakistan emerging right in the tournament. When both the bowlers and batboys play well working in tandem, Pakistan wins the trophy. As Pakistani team came with a well-knit plan and unitedly executed it on the field, all ‘sensible’ knocks of Rohit and Dhawan and Kolhi became irrelevant and their consistency had no place n front of Pakistani bowlers.

Pakistani batboys did shine as Indian bowling unit failed to grasp the rising power of Pakistani team in the tournament already defeating better teams Sri Lanka, England and South Africa. World number ones South Africa were beaten in the rain before Pakistan edged past Sri Lanka to reach the last four. England, the much-fancied hosts, was brushed aside in Cardiff before an incredible performance in the final - their biggest margin of victory over India in an ODI.

Young Fakhar Zaman, who was yet to play for his country when the tournament began, showed early on just how clearly the day would always be Pakistan’s. In the fourth over he was out caught behind. Except he wasn’t, Bumrah had bowled a no ball — fate had other plans. Batting remarkably well for a man whose pockets must have been stuffed with four leaf clovers, rabbits feet and upturned horseshoes, Fakhar didn’t so much ride his luck as charge into battle on it.

Fortune favors the brave, it is said, and so it proved for Pakistan â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Fakhar finding his touch eventually to smite his way to 114 off just 106 balls â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a maiden ODI hundred plucked straight from one of his wildest dreams. Batboy Fakhar Zaman hit a spectacular century to propel Pakistan to 338-4 in the scorching south London sunshine, a maiden century coming in his fourth ODI after Pakistan was invited to bat. Fakhar flayed the ball all around the Oval. Fakhar was installed at the top of the order, man of the tournament Hasan Ali fronted a talented pace attack and energetic captain Sarfraz Ahmed marshaled a team that grew in confidence and momentum.

Mohammad Amir then tore through the India top order to help reduce the defending champions to meagre 54-5. India eventually limped to 158, thanks to Pakistani team decision, after taking a dominant winning position, to give 150 runs to the neighbors. Pakistan won by 180 runs to take their first global 50-over title since 1992, after 25 years. The rest of the Pakistan attack was irresistible, backed up by excellent fielding, all in front of a vibrant, raucous and enthusiastic capacity crowd. That Pakistan lifted the trophy was surprising enough - at eighth in the world they began as the lowest-ranked team in the tournament - but it is the way they demolished the strong favourites will live long in the memory.

Though Fakhar had illuminated The Oval, there was confidence in Indian camp and a suspicion around that Pakistan's total was within reach of India's stellar batting. That was until Amir got to work. He routed Indian bating bones and nerves by taking quick 3 wickets of top batboys. Rohit Sharma was pinned lbw by the third ball of the innings, only for Azhar Ali to spill a straightforward first-slip chance off India captain and master run-chaser Virat Kohli. However, from the very next ball, Kohli was squared up and athletically held at point by Shadab Khan, before Shikhar Dhawan edged behind. After Yuvraj Singh was given lbw on review to leg-spinner Shadab and MS Dhoni holed out off the pace of Hasan, the contest was as good as done.

Interestingly, even while batboys were falling, Indian cricket commentators kept on assuring the fans on TV that India would emerge victorious. When Dhoni came to the crease they said that now Dhoni would the needful to

steady lead the team to victory. But he fell quickly too.

A quarter-of-a-century ago, Pakistan came from the brink of elimination to win the World Cup, inspired by captain Imran Khan telling them to "fight like cornered tigers". Here, they recovered from a humbling defeat by India in their opening game with similar tenacity. Bowler Aamir led the team to reach the final and then continued to lead it to win the trophy as well. When Pakistan thrashed England at the semifinals, India also wanted similar win and Bangladesh that played the semifinals with India helped the latter to achieve that objective. Now Bangladesh or West indies would first help India n batboys to shine before India could face Pakistan. Features

Indian strategy India was sure and upbeat about its chances to retain the Trophy. The other competitor was England. Pakatan was nowhere in the picture until all of a sudden it won the title. Luck favored them. . India, favoring a chase, gave up the chance to bat first on a run-filled surface and were made to pay by left-hander Fakhar. He was reprieved on three, caught behind off a Bumrah no-ball, and went on to carve, slice and belt his way to a 92-ball century. Fakhar shared an opening stand of 128 with Azhar Ali and, after a mix-up that saw Azhar run out, sprang to life. At one point, he took 32 runs in the space of eight legal deliveries. When Fakhar miscued the impressive Bhuvneshwar Kumar to a back-tracking Ravindra Jadeja at point, India pulled themselves back into contention. Mohammad Hafeez made an unbeaten 57 from 37 balls and Babar Azam 46 from 52, but India's canny death bowling seemed to have kept them in contention. As it turned out, Pakistan had far too many for them.

India might have won the toss, but a 50/50 call was of no concern to Pakistan, on Sunday they only dealt in certainty.

Apparently India and England competed for the ICC Champions Trophy 2017 and made strenuous efforts to keep other top competitors like Australia,

New Zealand and South Africa. In many ways they helped the opponents to defeat teams like South Africa so that both play the final. But to their shock Pakistan came up fast and played the final with India, England having been kicked out by Pakistan. Obviously, entire cricket world stands shocked and England cannot digest this and so is India which is unable understand the Pakistan phenomenon even after several decades of fights on the borders and cricket fields now. And obviously India cannot take the crushing defeat by India kindly and would wait for opportunities so to defeat Pakistan in a similar fashion. That is the mindset of India. . India started off on a strong note with a commanding win over Pakistan in the Group B match, but Pakistan extracted revenge rather emphatically in the summit clash of the tournament, pulling off a 180-run win. The tournament saw its share of ups and downs — from rain spoiling the proceedings in most games, top sides such as South Africa and Australia getting knocked out in the first round to Bangladesh reaching the semi-final of an ICC tournament for the very first time, and Pakistan scripting a fairytale.

The Oval in Great Britain was always destined to belong to Pakistan even much before the final match was to begin. Pakistan was upbeat and more confident than a hitherto formidable India. Pakistani body language revealed that they had a foolproof plan which it executed perfectly. Pakistan is qualitatively and emotionally different from Bangladesh and did not let India shine.

A pathetic looking and badly composed Pakistan entered the tournament of ICC title as its lowest ranked side and without any homework to target each player of the opposite camp. But India always works overnight to identify the weaknesses of batboys and bowlers as well as their strengths. You can guess it’s going to be your day when Mohammad Hafeez — ODI strike rate 75.58 — makes an unbeaten 57 off 37 balls. But when the ball cannoned into his stumps only for a bail to cheekily hop up out of its groove and land straight back in it again, they should really have started engraving Pakistan’s name on the trophy.

However, this was no fluke from Pakistan, rather a match where they forced fortune to wear green and white for the day, an opening salvo from Mohammad Amir all but finishing the game off inside the first nine overs.

There was still time for Shadab Khan, the youngest man to ever play in an ICC final, to pick up a couple of scalps, the first requiring admirable confidence to unequivocally ask for a review when his LBW shout against Yuvraj Singh was turned down.

Shadab, along with man of the match Fakhar and man of the tournament Hasan Ali, showed the impact the Pakistan Super League has already had on the fortunes of the national team, the triumvirate all coming to prominence thanks to performances in the fledgling T20 competition. For Hasan the acclaim was well deserved, he ended as leading wicket-taker in the competition, fittingly finishing things off when he got Jasprit Bumrah caught behind — the match, the day and the tournament destined to be never anything else but belonging to Pakistan. Hardik Pandya's six-hitting in a 43-ball 76 always seemed likely to be in vain. It was not long after he was run out that last man Bumrah flapped at Hasan - and the Pakistan celebrations begun. Amir has potential to be the greatest bowler! On Sunday the June 18 Aamir, the sleeping giant, woke up on the big stage to bowl one of the most crucial spells of his life — 6-2-16-3. It broke India's spine and they never recovered. This was the Amir that Pakistan was craving for. The Amir phenomenon could destroy the opposition with consummate ease and put his hand up when Pakistan required him the most. The Amir who could win matches for Pakistan. He even made a nostalgic Wasim Akram tweet, "You little beauty reminded me of my days." On a sunny day at The Oval, on can feel the adrenaline pumping as Aamir turns at the top of his mark against India. There is a genuine sense of belief that Pakistan could pull something special out of the hat. Amir sets the tone by setting up Rohit Sharma beautifully. Two outswingers are followed by an inswinger to trap the in-form opener on the crease and dismiss him LBW. The partnership that had amassed the most runs in the tournament is broken. Amir lets out a roar. Rohit trudges back in disappointment. Shikhar Dhawan was his next target. He's bowling in the corridor of uncertainty with substantial pace. Dhawan, the highest “run-getter” in the tournament, is slowly getting into the groove but six overs later, Amir outclasses the southpaw with a cross-seam delivery which generates extra bounce to catch his outside edge.

The Oval was amidst the cacophony of 25,000-odd vociferous fans. Mohammad Amir had already set off in celebration. Each time Pakistani fielder drop catches of his ball, Aamir is in disbelief with a 'you've dropped the Champions Trophy' look on his face. After the dropped catch, Amir walks back, kicking the field probably wondering whether a unique record — that of the number of catches dropped off his bowling — could be created. He turns around and steams in again. This time he does it with an extra rush of adrenaline. It's a length delivery on off and zips away after landing. 18-yearold Shadab Khan leaps to gobble it up. Amir's aeroplane celebration takes off. Arthur is up on his feet applauding. Kohli walks off in disbelief shadow practicing the shot again. Kohli was out and he returned to pavilion, totally disillusioned.

Mohammad Amir is a big match player. When the games are on the line and the bigger the game, the more he performs and the more amped up he gets. He doesn't shy away from pressure situations and big games. He's got proper big match temperament. From anguish to joy in a matter of seconds, Amir has gone through a whole range of emotions just like he has throughout his bumpy career so far. He provides the defining moment of the match, sending back the best ODI chaser in the world and giving a complete performance that the country was yearning for.

Ever since his comeback from the spot-fixing ban, Amir hasn't lived up to the high hopes and expectations of the cricketing world. He's sparkled in bits with breathtaking spells, providing the 'WOW' moments. But somewhere down the line consistency and a match-winning performance were missing. The story was the same before the final in this Champions Trophy. He had scalped just two wickets from 28.1 overs at 67.50 and a strike rate of 84.5. His most telling contribution came with the bat where he played a sensible knock of 28 against Sri Lanka to guide Pakistan past the finish line in a tense chase along with Captain Sarfraz Ahmed. And again bowler Aamir played very vital role in quickly removing the top three batboys from the crease without giving them any real runs even as many India’s former cricket gods led by S. Tendulkar witnessed the collapse of their team without getting any support from Pakistani bowlers. The top order has been India's lynchpin throughout the tournament. The trio of Dhawan, Rohit and Kohli has scored a staggering 81 percent (874/1074) of the team's runs before the final. Amir, with three wickets, has virtually forced India into submission inside the first powerplay, on a batting

paradise. "We spoke about it actually in the team meeting. We thought that if we could get through that Indian top order early, we could probably expose that middle order that hadn't batted a fair amount. And Amir was the guy who could do that for us," coach Arthur says in the post-match conference. "In the first two games he didn't get any wicket but he had bowled particularly well. We were always thinking there was one spell in him somewhere and the spell came thankfully today. At the start of the final, we put India on the back foot which certainly gave us an upper hand."

First he got Rohit Sharma LBW with a perfect swinging delivery. Then in his next over he bowled two balls that perfectly encapsulated the entire cricketing history of Pakistan. Despair followed by elation, as Virat Kohli was dropped in the slips only to be caught off a leading edge the very next ball.

With Kohli gone, so too did Indian hopes of chasing down Pakistan’s total, followed a bit later by many of their fans pouring out of The Oval, their places in the stands taken in many cases by Pakistan fans who had been waiting outside the ground.

Former England captain Alec Stewart on Test Match Special: "That was Aamir single handedly dong everything for the team. Brilliant from Pakistan's point of view - their bowling was high quality. " Former England captain and now a commentator Nasser Hussain said “He loves a challenge, Kohli. He loves doing things that people can't do." But very soon Kolhi was back in his seat at the pavilion. Minutes later, Amir sends Kohli back into the hut, but not before Kohli has been dropped. It's not often that someone forces Kohli to make mistakes twice. Amir does. Aamir sent him back quickly enough. Indeed Kolhi and other batboys do not love or appreciate challenges from bowlers. They can shine and hit only if bowlers are weak or “arranged” to offer big scorers. The best example is how Bangladesh bowled India to a handsome win at the semi-final, letting it reach the final as the “going” team. Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis are two of the all-time greats but Amir is showing he has the same potential." Pakistan legend Wasim Akram on Twitter: "Wow, wow, wow - unbelievable performance by team green. It feels like deja vu after winning the 1992 World Cup. I am over the moon." Pakistan captain Sarfraz Ahmed: "After the India match when we lost in the group stage, I told my boys the tournament hadn't finished yet. "Credit goes

to my boys. Fakhar is a great impact player; he played like a champion batsman. Amir bowled brilliantly but all my bowlers bowled really well. We have a young team and credit to my boys." Former Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq on Twitter: "Congratulations to the Pakistan team and the whole country for such a great win. Boys, you made us happy and proud. Up and above from here! However, Misbah wants the cricket matches to be won by batboys and he never gives credit to bowlers. India captain Virat Kohli: "Pakistan had a good performance, I congratulate them. They deserve to win. They need victories like these. Things weren't happening for them and then they win a tournament." India and UK lose a lot cash in bet

With deteriorating diplomatic ties preventing the two from facing each other in a bilateral series, India vs Pakistan is one of the most anticipated and most watched fixtures in the cricketing world. Some may say it's even bigger than the Ashes. As it was the first major final between both these nations since the 2007 World T20 final, the prospect of watching the two face-off in an ICC Champions Trophy final only raised the expectations of fans.

There is still that thrill and excitement factor related to Amir every time he runs in to bowl.

When India faced Pakistan at the Oval, national pride apart, a lot of money too was at stake, Rs 2,000 crore to be precise, according to a report in Times of India. Gambling like sex market is legal in England and Indians can bet on the match through international cards and e-wallets. According to estimates by the AIGF, roughly Rs 2,000 crore will be bet on the match. Rolland Landers, CEO of AIGF (All India Gaming Federation) was quoted saying to the Times of India, â&#x20AC;&#x153;It has been estimated by many studies that roughly a total of Rs 2 lakh crore is wagered on all matches that India play throughout the year. And since this is the first time India and Pakistan will be meeting in the final of a cricket tournament in around 10 years, the bets are high.â&#x20AC;? Cricket bosses, experts and fans have predicted India to win the match and the bet odds that have been offered reflect the same.

After defeat, India takes revenge on Kashmiri Muslims India suffers from cricketomania as it considers cricket is everything for India and hence made a fake batboy Sachin the Bharatratna which is a special national award for the most serious people. So, whenever India and Pakistan clash in cricket matches anywhere in the world, there are instances of tension in occupied Kashmir as Indian Hindus attack Muslims for their support for Pakistani Muslim players. In hostels and messes and community halls troubles shoot up to keep Muslims in Kashmir under Hindutva check. .

Any defeat of India in cricket leads to intense tensions in Kashmir. India lost the Trophy this time to Pakistan. Unable to digest a crushing defeat of Indian team by “ordinary” Pakistani team in London Oval, Indian occupation forces that make its favorite cricketers the top military officers like Colonel just for fun insulting the hard working military personnel, attacked Kashmiri Muslims to settle” the defeat issue. Locals from scores of hamlets of South Kashmir’s Pulwama district have alleged that Indian Army soldiers from 44 Rashtriya Rifles not only thrashed the people during Sehri hours but also snatched identity cards asking them to report at the Army Camp.

Reports said that military forces stopped everyone who were approaching towards mosque to offer morning prayers and snatched identity cards from them. Locals from Payengund, Dangarpora, Pawnichek, Hajan Rajpora and Chandpora said they were not only thrashed and abused but their identity cards were also snatched. “We were asked to report at the Army camp. They did it to punish the people who celebrated the Pakistan’s victory over Indian cricket team,” said a youth wishing not to be named.

Indian military brutality makes Kashmiri Muslims vulnerable and they show their anger by praising Pakistan. There were celebrations all around in the district on Sunday evening. Large number of people amid pro-freedom slogans hit to roads and set fire crackers in air. “Now they (Army) will assault us physically and mentally in the camp. We have no option but to visit the camp and face humiliation because they are in possession of our identity cards,” said an elderly man. Despite repeated attempted Srinagar based Defense spokesperson could not be contacted. ‘Celebrations over Pakistan’s victory a referendum against India’s all utterances’ Asking New Delhi to learn lessons from the celebrations held all across Kashmir after Pakistan’s victory over India in Champions Trophy, AIP

Supremo and MLA Langate Er. Rasheed has said that the anti-India sentiment has got deep rooted cutting across political, sectarian or any other lines. In a statement issued to CNS, Rasheed said “It is strange that Indian TV Channels are still trying to distort the facts and putting their own narratives and fabricated versions of the whole story.

The way Kashmiris celebrated Pakistan’s victory over India in Champions Trophy, not only in cities and towns, but in the remotest hamlets from Kupwara to Kishtawar, it is proven beyond doubt that New Delhi is ruling through the barrel of the gun and has failed miserably to win hearts and minds of even those who had some corner for New Delhi in Kashmir. It is strange that even large numbers of cops belonging to local police were praying and praising for Pakistan which is an ample proof that New Delhi’s grip on Kashmir is now only through the courtesy of military might. The celebrations have proved like a referendum against India’s all arrogances”.

Engineer Rasheed added that though sports have to be always delinked from politics and Kashmiris are not enemies of India but it is New Delhi and its harsh media which have always shamelessly and without logic used cricket to score political points over Pakistan and even so called political experts were abusing Pakistan after its victory over England. Rasheed appealed Indian intelligence to read writing on the wall and force its rulers to have a settlement to Kashmir dispute through self determination in the interests of people of the sub-continent. Observation ICC Champions Trophy 2017 belongs to Islamabad. Bowler Aamir makes Pakistan a serious contender for titles in future. Only a team spirit and perfect home work on video clips should do a lot of good for them and positive attitude would provide inspirational guidance. Pakistan who lost their opening game to India by 124 runs to sweet revenge at the finals’ show with its mammoth total of 330 runs with a win margin by 180 runs at the Oval.

That is the real show of strength and display of united will of the team. No one expected this kind of disciplined show of performance in unity.

This was indeed monumental from Pakistan, who in dispatching India by 180 runs seemed to almost bend the will of the Indian and global cricket gods, cricketing or otherwise, with the unstoppable force of their performance.

Pakistani snow perfect in bowling that gave extra force to its batboys to play better and the team played the best and the 2017 ICC Trophy home. This time, Pakistani batboys avoided runouts. Hence one early run out by the opener possibly was deliberate. In the 50th over, Pakistan did not lose any wickets and kept the remaining 6 wickets intact. This upset Indian team leaders Kolhi and Dhoni and caused negativity in them in the next session where entire team collapsed cheaply. Pakistan had to offer 5o to Pandya as a gift to India as they apparently wanted to give at least 150 runs to India. Otherwise Pandya could not have got so many runs when the top players like Kolhi and Dhawan and Rohit could not get any such runs. Pakistani cricketers are not bound to help Indian batboys, unlike other foreign bowlers and even batboys who work for Indian causes as the IPL members bought by Indian compote lords and black monied billionaires, like international fraud BJP MP Mallya, who is wanted by Indian courts but now enjoys life in London with UK-Indian joint state protection. Aamir should henceforth be very cautious as Indo-UK would try new tricks to trap him and remove him from the cricket field once for all so that there is no real threat to batboys who crave for 100s by mischievous means. Already he had a bitter experience with these two nations and because of them he had to suffer. Yes, devils know all tricks and use them weaken any good, talented worker. In the latest IPL India, it was vividly clear that from the semi-level onwards the batboys were not allowed to enjoy at the case and they lost their wickets soon as bowlers were somewhat serious about their profession. Once again, it has been proven that by and large the bowlers decide the outcome of cricket matches. If the bowlers are fools and offer big and quick runs, batboys would enjoy their stay at the crease and hit 50s, 100s, etc and throw away their wickets to their favorite fielder when they amass runs in 6s and 4s. If bowlers refuse runs to the batboys, even the top most batboys

would collapse and return to pavilion. Indian returned to the pavilion that way. Tendulkar stopped paying cricket that way. __________

Chapter-6: Cricketism: How Bowler Aamir led Pakistan to final of Champions Trophy 2017? Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal ------

This write up is not meant to praise batboys or cricket but to highlight an incident that changed entire cricket scenario for the hopeless Pakistani players playing the Champions Trophy in England and the team might even get the champion title this year. All teams want 100s for their batboys and they exchange them freely. The countries have no shame if their teams lost. They ask them to play more and get more 100s. State agents play fouled games too. No team is genuine and no cricketer is honest or worth. They all want money and awards and compote mafias help them â&#x20AC;&#x153;achieveâ&#x20AC;? anything they want. . .

It has been the nasty practice of poor cricket commentators to praise and glorify the batboys and they have never asked the ICC boys to amend the rules to make the cricket matches truly competitive by making bowlers the centre of activities and cancel free runs in 4s and 6s. Let the young batboys make their runs only running between wickets instead of depending on bowlers help to throw free balls for 6s and 4s. That is indeed cheating the public, and countries with mafias playing secret roles in arranging for 100s and 200s etc, and pitch makers to make strong probatboy pitches so that bowlers should suffer and batboys just keep hitting big and big ones.

And the foolish and empty headed spectators just keep clapping, while the cricket commentators shower bogus praises on the batboy frauds. The corporate regimes promote frauds and cricketers loot the national awards and huge money. .

No country, no bowler, no coach has so far questioned the illogical approach of ICC in promoting only the batboys against the genuine interests of bowlers who are bought or hired to help the pathetic and greedy batboys to snatch national awards and money. They have not asked for a balanced pitch so that both batboys and

bowlers make maximum out of them. Bowler Aamir

Pakistan bowler Aamir was instrumental in making his team worthwhile one and he has, coming to the crease after 7 wickets gone and Pakistani supporters and the players had lost all hopes, led his cricket team successfully from uncertainty to semi-final to final of Champions Trophy 2017 as Pakistan made their way to their first-ever Champions Trophy final.

Generally, Pakistan wants only batboys to win the match and not the bowlers, whose job then is just to bowl the opponent batboys to good score so that Pakistani batboys also could get some good runs like 50 and 100. In doing so, they must like actors do, pretend they are trying hard for wickets. The same thing Bangladeshi bowlers did playing against Indian batboys Koli and Sharma whose bating was deadly hopeless and they were among the worst batboys bought by Indian corporate lords to promote Indian cricket boys.

Pakistan have now climbed one spot to number 7 in the latest ICC Men's One Day International (ODI) rankings on the back of a series of stunning victories against England, Sri Lanka and South Africa in the Champions Trophy. Pakistan has now reached the final of the tournament, where they will play against the winner of the second semi-final of the tournament between India and Bangladesh.

Pakistani medicine for England

On June 14 Pakistan surprisingly stormed their way into CT 2017 final with a thumping win over a strong team England. None could see Pakistan in the final in the past. Pakistan chose the most apt occasion and opposition to unleash their best bowling performance to bowl out hosts England for just 211 in 49.5 overs. Pakistan pacers started brightly, the spin troika applied the choke through the middle and a fine display of death bowling meant England had no way out of the maze they found themselves in. Such was Pakistan's grasp on the game that the flamboyant, ever-exploding Ben Stokes earned an ignominious statistic to his name - of having faced most number of balls (64) in a Champions Trophy game without scoring a boundary.

First upon winning the toss Pakistan chose to field and did a wonderful job of restricting English to a bare minimum score. Pakistan bowlers shut out England for 211 and then it easily won the match when the batboys played very seriously without losing wickets in usual runouts, though they should have avoided going for

a third run in a hurry when they were winning with many overs remaining and there is no need for quick third run only to lose wickets. .

Cricket fans all go by reputation and current form and when a team proves that wrong, it only adds to the beauty of the game. So full credit to Pakistan for proving millions wrong! As far as England is concerned, they would feel that it just was not their day. Their wait for a 50-over trophy continues. Nothing went right for them. They lost the toss and never got going. They would take heart from the fact that they were the favourites for as long as they played in this tournament. Can now sit back, contemplate and enjoy the two games that remain.

Pakistan booked their place in the Champions Trophy final with a crushing eightwicket win over England in Cardiff on Wednesday. Set just 212 to win, Pakistan finished on 215 for two. Pakistan will now face title-holders India in Sundayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final at the Oval. Azhar Ali (76) and Fakhar Zaman (57) all but ended previously

unbeaten tournament hosts Englandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s slim hopes of victory with an opening stand of 118. But the real damage was done when England collapsed to 211 all out after Pakistan Captain Sarfraz Ahmed sent them in to bat on a used pitch.

None can change the truth that at Semi level Pakistan played with a lot of heart and they were clearly the best side, never allowed England to flourish. Once again after a year or so, they came on top against England at Cardiff.

It appeared as if they were willingly stepping onto a landmine when Sarfraz Ahmed decided a Mohammad Amir-less Pakistan would bowl first on a surprisingly warm, sunny day, and on what appeared to be a dry Cardiff wicket, against England's deep batting line-up. Junaid Khan nearly vindicated the move in the very first over, only for the contentious umpire's call on LBWs to deny Pakistan an early breakthrough. Debutant Rumman Raees blended in well into Pakistan's bowling plans, that appeared to revolve around frustrating Alex Hales with a straighter liner and length and didn't allow the England opener to dominate early - something he has rather enjoyed doing in the 50-over format in recent times. Hales's urge for a big hit earned Raees his maiden ODI scalp in just the sixth over. But merely a breakthrough wasn't going to serve Pakistan's purpose of restricting a formidable batting side, as Jonny Bairstow and Joe Root took the hosts to a familiar 52 for 1 in 10 overs.

Sarfraz's next trump card was to employ spin from both ends and get both Imad Wasim and Shadab Khan to run through the overs, by starving the batsmen of any

room with flat trajectories. The move laid the perfect trap as Bairstow saw the need to get on top of the new pacer brought into attack - Hasan Ali - and ended up topedging a pull to the square leg fielder.

Morgan's hope to be a bit adventurous was undone by the fact that he was struggling to read leg spinner Shadab, who was smartly brought back for another spell after Morgan's arrival. The partnership between Morgan and Root was building but hardly at a pace they'd have liked, as Shadab and Hafeez strangled England further.

England still had what they could call a decent start when Eoin Morgan walked out to bat, but a period of lull during his partnership with Root followed straightaway. Stokes's arrival with a little over 20 overs to play meant there was still room for England to snatch the game away from Pakistan's grasp, but Hasan and Junaid Khan came back and foiled that attempt. The former ended Morgan's odd stay in the middle - the England captain striking at under 70 but constantly appearing to be living on the knife's edge. Hasan bowled one wide and Morgan danced down for a heave, only to nick it to Sarfraz for a 53-ball 33. England eventually crawled to 211 - a clear underachievement considering their batting stocks - before being bowled out on the penultimate delivery of the innings. But the score 211 was not bad but certainly not a cakewalk in a pressure game. However, the Pakistani openers had different plans. Before England could realize and delve into the bag for plans B and C, half the target was erased.

England captain Eoin Morgan, who made 87 in a win against Australia last time out, fell for 19 when he charged down the pitch to a wide ball from Hasan and edged behind. Stokes, fresh from his career-best 102 not out against Australia, took 64 balls to score a 34 that, remarkably for the usually big-hitting all-rounder, did not include a single boundary. He eventually holed out to cover when deceived by Hasanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s slower ball. Pakistan belied their reputation as a poor fielding side, with Fakhar holding a brilliant diving catch at deep square leg to dismiss Moeen Ali, while substitute Ahmed Shehzad ran out Rashid with a direct hit.

On a Cardiff ground where they chased more than 300 to beat England in an oneday international last year, Pakistan completed Wednesdayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pursuit with a mammoth 77 balls to spare when Mohammad Hafeez pulled Ben Stokes for four. England did avoid a 10-wicket defeat when Jos Buttler stumped Fakhar off legspinner Adil Rashid and Azhar too fell before the finish, pulling Jake Ball into his stumps. But Pakistan had the game all but won at 173 for two.

India thrashed Pakistan by 124 runs in the teams’ Champions Trophy tournament opener at Edgbaston on June 4. But three days later Pakistan returned to the Birmingham ground to make a mockery of the rankings by beating South Africa

in a bottom versus top clash. Pakistan then held their nerve in a three-wicket win over Sri Lanka in Cardiff— a virtual quarter-final for both sides. England didn’t manage a single individual fifty in their innings. Joe Root top-scored with 46 and Yorkshire team-mate Jonny Bairstow, recalled in place of dropped opener Jason Roy, managed 43. Rumman Raees, in for injured fellow left-arm quick Mohammad Amir, took two for 44 on his ODI debut. England, who were 128 for two, lost their last eight wickets for just 83 runs. Bogus records

ICC does not want to make cricket a genuine sport and refuses a rule to deny multiple choices for the cricketers. Now batboys can bowl as well and so are the bowlers who also bat if the batboys do not get enough runs, they would be given extra runs to make their bating claims. Unlike India and other cricket nations, Pakistan doe s not make the bowlers to practise bating as well and as a result they don’t stay at the crease for long and throw away their wickets cheaply.

It is here that bowler Aamir’s role as the needy stabilizer came into light. Instead of throwing away his wicket by trying to hit a big six, he stood firmly and patiently at the crease and helped the fellow batboys to win the match for Pakistan. Had he also fell, other two bowlers would not waste much time at the crease and Pakistan would not have come to semi or final. Bangladesh as Indian shield

So, Indian show was preplanned between the I-BD teams and India wanted to win with better position than Pakistan did against the mighty England which was hoping to get the Trophy this year and Bangladesh gave India a helping hand by not taking the second wicket.

Most likely, Bangladesh would reap a lot Indian benefits for their timely “service” to Indian team. Certainly, they would receive more than fishing boats or Indian goods. After thrashing BD, Indian batboy Sharma was telling something to BD bowler, may be about the Indian favors for Dhaka. Not bad. Bangladesh has more poverty than India has.

Media said that Bangladesh have once again “defied” odds and pushed limits to setup a clash against their neighbours. That may not be correct. BD was promoted by India through its allies like New Zealand to let Bangaldeshi boys win and come to Semi where India would finish them off in its “own way” and reach the final to face England. But unfortunately now India will have to face the Pakistani music where they like it or not.

Behind the scene

After the quiet surrender in Semi-final by Bangladesh before India (read Pranab Mukherjee, the Bengali president of India), India is so sure now that Pakistan would help Indian team by understanding Indian requirements for awards. India would even bully Pakistani team to help India in exchange for their chances for next Indian blackmoney-gambling show called IPL or for Indo-Pakistani series in India which India has been postponing, etc.

Apparently, India has crudely fixed both Bangladesh and Pakistan in such a way they cannot just ignore Indian demands and “desires”. If Pakistan refuses to oblige the big brother, Indian would call it a terrorist nations and ask USA to discard it form the strategic partner list. Bangladesh, which is treated by India as a backyard assistant or servant, readily obliges New Delhi in all possible ways- It was Bangladesh which gave a last 100 to Sachin, who had been standing at the crease for nearly two long years to get his final 100 that made India corporatist regime go mad, to enable him to claim Bharatratna. (It is Himalayan shame that a few 100s amassed by him on mutual understating with other cricket nations and arranged through the mafia gangs on huge down payments.

Had Bangladesh won, Pakistan would certainly have enjoyed the match with a sweet win. But India s not Bangladesh as its bowlers are good though its batboys are very mediocre but can enjoy if bowlers are mediocre or fools.

Pakistan has exemplified the statement in this tournament thus far. They were mediocre against India but kept predictability at bay, recovered and, with a bit of luck, bumped into the mighty England. Paceman Hasan Ali led a disciplined attack with a superb return of three for 35 from his maximum 10 overs. That was it. The final show

The devil knows all tricks and India and its BCCI has mastered a few of them and can create panic situation to its opponents by not giving runs, thereby reducing the run rate whichi n turn causes runouts and wickets and collapse of the team. Pakistan is prone to runouts just for fun as they did against India recently. India must have studied every Pakistani batboy and bowler thoroughly before reaching London for the tournament. What about Pakistan? Little practicing I just one thing but more important item is thorough knowledge about the opponent skills and weaknesses. Winning or losing a match is not that important as cricket is a totally farce. But Pakistan must take the Trophy fight very seriously to win it; otherwise Indian win would mean Indian military occupying Kashmir to take the win as a nod from Islamabad to kill Kashmiri Muslims in a sustained manner while Indian core media glorify murder as patriotism. Indian Hindus create problems for Muslims in Kashmir during the Indo-Pakistani matches, calling them Pakistanis just for terror fun. Sadistic pleasure makes India shine abnormally. All said and done, due credit must be given to England that like other teams lie Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc, accept their defeat if their batboys do not get 100s or 5os while bating first and its bowlers then won’t be reckless to somehow win as they would just promote the “winning team”. UK is a big sports power and it does not depend on cricket matches, though cricketism is important to them as they had invented cricket to fool the youth of colonies like India. England was totally disillusioned that it deemed its defeat through their facial expressions. But India won’t be like that kind and would never accept until last ball is bowled. . India thinks Indo-Bangla show would be taken seriously. Now India is sure of defeating Pakistan as it has already thrashed once here. After the India game, Pakistan improved a lot. The credit goes to the team management how they boosted the tam and its cohesiveness. Every game was a knockout game. Today as well they told us to not think about the match and just play the natural game. That helped us. Both teams are playing really well, all the best to them (India and Bangladesh).

Pakistan should know India wants to win the trophy and it wants to thrash Pakistan so that the entire nation of ultra fanatics celebrates that as their latest achievement and a win over Kashmir. New Delhi would take Pakistan seriously and regard it a power only if Pakistan wins such tournaments. That is also a kind of Indian fanaticism.

Pakistan needs to give up their usual strategy to throw away wickets by runouts, which is a serious issue for batboys as they are supposed to guard the stumps as their major duty. Failure in doing so would be a serious crime. But ICC and national boards do not talk about it. Batboys need patience and alertness while bowlers apply dotball technique constantly. India does it.

Generally every team closely watches the video chips of matches of opponent teams and studies closely the weakness of batboys and bowlers so that those could be exploited. Pakistan must cultivate that habit. They must know each Indian player in the team thoroughly so that they wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t make mistakes while bating or bowling.

Sarfraz Ahmed admits that the win credit goes to the bowlers and then the batsmen finished really well, chasing down a small total. Rumman bowled very well too.. We decided to adapt to conditions, we knew if Pakistan could restrict India in the range of 150-200 and they could easily chase it. Less runs offered, the better the chances to win.

But now Pakistan has reached the final by defeating a strong England team and India has managed to come to final too by thrashing a pathetically looking Bangladesh. Indian batboys would hit non-stop if they know the bowlers are going make them shine as Kolhi and Sharma did as Bangladeshi bowlers were throwing ball to the bats and made their stay at crease very comfortable to reach the finals against Pakistan on Sunday. Can Pakistan repeat the show against India as well? Or would it prefer to follow the Bangla path? Pakistani batboys and bowlers were not strong enough, but now they are much better and they can certainly beat India if they could contain the first four batboys without offing them any runs. Bowler insistence and patient can get more wickets than offering huge runs. . Since Pakistan could easily defeat both Sri Lanka and England one after another, it may not be difficult at all for it to let India also taste Pakistani medicine. First, what needed now is a mindset then a proper plan against India which was badly thrashed by Sri Lanka, and meticulous execution.

Pakistan is the favorites of the Trophy 2017!

____________

Chapter-7: Zionist fresh expansionism moves in Palestine: Does Trump back it? -Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

Peace Now, an Israeli anti-settlement group that monitors settlement activity in the West Bank, made the announcement on Thursday, saying that the Tel Aviv regime has served up plans for building a total of 3,178 units this week. According to the body, the planning committee of the Israeli ministry for military affairs gave the go-ahead to plans for the construction of about 1,500 settler units in the occupied West Bank, the second announcement in a week. On Tuesday, the regime advanced 1,500 units, with the potential to add around another 900, Peace Now said. Those 900 were also confirmed on Wednesday, it added. Peace Now said the plans were at various stages of the approval process and the units were located in a number of settlements across the occupied West Bank. The move is a blatant violation of the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 2334, which demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem” al-Quds. The resolution, adopted last year, also states that the building of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” Since the inauguration of US President Donald Trump in January, the regime in Tel Aviv has stepped up its construction of settler units on occupied Palestinian land in a blatant violation of international law. The latest developments come days after a visit by Trump to the occupied territories. About 600,000 Israelis live in over 230 illegal settlements built since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem al-Quds. The Palestinian Authority wants the West Bank as part of a future independent Palestinians state, with East Jerusalem al-Quds as its capital. The continued expansion of Israeli settlements is one of the major obstacles to the establishment of peace in the Middle East.

Those ugly damp and dank cement caves are in Palestine. You might not want to buy anything connected to stolen property. You might have to forfeit your ill gotten gains in the very near future. Please ensure you leave the keys in the door once the rightful owners of the land return. Just a couple of more years and Israel will be a distant, faint memory. Very much looking forward to visiting the holy land, once the beautiful Palestinian people return to Palestine. And who do they expect is going to jump into this fire and target zone? Only a mad-man would choose to live there. Yes, get paid to occupy, then the occupiers pay with their lives. Some Israelis have already demonstrated to the world that they want to be immigrants & residents of Palestine & not part of a tyrannical illegal occupation run by fake Jews They will be pushed out one day as they pushed out the owners of land. Jews never learn from their own horrible history. Does the year 1492 ring a bell? That was the year the jews who thought they found a home and were safe in Spain but were kicked out, it was the Spanish Inquisition. Another example was in Nazi Germany when again the silly fools thought they found a home and again the "chosen people "were unpleasantly surprised of how wrong they were. In fact Jews were kicked out of 109 country's when in each case they were so sure they had found a home. No wonder they are called the wandering Jew. So just what the heck makes these Jews think that this time in Palestine it's going to be any different? Un welcomed Jews have illegally occupied Palestine only since 1948 and that's a relatively short time in the history of the world yet the Jews think they are gonna stay there forever on stolen property? News flash they are not. The entire world is finally aware of what the Jews and Israel are all about and popular opinion is turning against them as it has in the past ,and history does repeat itself. Anyone who belongs to the land would love to keep its beautiful country side. Particularly Palestine the most beautiful land. Zionist have destroyed much of Palestine and now they are destroying what is left. It is good enough EVIDENCE that the Creatures do not belong to Palestine. They are strangers in Strange land with no respect for the owners of the land or the land itself. And who do they expect is going to jump into this fire and target zone? Only a mad-man would choose to live there. Yes, get paid to occupy, then the occupiers pay with their lives. Some Israelis have already demonstrated to

the world that they want to be immigrants & residents of Palestine & not part of a tyrannical illegal occupation run by fake Jews

Innocent Jews do not even recognize the Fakeland. even eat together. The resistance is not against Jews it is against the Aryan Khazars who want a piece of land and dare not fight their fellow European but Christian West to get back their Khazaria The European Union (EU) has censured the Israeli regime for giving the green light to plans for the construction of thousands of more settler units across the occupied West Bank. “Israel’s continued policy of settlement expansion is illegal under international law,” said Federica Mogherini, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, in a statement on Friday. Mogherini added that the decision to build more than 3,000 new settlement units in the West Bank could “further complicate the prospects for a viable two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “The EU calls on both sides to engage in a meaningful process in view of reaching a negotiated two-state solution, and reiterates its readiness to support them, together with its international and regional partners,” the statement said. “This is the only way to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of both parties and to achieve just and lasting peace,” it noted. Last week, an Israeli panel served up plans for building a total of 3,178 units located in a number of settlements across the occupied West Bank.

The move is a blatant violation of the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 2334, which demands that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem” al-Quds. The resolution, adopted last year, also states that the building of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” Since the inauguration of US President Donald Trump in January, the regime in Tel Aviv has stepped up its construction of settler units on occupied Palestinian land in a blatant violation of international law. The latest developments come days after a visit by Trump to the occupied territories.

About 600,000 Israelis live in over 230 illegal settlements built since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem al-Quds. The Palestinian Authority wants the West Bank as part of a future independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem al-Quds as its capital. The continued expansion of Israeli settlements is one of the major obstacles to the establishment of peace in the Middle East. The promised land for children or Jacob was only 4000 years ago. People for whom it was promised lived there for the founding of the new state. They are now driven out of their houses. Why do they want to turn the truth into what they want? If someone really wants to get up for Jacob's children or the truth of the Bible, they should help the original inhabitant of palastina to fight injustice. Investigate these facts and know injustice is the cause of evil on our earth. We are the bosses of the earth we can do injustice or justice. Well they condemn but does not take action. So this must be for public consumption that they are condemning against oppression. But behind the facade, they continue supplying arm, business, tourism, and everything in between to prop up the zio monster. If they really meant what they said in public, they would have imposed full sanction, arresting all Zio officials from sky to land, to water. EU nations have the means, the power, and the force. The time of 2state solution is finished. UN can't stop nothing and keep throwing back on the government's to make the solution of a 2state solution when your israhell never stops killing our Palestine and taking land and entering our side causing destruction. only only war is left and when we Muslim will wake we will send you running in the sea to drown. .....“Israel’s continued policy of settlement expansion is illegal under international law. An Israeli military organization is to receive cooperation from the US Missile Defense Agency to test an Israeli Arrow-3 anti-missile system in the US state of Alaska. The test is to take place on Alaska’s Kodiak Island next year, American weekly publication The Jewish Press reported on Sunday. Preparations for the test would take a few months to complete, Israel’s Channel 2 reported. The test is reportedly going to cost some $80 million.“The system is set to be tested against a target similar in behavior to the advanced ballistic missiles, which are currently being developed, and have already been achieved, by Iran,” the paper wrote.

Washington and Tel Aviv fear the Islamic Republic’s missile capability, which Tehran asserts is of a defensive and deterrent nature. Iran has, however, stressed that it would flatten Israeli cities to earth if it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv regime. The US has been spending lavishly to enhance the Israeli regime’s military capabilities. Last September, a test launch in Cape Canaveral, Florida, hit a snag when Falcon 9, a rocket belonging to the US aerospace manufacturer SpaceX, and Amos-6, the Israeli “communication satellite” it had been due to carry into space, exploded and were destroyed. Isaac Ben-Israel, the chairman of Israel’s space agency, said at the time that the incident was “a very severe blow.” The planned test would now be marking yet another move aimed at antagonizing the Islamic Republic since US President Donald Trump’s January inauguration. So far during his presidency, Washington has twice imposed sanctions on Iranian individuals and organizations over Iranian missile activities. The US Senate is, meanwhile, pushing through with a bill aimed at putting more missile-related sanctions on Iran. In his first foreign trip abroad, Trump traveled to Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which have been openly hostile to Iran. Israel probably tested their nukes in USA too America is doing this for Israel in exchange for their promise not to do another 911 attack on the USA for now. The test will be paid by the US tax payers’ money to serve the Israeli goals. Israel considers USA its fatherland and Israelis just fly to Alaska and perform their tests without permission to do so? If they do, they're on their own .. If the huge Kodiak bears don't get them, the large, vociferous mosquitoes surely will. Israel and USA are one nation. Israel serve the interest of USA by keeping eye on Arab slaves. How naive for US that any nation would not defend them self. Even Israel who broke international law and act crime against humanity do not put in to sanction. Justice is equal for all nation. US Injustice act over middle east and supporting terrorist to destabilize middle east so US can insure Israel illegal action in Palestine. War on terrorism just another advertisement to sell weapon. Media is used to support propaganda to spread fear of terror which

Media is also play as terrorist tool to boost the fear which some political play to gain their vote when election near. Basicly politician is terorrist. How many fear they spread. What is Israel? A military base of Zionist gangsters in the Middle East for supporting terrorism and stealing resources. It is not a nation or a country or a political entity. Just a gigantic military base of warmongers. Most Americans do not support Israel. In fact. less than 1 % of the entire City of New York supports Israel. Florida about 97%., US Congress 99.9%. When Rothschild struck a deal with Hitler the rest of the world had no idea why WW2 was started. No one questions ( in the US Media) why Israel gained such control of US Policy. The Council on Foreign Relations is simply a spy agency. 90% US Christian population are ruled by 3% with fascist mentality of being some kind of chosen people. Now that Zionist Jew is US president with his almost 100% Zionist Jewish administration the Israel is for the first time born. Democracy without Guidance is Infiltrators' paradise. Just imagine. the Zionists are moving into the police forces in America. Already, da' Zs are embedded in Homeland Security Agency. And they are heavily involved in the military drone programs! One day the USA will throw Israel under the Bus, which they have a long History of doing to others ----------------------------------

Chapter-8: Putin reiterates NATO is obsolete! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _________

NATO, an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is the most dangerous state terror alliance of 28 countries bordering the North Atlantic

Ocean. It includes the United States, Canada, Turkey and most members of the European Union. (NATO's 28 members are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,

Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States)

Premises Each member designates an ambassador to NATO. They supply officials to serve on NATO committees. They send the appropriate official to discuss NATO business. That includes a countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s president, prime minister, foreign affairs minister or head of the department of defense.

NATO participates in three alliances. That expands its influence beyond its 28 member countries. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council helps partners

become NATO members. It includes 23 non-NATO countries that support NATO's purpose. It began in 1991.

The Mediterranean Dialogue seeks to stabilize the Middle East. Its non-NATO members include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and

Tunisia. It began in 1994. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative works for peace throughout the larger Middle East region. It includes four members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. They are Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab

Emirates. It began in 2004. NATO cooperates with eight other countries in joint security issues. There are five in Asia. They are Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and New Zealand. There are two in the Middle East: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The founding members of NATO signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949. NATO's primary purpose was to defend member nations against troops in pro-communist countries. The United States also wanted to maintain a

presence in Europe. It sought to prevent a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and foster political union. In this way, NATO made the European Union possible.

During the Cold War, NATO's mission expanded to prevent nuclear war. After

West Germany joined NATO, the communist countries formed the Warsaw Pact alliance. That included the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland,

Czechoslovakia and East Germany. In response, NATO adopted the "Massive Retaliation" policy. It promised to use nuclear weapons if the Pact attacked.

NATO's deterrence policy allowed Europe to focus on economic development. It didn't have to build large conventional armies.

The Soviet Union continued to build its military presence. By the end of the Cold

War, it was spending three times what the United States was with only one-third the economic power. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was due to economic as well as ideological reasons. After the USSR dissolved in the late 1980s,

NATO's relationship with Russia thawed. In 1997, they signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act to build bilateral cooperation. In 2002, they formed the NATORussia Council to partner on shared security issues.

The collapse of the USSR led to unrest in its former satellite states. NATO got

involved when Yugoslavia's civil war became genocide. NATO's initial support of a United Nations naval embargo led to the enforcement of a no-fly zone.

Violations then led to a few airstrikes until September 1999. That's when NATO conducted a nine-day air campaign that ended the war. By December of that

year, NATO deployed a peace-keeping force of 60,000 soldiers. That ended in 2004 when NATO transferred this function to the European Union.

With Russian President Vladimir Putin warning on June 19 Western countries

against meddling in Moscowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s affairs and that no one should speak to Russia

through ultimatums, fears of a new nuclear arms race are being rekindled by the actions of arch rivals USA and Russia.

There are reasons to believe that Russia is angry with NATO’s attempt to contain Russia, the leader of former Soviet Union. In facing the containment

policy of USA by using former Soviet republics, Vladimir Putin said on June 16 that Russia would add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal this year.

Putin made his announcement a day after Russian officials denounced a US plan to station tanks and heavy weapons in NATO states on Russia’s border as the

most aggressive act by Washington since the Cold War. Intercontinental ballistic missiles have a minimum range of more than 5,500 km (3,400 miles). Putin

gave no more details of which missiles were being added to the nuclear arsenal. He has said several times that Russia must maintain its nuclear deterrence to counter what he sees as growing security threats, and Moscow reserves the

right to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea. Following annexation of Crimea, the West, led by the European Union and United States, has imposed punitive economic sanctions on Russia.

The Kremlin portrays spending on the Russian arms sector as a driver of economic growth, but Putin’s critics say it is excessive and comes at the expense of social needs.

Russian officials warned that Moscow would retaliate if the United States carried out its plan to store heavy military equipment in Eastern Europe, including in the Baltic States that were once in the Soviet Union. “The feeling is that our

colleagues from NATO countries are pushing us into an arms race,” RIA news agency quoted Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov as saying during

“Army 2015”, a fair at which arms and other military equipment are on show. This Russian action would likely to increase alarm in the West. Tension has

resurged between Russia and Western powers over Moscow’s role in the Ukraine crisis, in which pro-Russian separatist forces have seized a large part of the

country’s eastern provinces after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in early 2014.

Putin has however added Moscow will not be drawn into a new arms race although Russia is modernizing its armed forces. Putin said in his speech that

70 percent of the military equipment in use would by 2020 be the most up-todate and top-quality. But lavish military spending is weighing heavily on Russia’s national budget at a time when the economy is sliding towards recession, hit by low oil prices and Western sanctions.

And sure enough Russia, which it says is merely responding to NATO

escalation, was promptly accused of escalating even more by the same NATO that keeps parking its own forces ever since the US-orchestrated Ukraine

presidential coup was meant to convert Kiev into a potential NATO country and military base. Nato and Western leaders accused Russia of sending soldiers and heavy weapons, including tanks and missiles, to the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly denied this, insisting that any Russians fighting there are “volunteers”.

US military actions in support of Ukraine and several Baltic countries, some of whom fear Russian President Putin — either directly or indirectly — will come after them next. USA and European leaders are already considering an

additional round of sanctions they would impose on Moscow if it makes any further military moves in Ukraine.

Russia has slammed as an aggressive expansion of military presence in NATO states in Eastern Europe, which would provoke Russia to respond by stationing its army on its western borders. Stationing of heavy US military equipment in

the Baltic States and Eastern Europe would amount to the most aggressive step

by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War. Interfax news agency quoted a

Russian Defense Ministry official General Yuri Yakubov as saying:”Russia would be left with no other option but to boost its troops and forces on the western flank.”

Operation

NATO's mission is to protect the freedom and security of its members. But it focuses on terrorism which was initially unleashed by USA and oil rich Islamic nations. For example, on July 8, 2016, NATO announced it would send up to

4,000 troops to the Baltic States and eastern Poland. It will increase air and sea patrols to shore up its eastern front after Russia's attack on Ukraine.

Possessing huge arsenals of nuclear and conventional terror goods in their joint command, the NATO’s targets include weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and cyber attacks. On November 16, 2015, NATO responded to the terrorist

attacks in Paris. It called for a unified approach with the European Union, France and NATO. That's because France did not invoke NATO's Article 5. That would

be a formal declaration of war upon the Islamic state group. France preferred to launch air strikes on its own. Article 5 states, "an armed attack upon one shall be considered an attack upon them all."

Generally NATO operates for USA in advancing its global interests. . After their

defeat in Vietnam, US led NATO invoked Article 5 after the hoax known as Sept 9/11. It responded to American requests for the War in Afghanistan to end

Islamic regime in Kabul and destabilize it after looting its important resources. Their media protects US interests and defends all the crimes committed by USA and its ally Israel. It took the lead from August 2003 to December 2014. At its

peak, it deployed 130,000 troops. In 2015, it ended its combat role and began supporting Afghan troops.

On July 15, 2016, the Turkish military announced it had seized control of the government in a coup by anti-Turkey andante-Islamic forces led by the West.

Turkish President Recep Erdogan announced early on July 16 that the coup had failed. As a NATO member, Turkey would receive its allies' support in the case of an attack, but not a coup. .

Crimea was a part of Russia and hence it annexation of that region is justified as a rebuff to Ukrainian regimeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s support for US imperialism. . Although Ukraine is not a member, it had worked with NATO over the years as USA wants to help anyone that wants to work against Russia. Russia's invasion of Ukraine threatened nearby NATO members. NATO said other former USSR

satellite countries would be next.. As a result, NATO's September 2014 summit focused on Russia' aggression. President Putin vowed to create a "New Russia" out of Ukraine's eastern region. President Obama pledged to defend countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

The United States contributes three-fourths of NATO's budget. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump said other NATO members should

contribute more. Trump also accused it of being obsolete. He argued that it

focuses on defending Europe against Russia instead of combating terrorism. In 2017, President Trump reversed his position. He confessed to "not knowing much about NATO" during the campaign.

Expansionism or Zionism

Military expansionism could also be called Zionism as Israel exists only on expansionist and criminal operations inside Palestine.

NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization, transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort. It extends

beyond military might alone. On December 1, 2015, NATO announced its first expansion since 2009. It offered membership to Montenegro. Russia responded by calling the move a strategic threat to its national security. It’s worries by the number of Balkan countries along its border that have joined NATO.

Unilateral America controls global resources through NATO, World bank/IMF, global intelligences led by CIA, military bases, sale of terror goods, global militaries and polices led by Pentagon and Interpol.

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, symbolizing the end of cold war officially,

NATO was an Alliance of 16 members and no partners. Today, the notorious NATO has 26 members – with 2 new invitees, prospective membership for others (Greece, Bosnia, Georgia and Montenegro) and over 20 partners in

Europe and Eurasia, seven in the Mediterranean, four in the Persian Gulf, and others from around the world.

Triclomacy helped the USA in furthering its cause of resource hunt. The transformation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military bloc created by the United States during the genesis of the Cold War in 1949, into one that has grown to encompass almost entire world. A US-dominated armed bloc NATO which includes three nuclear powers and accounts for an estimated 70 percent of global military spending has expanded deployments, operations and partnerships around the planet.

The war in Afghanistan, the longest in the nation’s history as well as in that of

the U.S., has supplied NATO with an almost 12-year opportunity to consolidate an international military network and to develop the operational and command integration of the armed forces of almost 60 nations. NATO has air and other

military bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Those three nations

have also been used by NATO as part of the Northern Distribution Network and other transit routes that include as well Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Oman, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, etc. UN has been rendered meaningless. Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, continue to suffer foreign terror yokes.

NATO membership grew by 75 percent from 16 to 28. Today, the NATO

members and partners number at least 70 nations, well over a third of those in the world. NATO expansion to the east has provided the Pentagon and its

Western allies with air bases and other military facilities in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania for wars to the east and south.

NATOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional initiatives brought many nations into its trap The Partners Across the Globe and longer-standing military partnerships are slated to grow in all parts of the world. There are more than 50 nations that have provided

NATO with troop contingents for the war in destabilized Afghanistan in South Asia.

The so-called Arab spring saw to it that Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are already in NATO trap.

India readily promotes NATO terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Irrelevance The western military formation NATO is indeed irrelevant and obsolete. Russian President Vladimir Purim calls for the dismantling of vestiges of Cold war NATO

for good. US president Trump also thinks NATO should be wound up though he gives another reason: Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reluctance to pay for NATO security.

Russia has always asked USA to dismantle the western military organization

NATO but the latter always refused saying that only NATO alone can face the

new challenges of the world. For the USA which depends on joint NATO state terrorism to bully weak nations and remove any threat to the US led western military superiority and domination in world affairs following their collective

“victory” in the World war Two, with the historic bombing of Japan, killing and disabling thousands of Japanese. USA calls all this a part of modern democracy. Apparently, the last Soviet president Michael Gorbachev and his American

counterpart Reagan agreed to dismantle both the two most important world threats from US led NATO and Warsaw treaty of Russia led Eastern nations and

while Soviet Union readily dismantled the Warsaw treaty USA did not dismantled the Nato, creating a clear disparity in military affairs in favor of USA. Gorbachev dismantled even the Soviet union into 15 independent states as well as release eastern European nations from the control of Kremlin. All this Soviet actions only made the USA stronger in all aspects than new Russia that came into existence in 1990 without 14 republics and Eastern Europe to support and work with it.

Gorbachev insisted that NATO should be dismantled since there was not more

Soviet or communist threat as the West used to claim to slam Russia and reduce its world importance. Washington continues to say NATO would stay forever as

there could be other threats to world peace. Terrorism was promoted as “deadly threat” to justify the US claims of “threats” and terrorism is going to be permanent fixture of US imperialism.

As Russia could do nothing to end NATO terrorism, it has also now joined it in Syria. USA and Russia are now allies in state terror operations abroad. Yet,

President Vladimir Putin keeps pushing the USA to remove the NATO as being the obstacle to world peace. Vladimir Putin has recently cut NATO to pieces

again by saying that the entire organization is no longer needed. It just can’t

get any better, as you know that Putin doesn’t usually mince words: “There is no longer an Eastern Bloc, no more Soviet Union. Therefore, why does NATO

keep existing? My impression is that in order to justify its existence, NATO has

a need of an external foe, there is a constant search for the foe, or some acts of provocation to name someone as an adversary.”

None would seriously disagree with that statement. Justification NATO has been forging monsters to kill in order to define, refine or redefine its existence since the beginning of time. For example, under the code name

“Operation Allied Force,” NATO did the unthinkable in Kosovo: “For 78 days in 1999, NATO forces led by the United States bombed Yugoslavia, killing

hundreds of its civilians and devastating its infrastructure. NATO spokesmen justified the bombardment as “humanitarian intervention” aimed at halting

President Slobodan Milosevic’s` `ethnic cleansing’ of non-Serbs in Yugoslavia.” As it was reported later, “NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘war on terror,’ or

‘preventive war’ – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.” The intervention in Kosovo was a complete mess: “Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000

ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo In what the alliance described as ‘collateral damage,’ its airstrikes destroyed more than 300

schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. “At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural

monuments were ruined. That is not to mention the long-term harm caused to the region’s ecology and, therefore, people’s health, as well as the billiondollar economic damage.”

NATO, as you can recall, said virtually nothing about the debacle in Iraq. Sure, there were tensions among NATO member countries before the debacle, but eventually no one could resist the “good war.” But what were some of the

results? By the spring of 2012, suicide rates among Air Force personnel were up by 40 percent, a figure which caused concern.

Similarly, suicide rates in the Army rose by 80 percent since the war in Iraq. In addition, more than 110,000 active-duty Army troops were prescribed

antidepressants in 2011. A number of lawyers have declared that a large part of the chaos that is going on in the military is caused by the drugs the soldiers are taking. Bart Bilings, a former military psychologist, declared, “We have never

medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now…And I don’t believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence.”

Noted psychiatrist Peter Breggin writes, “Prior to the Iraq war, soldiers could not go into combat on psychiatric drugs, period. Not very long ago, going back

maybe 10 or 12 years, you couldn’t even go into the armed services if you used any of these drugs, in particular stimulants. “But they’ve changed that…I’m

getting a new kind of call right now, and that’s people saying the psychiatrist won’t approve their deployment unless they take psychiatric drugs.” Terror corruption

On top of that, the Pentagon told the American people in 2005 that the USA lost track of at least $9 billion that was supposed to go to Iraq. After years of

“investigation,” the USA still “didn’t know” where all that money went. They supposedly shipped the $9 billion in cash to Iraq and now it is lost. Moreover,

hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in countries like Pakistan for programs which supposedly teach children that America is not the great Satan they thought it was, but those millions have been wasted.

As Scott Baldauf pointed out, you cannot broadcast programs like that when you are dropping drones in civilian populated areas and expect people to

believe you. The US military feared reprisals, for good reason of course, after all of these killings, particularly the massacre in Kandahar. After pouring some $2.6 million in Pakistan, there is little evidence that anti-Americanism has decreased in the region.

In May 2012, many Iraq War veterans decided to return the medals they had

received. In a statement, they declared with one voice, â&#x20AC;&#x153;We, Afghanistan and

Iraq veterans from around the country, will converge in Chicago on May 20 to ceremoniously return our medals to NATO generals. We were awarded these

medals for serving in the Global War on Terror, a war based on lies and failed policies. This endless war has killed hundreds of thousands, stripped the

humanity of all involved, and drained our communities of trillions of dollars, diverting funds from schools, clinics, libraries, and other public goods.â&#x20AC;?

One veteran in particular felt that it was his way to apologize to the Afghan and Iraqi people for what the U.S. has done to them. As an organization, NATO

should help other political bodies to put an end to perpetual wars, but they are marshalling their armies virtually all over the world. So, should they be obsolete? Well, you be the judge. Dismantle irrelevance! Continued existence and terror attacks on weak nations of NATO, a living terror

symbol of old Cold War, would continue create cold fear in the world It needs to be dismantled fro the better. In case of new threats, let UN and UNSC take care

of them effectively. An international terror organization like NATO cannot bring peace to the world. NATO has literally replaced the UN. Post-Cold War NATO has repeatedly and without disguise identified its purview and its area of operations to be

international in scope, and over the past 22 years its efforts to achieve that objective have steadily accelerated to the point where the military alliance is

well poised to supplant the United Nations as the main, indeed the exclusive, arbiter of conflicts not only between but within nations throughout the world.

President Donald Trump has been critical of NATO but the Pentagon bosses say from a military standpoint there's been no change in guidance and "this exercise underscores our commitment to NATO and our allies."

Since the NATO has crossed its mandate and limits, it could now be renamed as global treaty organization. Former ideological super power rivals USA and Russia with huge piles of arms arsenals do not seem to enforce nuclear

disarmament globally. The US vested interests in maintaining upper hand in

arms arsenals, especially WMD has emboldened Russia to ignore global nuclear disarmament and go slow in the hopeless arms reduction talks.

With the USA and Russia in a state of renewed cold war for over a year now, it was inevitable that the nuclear arms race, far more important attribute of the first Cold War, would soon return with more force. _______

Chapter-9: USA, Russia in talks over â&#x20AC;&#x153;safe zoneâ&#x20AC;? in Syria! -Dr. Abdul Ruf _____

None can predict as to how long the dirty war in Syria sponsored by foreign powers led by USA and Russia would go on and how many more thousands of Syrians would be slaughter there. US-Israel terror duo must be seriously considering escalation of war to weaken Iran.

Americans, focusing on its advantages, may not be interested in ending the war. Yet, apparently, there are talks going on behind the scenes over the increased fighting in Syria between USA and British Special Ops troops and the militant proxies they have been using to control as much of the Syrian-Jordanian-Iraqi border as possible. Russia and the USA have been engaged in a series of confidential meetings to establish a 'safe zone' in Syria. Russian and US officials have met repeatedly in

recent weeks, an anonymous source told the outlet. The talks reportedly included a meeting between officials in Jordan in late May. Last week, the Americans and Russians met in Jordan with the Jordanians to discuss these safe zones. The source said: “The meeting in Jordan was one part where the United States and Russia, Israel and Jordan can work together to have a de-escalation zone in the south of Syria.” Six rounds of UN-backed negotiations in Geneva have so far failed to bring about a political solution to the Syrian conflict. The war, now in its seventh year, has claimed 400,000 lives and created 5 million refugees. Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed on the establishment of 'de-escalation zones' throughout Syria in rival talks hosted by Russian in the Kazakh capital Astana in May. The establishment of the zones is an effort to halt hostilities between armed opposition groups and the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Russia's intervention in the Syrian war since September 2015 has been marred by allegations its airstrikes targeted civilian infrastructure, including mosques, schools, and air convoys. An agreement to set up the safe zones in Syria came into effect more than a week ago, at midnight May 6. Russia, Turkey, and Iran, the guarantors of the initiative, who authorized the memo creating the safe zones during Syria talks in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana on May 4, have to complete the final geographic division of the four areas within a month.

According to the memorandum, the preparation of the maps of the de-escalation areas and security zones should be completed by June 4, 2017. By the same date, the Guarantors should separate the armed opposition groups from the terrorist groups DAESH/ISIL/Islamic State, al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL//Islamic State. The zones are located in the Idlib Governorate and parts of neighboring Latakia, Aleppo and Hama provinces; in the northern part of Homs province; in the Damascus neighborhood of Eastern Ghouta, and in parts of southern Deraa and Quneitra provinces bordering Jordan.

Meanwhile, by May 22, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, the guarantors of the Syrian ceasefire, have to complete the final geographic division of the four safe zones in Syria, also referred to as “de-escalation zones”. Sputnik has delved into the details of the suggested plan and its difference from the similar initiatives of the USA and Turkey.

The plan suggests that within the lines of the de-escalation areas hostilities between the conflicting parties the government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the armed opposition groups will join the ceasefire regime with the use of any kinds of weapons, including aerial assets, should be ceased.

Checkpoints and observation posts are to be positioned along the de-escalation lines within the safe zones, according to the document. They will provide free movement of unarmed civilians and humanitarian access to the areas, under guarantor states’ control. Russian delegation head at Astana talks and Special Presidential Representative for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev said that Russia was ready to send its observers to the safe zones in Syria and did not rule out other countries taking part in monitoring de-escalation. Chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoy said that the work of checkpoints and observation posts will be under control of Russia, Turkey and Iran. Under mutual agreement of the three countries, they can draw in units of other countries.

The memorandum stated that the creation of the de-escalation areas and security zones is a temporary measure, the duration of which will initially be 6 months and will be automatically extended on the basis of consensus of the Guarantors.

The steps outlined in the Astana agreement for the “de-escalation zones” in Syria are not clear but it is clearly spelled out that the attacks on ISIS and al-Nusra will continue. But al-Nusra is not waiting for any clarification, having already announced it would be confiscating the ammo depots of the opposition groups in Idlib and arresting their leaders to preempt them going over to the SAA. This might start up new infighting among the anti-Damascus groups, as al-Nusra has said it will attack any group that supports the ceasefire. Missing so far is how they plan to deal with the membership roulette game the “jihadis” and officially designated terrorists have been playing by flowing their members back and forth as needed to suit their combat and political tactical needs.

Thus by May 22, the working group of the representatives of the guarantor states has to define the areas within the above safe zones which are still under control of “terrorists” and exclude them from the ceasefire agreement. So far, it is only known for certain that Eastern Ghouta municipality of Qaboun, in the neighborhood of Damascus, which is still controlled by al-Nusra and from where they are shelling on the dwelling areas of Damascus, will be excluded from this safe zone.

While Israel is making efforts to further complicate the crisis in Syria, both USA and

Europe now think along Moscow way that Assad must stay for the “stabilization” of Syria as they are under the impression that once Assad is killed or driven out of Syria, Syria would, like Afghanistan, become totally disoriented although Syria is already destabilized with many war fronts inside.

The US Coalition does not want the Syrian people to have anti-terrorism partners unless it approves, and they are using the Russians to get this deal done, similar to their wanting Assad out.. USA wants the situation would eventually assure a weak and more easily destabilized Syria even after any kind of a “settlement” which it can manipulate further. . One of the reasons for this development for talks, therefore, is only to block the Damascus-Baghdad highway from being the critical link for the Syrian coalition for logistical support from both Iran and Iraq Including blocking military hardware and troops – in effect, imposing a situation that would benefit the foreign forces, as the USA has not won the war even after 5 long years. Sources in Syria say that many are wary of what the Americans and Russians might do, as one can assume that Moscow does presumably not want to be involved permanently at the current level of combat for years and years. The US Coalition obviously does not want to submit Assad’s future to the Syrian people, as he would win devastatingly, which would show that he ruled his own people only by military oppression.

Peace after ceasefire will by no means be an easy feat to accomplish, as there are many enemies of peace still on the battlefield and in the capitals of the world. But at this stage of the game, maintaining momentum toward peace has to be visible to increase the hope and interest in a political settlement

Of course, USA does not want the crisis in Syria to end because that could lead to Mideast peace as well.

USA cannot win war in Syria but can hope to win the talks. When the peace talks began that the US Coalition would string the process along, looking for openings to win in the talks what they could not on the battlefield and that is exactly what is rolling out here.

USA and Europe slapped sanctions on Iran in order to weaken that country. The Western claims of Iran having a secret nuclear weapons program were a complete hoax, done partially to justify the Iranian sanctions to cripple its economy, and also for the deployment of a US anti-missile screen in Eastern Europe.

Unfortunately, the western media has never mentioned this exposure of the Iranian

nuclear threat hoax as one of the key accomplishments of the nuclear deal. That shows they fear public focus on the nasty deed, because it could focus closer public attention in the future. The public might look for a replay scam the Syrian threat is, or the new Iranian threat because it is Syria’s ally. Iran has done way more to fight terrorism in Syria that the USA has – another item about which Western media seems selectively blind.

What is at stake is countries like the USA and Israel, who have aggressive secret intentions and fascist mindset, to paint their selected targets as aggressors, so their own aggression can be cloaked in the often-used robe of being “defensive measures” and “counter terror” measures. .Both want to make Arab world destabilized even while looting their resources in arms deals. .

Syria’s President Bashar Assad has recently said that he believes that the internationally agreed de-escalation zones are a real opportunity to finally achieve peace in his war-torn country, saying, all previous initiatives have failed due to some states hindering peace by pursuing own political goals. The “foremost” aim of the de-escalation or safe zones is to protect peaceful civilians, but Assad said they also provide armed militants with an opening “to enter into a truce with the government.” “This is a chance for a person with weapons in hand to pause to think. In other words, if they lay down arms, amnesty would follow,” the Syrian president said.

The agreement between Moscow, Tehran and Ankara presumes the cessation of airstrikes in Syria. However the US State Department has said the US military won’t join this moratorium. Israel seems to have a similar position on the issue. Recently the Israeli authorities informed Moscow that Israel will strike on Syrian territory “in case of necessity.” The Saudi authorities however have fully supported the document signed in Astana. They probably did not like Trump’s idea to pay for the safe zones in Syria and rushed to support the alternative project.

Back in January, US President Donald Trump promised to “do safe zones in Syria” for refugees fleeing violence in the war-torn country. He was then expected to sign a draft order to the Pentagon and the State Department to produce a plan to provide safe areas in Syria and in the surrounding region in which Syrian nationals displaced from their homeland can await firm settlement, such as repatriation or potential third-country resettlement. On the campaign trail, Trump gave no details as to how he might go about creating such havens, except to say that he would ask Gulf states to help pay. In February, the US leader reiterated that the Gulf States should pay for these safe zones. “We do owe $20 trillion. Okay. So we’re going to have the Gulf States pay for those safe zones. They’ve got nothing, but money,” he then said.

The Turkish government had long pressed Obama, without success, for creation of a no-fly zone in Syria on its border with Turkey. US military officials had long warned that the creation of no-fly zones inside Syria would require a large number of additional resources beyond the fight against Islamic State (Daesh).

It should be noted however that the idea of the safe zones in Syria is not new. It was earlier voiced by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. However Ankara’s major tasks initially were not the settlement of the Syrian conflict but the setup of control over the border territories and control the Kurds. With this very purpose it launched its Operation Euphrates Shield in August 2016, planning to squeeze Kurdish units out of northern Syrian territories. This task however has been fulfilled only partially.

Hence the main difference of the document signed by Russia, Iran and Turkey in Astana is that it is aimed at a complex settlement of the situation in Syria. Washington’s effort was aimed at tacking only one problem — the refugee influx into Europe and the USA. The USA is now studying the terms of the memorandum. US Secretary of Defense James Mattis has recently questioned the Russiansponsored plan saying that it “poses many unanswered questions, including whether it would be effective.” “The devil is always in the details, right? So we have to look at the details, see if we can work them out, see if we think they’re going to be effective,” the Pentagon head told journalists.

With a fluid situation in Arab world after Qatar was ousted by Saudi Led Arab world blaming it on behalf of USA for “sponsoring terrorism”, there is no possibility Syria would be safe in the near future.

Aiming at a dangerous Sunni-Shiite war in the long run that would further slash Islamic populations and faith, President Donald Trump, whose son in law is a Jew, declared that the action taken by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain was “hard but necessary.” He denounced Qatar for having been a “funder of terrorism at a very high level”. Trump’s remarks make clear that following Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia last month, during which he sought to form a Sunni bloc to confront Iran, Riyadh felt emboldened to strengthen its regional position under the pretext of combating terrorism.

Qatar has long attempted to maintain a somewhat more independent foreign policy, including through economic ties and joint exploration of energy resources with Iran and through its support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. This stance has infuriated Riyadh. Until Riyadh broke diplomatic ties, Qatar was also part

of the coalition conducting the brutal war in Yemen that has killed tens of thousands of civilians over the past two years.

In Syria, the USA has over recent weeks with air strikes effectively begun to partition the country. The USA has justified these attacks on the grounds that the pro-government forces have allegedly violated a “deconfliction zone” proclaimed unilaterally by Washington in Syria’s south near the borders with Jordan and Iraq.

Of course, the whole idea of US-Israel duo is to create a weak Arab world and sustain that. ---------------------

Chapter-10: Pakistan, India to be full members of SCO -Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

The 2017 annual Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) will be held on 7-8 June, in Astana, Kazakhstan. Beijing-headquartered SCO, which focuses mostly on

security-related issues such as counter-terrorism cooperation in Central Asia, is comprised of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as full members.

Afghanistan, Belarus, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan have “observer” status. Its 2015 summit in Ufa in Russia had formally adopted a resolution which started the procedures to admit India and Pakistan into the security grouping.

Pakistan is set to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in its upcoming session in Astana, Kazakhstan which starts June 8. In a statement released to the media, the Foreign Office (FO) has stated that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will

participate in the 17th meeting of the Heads of State Council (HoSC) of the SCO on June 89 in Kazakhstan. While there, the PM will hold bilateral meetings with other leaders on the sidelines of the summit. PM Sharif will also attend the inauguration ceremony of the

International Expo 2017, which will host 100 participating countries, including Pakistan.

India as South Asia’s largest economy is also set to be included in the SCO in the upcoming Summit in Astana. In becoming full members of the SCO, Pakistan and India will join the ranks of current members Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Pakistan, which has been an observer at the SCO since 2005, applied for a permanent membership in 2010. According to the FO spokesperson, "The decision, in principle, to

give membership to Pakistan was taken by the SCO Heads of States in a meeting held in Ufa, Russia, in 2015". In the press release, the FO stated that Pakistan had been actively

participating in the organization's activities as an observer and that it fully subscribes to the "Shanghai Spirit". The statement further added that Pakistan shares "historical and cultural links, as well as strong economic and strategic complementarities" with members of the SCO. It stated that the SCO will help Pakistan advance its interests regional peace, stability and development and its support for regional cooperation against terrorism and extremism. The annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which took place in Tashkent on Jun 30, 2016, celebrated the 15-year history of this organization. The six SCO member states – Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan –

evaluated the successes that this organization has achieved in the past decade and a half, and determined the future format of its work.

The summit in 2017 will have more two participants, for a total of eight, after India and Pakistan officially join the organization. In Tashkent, these two countries signed a

memorandum of commitment to the SCO – the last documents before becoming full-

fledged members. At the summit, he warned the countries from engaging in confrontations with each other, and encouraged maintaining the non-aligned status of the organization. The talks were difficult, but in the end, SCO managed to overcome all difficulties and

agreed on granting membership to the new countries. However, the compromise does not mean that the existing contradictions between New Delhi and Islamabad would not be transferred to the SCO platform. Central Asian countries, which had declared their region a nuclear-free zone, will have a difficult time balancing inside such a composition. It is clear that the expansion of the SCO

will now move regional problems into the background. The majority of SCO member states (with the exceptions of China and Uzbekistan), are also part of the Collective Security

Treaty Organization (CSTO), where collective efforts are being undertaken to try and solve

regional security problems. Russia is trying to win over Central Asian members to its side, just as China is trying to do. Now enjoying such status in the SCO are Afghanistan, Iran and Mongolia. The greatest chances of joining are given to Iran, whose interests in the organization are actively being promoted by Russia. Tashkent was especially cautious when it came to the idea of

membership for Afghanistan, a country where the main security threats and risks in Central Asia originate.

Two years after the summit in Ufa, the Central Asian countries that had previously doubted the wisdom of expanding the SCO with two other South Asian countries that are in

constant conflict with each other, seemed to have come around to the idea. The president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, who criticized the expansion of the SCO with two unofficial nuclear powers, seemed more restrained this year.

For the first 15 years, the SCO has primarily focused on economic and security issues. Going forward, the work of the SCO will continue in an expanded format. India and

Pakistan will become full members of the SCO now , a move that was finally decided at the Tashkent Summit. In the summit’s final declaration, dedicated to the 15th anniversary of

the organization, the participating countries agreed to assist each other during economic crises, and to continue in their joint efforts in fighting extremism.

Economic development issues were also paramount on the agenda of the Astana Summit. SCO leaders have complained that very often, uneven economic development is leading to the slow implementation of joint projects, particularly in trade and construction of

transport infrastructure spheres. In connection with this, the countries have pledged to help each other in times of economic crisis. To accelerate the construction of regional

transport infrastructure, Putin suggested that SCO countries that are not members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) join the Russian-Chinese cooperation projects involving

the EAEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt. “Connecting all SCO member states, as well as CIS countries, to these integration processes, would be a prelude to the formation of a large Eurasian Partnership,” said Putin. However, the experts do not think much of the potential for economic cooperation within the SCO framework. Uzbekistan said that

Tashkent has always looked at the SCO platform as a means for establishing bilateral cooperation on security issues, rather than economic ones.

At the SCO summit in Tashkent, they also signed an Action Plan for the implementation of Development Strategies for the SCO until 2025, where participating countries have

identified their directions of development in the coming years. These followed the outlines of the development strategies for the SCO that the participating countries adopted at last summit in Ufa. China hoped the admission of India and Pakistan into the Beijing-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) security grouping will contribute to security and stability in the region. “Both India and Pakistan are China’s important neighbours and important countries in

South Asia. China hopes that India and Pakistan can enhance mutual trust and improve relations through more dialogues. This is conducive to not only the two countries themselves, but also to regional prosperity and development.”

With nuclear India and Pakistan’s membership, the SCO will include countries

encompassing over 40% of the world’s population. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will continue dealing mainly with security and economic issues, although there are doubts about how effective it will be once India and Pakistan join in 2017.

Chapter-11: Trump’s visit and split in divided Islamic world! -Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

The fallout of the very first official trip to Mideast by the US president Trump is disastrous for Arab nations as Saudi Arabia, emboldened by Trumps’ meeting with its king Salman in Riyadh , has, along with fellow Arab nations, kicked Qatar from their powerful club. Islamic world, already badly and hopelessly divided as per the designs of antiIslamic world is further split now with Arab nation Qatar being cut off by other Arab nations. This has become a big victory for all global anti-Islamic forces led by USAUK terror twins within NATO. Interestingly, the attacks on Muslims and Muslim world as part of anti-Islamism drive following the Sept-11 hoax enacted with perfection could help Muslims and

Islamic world to comprehend the danger to religion and their own existence in the world dominated by enemies of Islam. Success of anti-Islamic world and their fanatic media is that the Arab world, instead of uniting firmly against the threat to them and Islam, has begun a serious quarrel among themselves, presenting an apologetic disposition to the world. News has it that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have severed their ties with Qatar on June 05, accusing it of supporting "terrorismâ&#x20AC;? and opening up the worst rift in years among some of the most powerful states in the Arab world. Gulf Arab states and Egypt have already long resented Qatar's support for Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood which they regard as a dangerous political enemy. The coordinated move, with Yemen and Libya's eastern-based government joining in later, created a dramatic rift among the Arab nations, many of which are in OPEC. Announcing the closure of transport ties with Qatar, the three Gulf states gave Qatari visitors and residents two weeks to leave. Qatar was also expelled from the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen. Oil giant Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of backing militant groups -- some backed by regional arch-rival Iran -- and broadcasting their ideology, an apparent reference to Qatar's influential state-owned satellite channel al Jazeera. "(Qatar) embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS (Islamic State) and al-Qaeda, and promotes the message and schemes of these groups through their media constantly," Saudi state news agency SPA said. It accused Qatar of supporting what it described as Iranian-backed militants in its restive and largely Shi'ite Muslim-populated Eastern region of Qatif and in Bahrain. Qatar said it was facing a campaign aimed at weakening it, denying it was interfering in the affairs of other countries. "The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications," the Qatari foreign ministry said in a statement. Iran saw America pulling the strings. "What is happening is the preliminary result of the sword dance," Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted in a reference to Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia. Iran -- long at odds with Saudi Arabia and a behind-the-scenes target of the move -- immediately blamed U.S. President Donald Trump for setting the stage during his recent trip to Riyadh. President Trump and other US officials participated in a traditional sword dance during the trip in which he called on Muslim countries to stand united against

Islamist extremists and singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters in Sydney that the spat would not affect the fight against Islamist militants and that Washington has encouraged its Gulf allies to resolve their differences. A split between Doha and its closest allies can have repercussions around the Middle East, where Gulf States have used their financial and political power to influence events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. The economic fallout loomed immediately, as Abu Dhabi's state-owned Ethihad Airways, Dubai's Emirates Airline and budget carrier Flydubai said they would suspend all flights to and from Doha from Tuesday morning until further notice. Qatar Airways said on its official website it had suspended all flights to Saudi Arabia. Qatar's stock market index sank 7.5 percent with some of the market's top blue chips hardest hit. The measures are more severe than during a previous eightmonth rift in 2014, when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE withdrew their ambassadors from Doha, again alleging Qatari support for militant groups. At that time, travel links were maintained and Qataris were not expelled. The diplomatic broadside threatens the international prestige of Qatar, which hosts a large U.S. military base and is set to host the 2022 World Cup. It has for years presented itself as a mediator and power broker for the region's many disputes. Kristian Ulrichsen, a Gulf expert at the US-based Baker Institute, said if Qatar's land borders and air space were closed for any length of time "it would wreak havoc on the timeline and delivery" of the World Cup. "It seems that the Saudis and Emiratis feel emboldened by the alignment of their regional interests - toward Iran and Islamism - with the Trump administration," Ulrichsen said. "(They) have decided to deal with Qatar's alternative approach on the assumption that they will have the (Trump) administration's backing." Qatar used its media and political clout to support long-repressed Islamists during the 2011 pro-democracy "Arab Spring" uprisings in several Arab countries. Muslim Brotherhood groups allied to Doha are now mostly on the back foot in the region, especially after a 2013 military takeover in Egypt ousted the elected Islamist president. The former army chief and now president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, along with the new government's allies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, blacklist the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, said on its state news agency that Qatar's policy "threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation."

Oil prices rose after the moves against Qatar, which is the biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and a major seller of condensate - a low-density liquid fuel and refining product derived from natural gas. Do the Arab rulers think the western world would appreciate their gestures in their favor and cooperate with them fight anti-Islamism and Islamophobia percolated into world polity infrastructure? Instead of wasting their resources on buying more and more terror goods at a very high cost from Western nations, the Arab nektons would do better by helping the poor Muslims globally and poor Muslims nations. That would take the Arab world and Islam to greater heights. The enemies of Islam would think of quitting their anti-Islamic tirades. Western world wants resources of energy rich Arab nations and money from other Muslim nations as service charges. The split in Arab world is just the begin of the trouble in store for them and what is going to follow from here could be even worse.

------

Chapter-12:

Kashmir towards an open public revolt for sovereignty!

(A Sovereign Kashmir: Random Thoughts-305) Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

It appears, Kashmir is on the verge of a full scale revolt against Indian occupation, terror strategy of its military in Kashmir. With the youth taking lead in the struggle for freedom from Indian military yoke, people are determined to take their passive struggle to its logical conclusion to reach the objective of sovereignty.

Like Palestine in West Asia under the Zionist criminal regime, Kashmir is also a open prison of brutal occupier India. Indian military with enhanced powers go on rampaging in Kashmir converting the valley â&#x20AC;&#x201C; known as Paradise on earth where a Prophet spent hid last years- into a zone of secret grave yards and fake encounters to kill the Muslims in Kashmir who do not approve of Indian occupational crimes perpetrated systematically on their lands. Kashmir is one of the most militarized region in the world - there are more personnel per capita here than in Iraq or Syria. We'd driven through streets lined with heavily armed officers to get here - one for every three eligible voters. "Area domination", the policeman in-charge called it, seemingly unconscious of how ominous his words sounded in a region many believe is on the brink of separatist revolt. Kashmir, clearly, appears to be teetering on the brink of an open public revolt against Indian rule. Many say the federal government's near-complete lack of engagement and dialogue with local stakeholders and Pakistan, a complete mistrust of the local government and a lack of development and jobs have left most people jittery and alienated. Both military and militancy continues to be at low ebb - there are an estimated 250 militants in the state now of which most are local - compared to several thousand during the peak of insurgency in the 1990s. But young Kashmiris - more than 60% of the men in the valley are under 30, and more than 40% of men in Kashmir are jobless - are restless and angry. The local political parties are in danger of "becoming irrelevant", as a leader of an opposition party told me. The Kashmir region has seen heightened tension and increased unrest since July when influential militant Burhan Wani was killed by Indian forces. More than 100 civilians lost their lives in clashes with the security forces during a four-month-long lockdown, including a 55-day-curfew, in the restive Muslimmajority valley. What is happening in Kashmir is the worst situation that world has seen hitherto. Earlier, it was a movement led by the militants. Now it is being led by the people Even as Indian occupation forces continue to target Muslims in Kashmir, India is deeply worried, very worried about this and it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want the situation to continue to like that or become worse. .

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has depicted on one of its web sections Jammu and Kashmir as a separate country and not part of India. In UN’s page on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – more precisely, in the ‘Advanced search for Civil Society Organization’ section – Jammu and Kashmir has been inserted in the ‘Country / Geographical area’ section, media reports said. The page is about the listing of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is to mention here that India is illegally occupying Jammu and Kashmir since partition of Indian subcontinent in 1947 and claims its accession under a controversial document, Instrument of Accession, it signed with the then Dogra Maharaja of Kashmir without the approval of Kashmiris majority of them are Muslims, who don’t want to be a part of India. Obviously, Maharaja played mischief with the people of Kashmir as he was coerced by India to hand over Kashmir to New Delhi so that Jammu Kashmir becomes an “integral part” of India, though now he repents for his foolish action, if any. However, neutral observers deny the existence of any such document with the argument that had it been there, India would have made it public at some national or international forum. India conducts polls in occupied Jammu Kashmir regularly in order to gain legitimacy for its genocides of Muslims in Kashmir. As the freedom groups ask the people not to vote to regularize the Indian crimes in Kashmir, very few people come to vote. Separatist groups have rejected the elections and urged voters to boycott the polls, including the one which took place after a politician resigned over what he described as the "anti-people" agenda of the Indian government. Disillusioned voters - even in relatively peaceful places like Dalwan where people turned out to cast their votes enthusiastically in previous elections - generally stayed away. The soldiers are brought in from other states to secure polling stations and may have been unprepared to deal with "protests and provocation" in a complex conflict zone like Kashmir, a senior official told me. One report said the police had registered complaints against the paramilitary forces for firing into the crowds.

Meanwhile, in order to bring Kashmiris to their side, Indian military is trying to woo the Kashmiri youth by offering few posts in the military. India however prefers only Hindus for jobs in Kashmir. Recently some 19,000 Kashmiri young men applied for a few hundred vacancies in the army. Indian military has acquired the exclusive right to kill any Muslim in Kashmir which literally means it can practically kill all Muslims in the valley and bring in Hindus form Jammu and India to make Kashmir a Hindu dominated state. China does it in all Muslim dominated zones by settling Chinese Hans to control Muslims. Like India, China also pursues anti-Muslim anti-Islam policy. "Provocation and panic can lead to accidents. Indian media lords say their security forces often fire when they face life threatening situations. But protecting civilians (Hindus) remains their first priority in this situation. When a civilian dies, it hurts us," an army officer said. The day 12-year-old Faizan Fayaz Dar died, he woke up in the morning in his hilltop home in Budgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, had a cup of salted tea, recited the Holy Quran and pottered around in the kitchen where his mother prepared breakfast for the family. His grandmother offered him a plate of grapes, but she doesn't remember whether Faizan had it. The son of a farmer then put on his pheran, the woolen cape-like garment Kashmiris wear, and quietly left for his Sunday lessons. A few hours later, Faizan lay dead near a sun-baked school playground, ringed by bare walnut and willow trees. Paramilitary soldiers, eyewitnesses said, had shot him in the back of his head. Carrying a packet of biscuits, he was returning home on a bright, nippy morning when he encountered a throng of local people protesting against Indian rule near the school, where polling was taking place for a parliamentary by-election. Eyewitnesses say four shots rang out of the single-storey, squat school building which, according to some reports, was being pelted with stones thrown by protesters from a hill above and from the road in front. Faizan possibly halted to find out what the commotion was all about, and was hit by a bullet. Two neighbours ran up to his home to deliver the news. His mother had sprinted down to the playground, hugged her bleeding son and let others take him to hospital. A heart-wrenching video recorded by a villager on his mobile phone minutes after the killing shows a wailing man cradling the dead boy, blood streaming down his broken face, in a packed vehicle taking him to the nearest hospital. There, the doctors declared him dead. India expressed its anger over agitations in Kashmir by killing the boy. Why Faizan was killed on a day when local voters rejected the ballot is not clear. By all accounts, he was not pelting stones or hurling abuse at the soldiers. One report said police fired tear gas shells to keep the protesters away from the empty polling station, but the soldiers opened fire.

Faizan's final journey is recorded on another mobile phone video: his slight frame, draped in white, bobbing slightly on a hospital cot, carried through a sea of weeping, agitated mourners extolling their latest "martyr". By late afternoon, his body was lowered into the grave near his village, Dalwan. Faizan was among the eight people killed when paramilitary soldiers fired bullets and shotgun pellets at those protesting against Indian rule at polling centres near Srinagar, the summer capital. Election authorities say some 170 people, including 100 security personnel, were injured in about 200 incidents of stone pelting and violent protests on the day. Whatever it is, Faizan became another grisly statistic in Kashmir's unending tragedy. A picture taken by his friend on his mobile phone during their winter break shows the shy-looking boy - "he would often top his class, and he was very knowledgeable about the world," the friend said - clad in a woolen cap and collared jacket, peering uneasily into the camera. "He was quiet and studious; he was doing well in school. He played cricket, and counted former Indian captain MS Dhoni as his favourite cricketer. He wanted to become a doctor," a cousin told me, when I visited the family. The voter turnout in the election was an abysmal 7.1% - the lowest in decades and came as a huge setback for the region's mainstream parties.

Grief is the price one pays for love. Zarifa's lament for her dead son filled the still air inside a tent outside their home where local women had gathered to mourn. "My son, my son, where will I find you now?" she cried, again and again. Then she stepped out of the tent, entered her home and joined her husband in a dank, cold room. He sat there, stoic and numb, surrounded by mourners, and gazed vacantly at the pastel pink walls. The room had a red carpet and red window curtains. "The blood of a martyr never goes waste," said Fayaz Ahmad Dar. "One day, the blood of innocents will help us gain our freedom [from Indian rule]."

A brief silence followed. Zarifa broke it, bemoaning the loss of her boy. "I am looking at your books, I am looking at your school bags. How will I touch your books again, my son?

Outside the secondary school - Enter to learn, Leave to serve, its motto, which is a military slogan, is engraved on the walls - a group of young men gathered later in the day. Their eyes seethed in anger. They spoke about frustration, alienation, desperation, humiliation and hopelessness.

Since February alone, some two dozen civilians have been killed during gunfights between armed rebels and security forces. The security forces have accused civilians of helping rebels escape. The army says it has tried to reach out and engage with civilians through its 29 schools, youth clubs and cricket tournaments.

More than half of them raised their hands when asked whether they had pelted stones at Indian forces. "We are not safe in our own homes, we are not safe on streets. They are killing little boys now. Life is uncertain," said Feroze Ali, a school clerk. They say they had lost their fear of life. They insisted that they helped rebels because "they are our brothers and don't kill civilians" and are "fighting for freedom". Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has asked the world community to “get rid of its hypocrisy and double standards” and speak out on the continued “Indian oppression” against the Kashmiri people in blatant violation of UN charter and resolutions for plebiscite in the divided state of Jammu Kashmir, media reports said. In a reaction to the recent killing of Sarbaz Ahmed Bhat and Faizan Muzaffar, he said “hypocrisy and double standards of the international community have never been so starkly displayed, as on the Kashmir issue.”

Strongly denouncing the use of force on people in Kashmir, Imran said the new round of terror and violence unleashed by India against the Kashmiri people is nothing short of state terrorism. He called on the international community to take note of “Indian state terrorism” against the Kashmiri people, which was a “violation not just of the UN charter and its underlying principle of the right to selfdetermination but of all human rights and humanitarian laws”. The PTI chairman reminded the world “the disputed state remains the most militarized region of the world and it was a sad reflection of the state of global politics today that India’s violence and terrorism against unarmed Kashmiri people was being allowed to go unchecked despite multiple international calls for combating all forms of terrorism”. This desperate attempt of the Kashmiri youth to get themselves heard at the international forums is challenging the mainstream narrative. The government’s failure to reach out to this dejected youth has left them with no choice but to innovate a different flow of information. The experts, however, fear that imposition of an e-curfew can potentially further aggravate the situation as youth will feel chocked and pushed to the wall. As a former member of the National Security Council said once, “I will prefer the youth in Kashmir to engage in protests on Facebook, rather than come out on the streets pelting stones against the security forces.” With the shutting down of online spaces, people who were showing their resentment through online platforms will join their brethren on the streets, which will have far-reaching consequences for the unrest in Kashmir.

-----------------

Chapter-13:

End of Zionist occupation in Palestine?

(A Sovereign Kashmir: Random Thoughts-306)

Like Israeli military occupying Palestine lands and terrorizing Palestinians, killing even little children, Indian military also fears none on earth as Indian regime and its allies support all military arrogance and genocides in Kashmir. Murder and terrorization of Muslims in Kashmir has been a pass time for Indian military. A raging debate on the issue of sovereignty of the State of Jammu Kashmir vis-àvis the Union of India is taking in India at higher level. it is said there cannot be any autonomy beyond what the Constitution provides, and there can certainly be no freedom or azaadi for Kashmiris as India fears along with Pakistan Kashmir could pose a big problem for New Delhi. This is because India sees the freedom groups say exactly what Pakistan wants. And hence they refuse to accept any invitation for talks to resolve the crisis or dispute. Whether India accepts or not Jammu Kashmir is an occupied nation and whether or it calls it a dispute, Kashmiris do not want to be a part of India. . Surely, Jammu Kashmir has no sovereignty. In simple terms, sovereignty is an essential attribute of only an independent nation and manifests itself in the primacy that is accorded to the laws of that sovereign over the competing and conflicting laws that may otherwise be in existence within the territorial boundaries of that sovereign power. When the J&K High Court reiterated the sovereignty of JK in many matters- and consequentially Parliament had no jurisdiction to frame such a law for J&K, since List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India (CoI) does not apply to that State.- The State of J&K legally prohibits transfer of land from a ‘State Subject’ to a ‘non-State Subject’. The High Court held that the State of J&K is sovereign in matters in which it had exclusive legislative competence like property rights of its State Subjects and any Central law that adversely affected such rights, even if for willful default of bank loans, would be unconstitutional. Led by State bank of India (SBI) several banks challenged the High Court’s decision in the apex court. Notices were issued and detailed arguments spanning several days were addressed.. The Supreme Court (Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman) set aside the High Court’s verdict India quickly merged all banks under State bank of India. The moot question, therefore, is not

whether the State of J&K enjoys any vestige of sovereignty, but whether the Union of India enjoys sovereignty over the State of J&K? The landmark judgment of far-reaching consequence, especially with regards to the constitutional relationship of the State of J&K with the Union of India led to a furor in Kashmir valley. Eminent authors, writers, jurists and politicians criticised the judgment (obliquely) and yours truly (in far less oblique terms), as yet another infraction of the State’s “sovereignty” and “erosion” of the Special Status of the State of J&K under Article 370 of the CoI. So heated was this debate on sovereignty that the primordial issue of applicability of the SARFAESI Act to the State of J&K was pushed to the backburner. India quickly merged all state banks with SBI. Undeniably the Constitution of India doesn’t apply to the State of J&K in toto — only 260 of the 395 Articles apply to the State of J&K

As India's most restive region stares down the abyss of what a commentator calls another "hot summer of violence", the doom-laden headline has returned with a vengeance: Is India losing Kashmir?

Last summer was one of the bloodiest in the Muslim-dominated valley in recent years. Following the killing of influential militant Burhan Wani by Indian forces last July, more than 100 civilians lost their lives in clashes during a four-month-long security lockdown in the valley.

It's not looking very promising this summer.

This month's parliamentary election in Srinagar was scarred by violence and a record-low turnout of voters. To add fuel to the fire, graphic social videos surfaced claiming to show abuses by security forces and young people who oppose Indian rule. A full-blown protest by students has now erupted on the streets; and, in a rare sight, even schoolgirls are throwing stones and hitting police vehicles.

Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, who leads an awkward ruling coalition with the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), rushed to Delhi on Monday to urge the federal government to "announce a dialogue and show reconciliatory gestures".

Reports say Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Rajnath Singh told

her that they could not "offer a dialogue with separatists and other restive groups in the valley" while fierce violence and militant attacks continued.

Former chief minister and leader of the regional National Conference party Farooq Abdullah warned India that it was "losing Kashmir". What Abdullah suggested was unexceptionable: the government should begin talking with the stakeholders Pakistan, the separatists, mainstream parties, the minority Kashmiri Hindus - and start "thinking of not a military solution, but a political way".

With more than 500,000 security forces in the region, India is unlikely to lose territory in Kashmir. But Shekhar Gupta, a leading columnist, says that while Kashmir is "territorially secure, we are fast losing it emotionally and psychologically". The abysmal 7% turnout in the Srinagar poll proved that "while your grip on the land is firm, you are losing its people".

So what is new about Kashmir that is worrying India and even provoking senior army officials to admit that the situation is fragile? For one, a more reckless and alienated younger generation of local youth is now leading the anti-India protests. More than 60% of the men in the valley are under 30. Many of them are angry and confused. Five things to know about Kashmir: India and Pakistan have disputed the territory for nearly 70 years - since independence from Britain; Both countries claim the whole territory but control only parts of it; Two out of three wars fought between India and Pakistan centered on Kashmir; Since 1989 there has been an armed revolt in the Muslim-majority region against rule by India; High unemployment and complaints of heavy-handed tactics by security forces battling street protesters and fighting insurgents have aggravated the problem Ajaz, a 19-year-old student in Budgam, told me that hope had evaporated for his generation "in face of Indian oppression" and he and his friends did not "fear death". When I took him aside after a while to ask about his ambitions in life, he said he wanted to become a bureaucrat and serve Kashmir. "It is wrong to say that the Kashmiri youth has become fearless. He just feels alienated, sidelined and humiliated. When he feels like that, fear takes a backseat, and he becomes reckless. This is irrational behaviour," National Conference leader Junaid Azim Mattoo told me.

Secondly, the new younger militants are educated and come from relatively well-off families.

Wani, the militant who was killed last July, headed a prominent rebel group and came from a highly-educated upper-class Kashmiri family: his father is a

government school teacher. Wani's younger brother, Khalid, who was killed by security forces in 2013, was a student of political science. The new commander of the rebel group, Zakir Rashid Bhat, studied engineering in the northern Indian city of Chandigarh. Thirdly, the two-year-old ruling alliance, many say, has been unable to deliver on its promises. An alliance between a regional party which advocates soft separatism (PDP) and a federal Hindu nationalist party (BJP), they believe, makes for the strangest bedfellows, hobbled by two conflicting ideologies trying to work their way together in a contested, conflicted land. Fourthly, the government's message on Kashmir appears to be backfiring.

When PM Modi recently said the youth in Kashmir had to choose between terrorism and tourism, many Kashmiris accused him of trivializing their "protracted struggle". When BJP general secretary Ram Madhav told a newspaper that his government "would have choked" the valley people if it was against them, many locals said it was proof of the government's arrogance.

Fifth, the shrill anti-Muslim rhetoric by radical Hindu groups and incidents of cow protection vigilantes attacking Muslim cattle traders in other parts of India could end up further polarising people in the valley. "The danger," a prominent leader told me, "is that the moderate Kashmiri Muslim is becoming sidelined, and he is being politically radicalized."

The security forces differ and say they are actually worried about rising "religious radicalization" among the youth in the valley. A top army official in Kashmir, Lt-Gen JS Sadhu, told a newspaper that the "public support to terrorists, their glorification and increased radicalization are issues of concern". One army official told me that religious radicalization was a "bigger challenge than stone pelting protesters". He said some 3,000 Saudi-inspired Wahhabi sect mosques had sprung up in Kashmir in the past decade.

Most Kashmiris say the government should be more worried about "political radicalization" of the young, and that fears of religious radicalization were exaggerated and overblown.

Also, the low turnout in this month's elections has rattled the region's mainstream parties. "If mainstream politics is delegitimized and people refuse to vote for them,

the vacuum will be obviously filled up with a disorganized mob-led constituency," Mr Mattoo of the National Conference said.

In his memoirs, Amarjit Singh Daulat, the former chief of India's spy agency RAW wrote that "nothing is constant; least of all Kashmir". But right now, the anomie and anger of the youth, and a worrying people's revolt against Indian rule, appear to be the only constants. Indian Authoritarianism The latest bout of violence began on 9 April when eight people were killed and scores injured after police clashed with protesters during a by-election in the city of Srinagar. Since then, hundreds of students have protested on the streets, chanting anti-India slogans and throwing stones at the security forces. Graphic videos claiming to show abuses on both sides have been shared extensively on social media and have added fuel to the conflict.

Opposition and pro-independence groups have criticised the government's move. "Repeated bans on means of communication in this day and age in the hope of restoring so-called peace and normalcy in the Kashmir Valley is ridiculous," Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, one of the most influential leaders in the Kashmiri separatist movement, said.

Terming the ban "archaic", the main opposition National Conference party accused the government of meting out "collective punishment to the people of Kashmir for expressing their political aspiration and raising voice against gross human rights excesses".

Justifying the internet gag, a government representative said that the move was aimed at restoring normalcy and stopping rumours from spreading further. "The ban is a temporary decision to stop rumours and restore law and order to prevent further loss of life. Also, it is being done to prevent a war of provocative videos from both sides," Waheed Ur Rehman Parra, leader of the ruling party's youth wing, told the BBC.

Indian false polls in Kashmir to claim occupation legitimacy

Eight people died and more than 100 were injured in Indian-administered Kashmir

in a highly contentious by-election over the weekend. Separatist leaders called for voters to boycott the polls and protestors attacked more than 150 polling centres. India attempted to re-run the disrupted ballots. There was massive security in place. But an election without voters is a very sad affair.

On Sunday, protesters had stormed the building, pelting stones. The polling centres were forced to close, hence the ballot today. But back at the polling station, Mohammad didn't think military muscle alone accounted for the lack of interest in the electoral process. Will it get any busier, I asked? He shook his head. "We are ready for voters if they come, but it won't be busy here today," he told me, smiling gently. Then he frowned, clearly unhappy with his fellow Kashmiris' lack of engagement. Mohammad is a teacher by profession. "The right to vote is important," he said after a pause, "it gives us the power to determine our own fate."His words underscore just what an indictment of the mainstream Kashmiri parties the turnout on Sunday was when only 7% of the electorate bothered to vote.

Yes, separatists called for a boycott and yes, there were stone-throwing mobs at some polling stations, but if the electorate had been persuaded that politicians could deliver a brighter future, more would surely have made the effort to vote. That was certainly the view of the group of young men I got talking to outside another of the polling centres that had been attacked. When I asked how many of them had been part of the stone-throwing mob, they shuffled nervously. Then 13, 14, 15 hands went up: half the group. The justification was all too familiar - "azadi" or freedom.

Kashmiris have long dreamt of creating an independent nation up here in the bright green valleys of the Himalayas. It's an ambition India has no intention of allowing. In the 80s and 90s, a few thousand militants were at the vanguard of the independence struggle. There are far fewer now - perhaps 250 or so - but opposition to Indian rule appears to be becoming more widespread.

It is the reason the young men give for trying to disrupt the polls. "All politicians are the same and none of them will bring freedom, so why vote?" asked one. But what is the alternative?

The answer these young men gave doesn't augur well for Kashmir - or for India. They said they wanted to fight. "When you suffer atrocity after atrocity you lose all fear. We aren't scared of anything now," claimed Aijaz Amin, his long eyebrows fluttering nervously. He said he had never been involved in violence but he used an

ominous Urdu phrase. The direct translation is, "We have shrouds over our heads." It means they will do anything to get what we want, and it implies a fight to the death.

Once again, no votes had been cast but, with a sickening inevitability, hundreds of young men came out to throw stones at the security forces. The battle that followed had a ritual quality. These riots are repeated virtually every week here in Kashmir. Just 709 people had voted, a 2% turnout. Indian forces, backed by extra powers to deal with Kashmiri Muslims the way they want, continue to call all shots in occupied Kashmir. Kashmiris have lost independence, freedom, peace, life. India military decides the fate of Kashmiris.

India has murdered over 1000,000 Muslims in Kashmir for seeking freedom and sovereignty from Indian military yoke for decades. India is also misusing the Kashmiri parties like PDP and NC that rule alternatively Jammu Kashmir (JK) with Congress or BJP, alternatively.

The Jammu and Kashmir police have furnished evidence to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) charging the Indian Army of wrongful confinement, and for endangering the life of 26-year-old Farooq Ahmad Dar, by tying him to the bonnet of an army jeep and parading him on the roads on 9 April. The police report, filed before the SHRC, has come in response to notices that were served to the state government by the commission after a petition was filed by a human rights activist seeking action in a series of videos that have surfaced about excesses being committed by armed forces on the youth.

The petition was filed by the chairman of the International Forum for Justice and Human Rights (IFJHR), Mohammad Ahsan Untoo. The commission has also sought reports in other videos which have surfaced, including a one in which paramilitary force personnel shoot dead a youth while he was pelting stones at a polling station, as well as one that shows a youngster being thrashed by the armed forces.

As per the report submitted by the police before the commission, statements of the witnesses have been recorded. A senior police official said that witnesses have testified against the army, that they saw the youth being tied to the army vehicle. "The youth, after attending the condolence meeting, reached the Utligam crossing point where from he was lifted by the army during stone pelting, and was tied to the bonnet of the vehicle as a human shield. He was kept under wrongful confinement and was paraded on the roads before he was released," noted the police report.

Dar, who is now undergoing treatment at the SMHS hospital in Srinagar, said that after he attended the condolence meeting of one of his relatives on polling day, he was forcibly tied to an army vehicle and was detained at the camp before being released.

His medical treatment notes that it was a case of "definitive diagnosis of acute stress disorder". A disheveled looking Dar said, "I still feel like I'm being tied to the jeep. I am under treatment, but I feel depressed after being tied to the jeep all day and all night."

The police report mentioned that Dar was tied to a Rakshak army vehicle with ropes, followed by a Casper, and was kept in wrongful confinement. A case has been registered against the Indian Army under sections 342, 367 and 506 of the RPC. The police have also furnished evidence of seven witnesses in the case who have stated that they saw Dar being tied to the army vehicle.

Untoo said the SHRC has directed the medical examination of the victim be carried out, and the report be put up before it. "I visited the family of the Beerwah youth who was shot dead by paramilitary personnel, and collected evidence to file a petition before the SHRC. I have sought action against the forces who are involved in the case and have been identified in other videos as well, including one in which a youth was ruthlessly beaten up," he said.

He added that Dar was tied to the army vehicle and paraded through 28 villages and the innvolvment of the army unit has been established. However, he added that if the army unit was identified, "the arrest should have been made immediately". "The victim has been made a human shield and there is every apprehension that harm may be caused to him, so that the case is not pursued. Besides ensuring his protection, it should be the responsibility of the government to compensate him," he said.

As per the police report, they have written to the army to identify the personnel involved in the incident. "During investigation, correspondence has been made with army for identification of involved army party and vehicles," read the report submitted by senior superintendent of police, Budgam, to the SHRC. The SHRC has noted that incident of the youth being used as human shield against the stone pelters is a gross violation of human rights and the person "would have suffered mental, psychological and physical humiliations'' and must be in a state of shock.

Chapter-14:

Kashmir unrest: Youth struggle to provide alternate narrative, authorities try to run them aground! -Dr. Abdul Ruff

_____

Even as Congress-BJP play the joint Hindu politics, Indian military, forcefully occupying neighboring Jammu Kashmir, also employs all inhuman techniques to terrorize the Kashmiri Muslims .

On 14 April, a bystander shot an unusual video clip, which showed a young man, a 24-year-old shawl weaver named Farooq Ahmad Dar, tied to the bonnet of an army jeep as it led a convoy through a poll-bound Chewa hamlet in Budgam in central Kashmir. The man was used as a human shield by soldiers against the stonethrowing protesters as a voice speaking in Hindi can be heard saying, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Stone throwers will meet the same fate.â&#x20AC;? Within minutes, the video was shared on social media and as soon as the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah shared it on his Twitter handle, it became the talk of the town. Omar pushed the video from social media to national and international media, which portrayed the event differently.

Another video that travelled from social media to the mainstream Indian media was the one that showed a couple of angry boys hitting troops returning from polling stations on 9 April, while the crowd was escorting them out of the polling station. The TV channels carefully edited the video to leave out that part where some of the boys were trying to shield the troops from those who were trying to hit them. In the video, the boys can be easily seen shielding the troops and hurl abuses against the assailants but even if the mainstream media had known it, they did not translate it thereby distorting facts and misinforming people.

The other videos which could not make it to the mainstream media, included that of the death of a stone pelting boy in Ratsuna village of Beerwah in Budgam when a CRPF trooper opened fire on him from a close range. The video was apparently shot by a poll officer. In another case, a mob escorted entire polling and security forces to safety amid anti-India sloganeering.

A glut of videos depicted alleged police excesses and the sparked outrage surfaced after government restored the internet services in Kashmir, which were snapped “to ensure the smooth conduct of by-polls,” as government believed that it would restrict youth from mobilising and supporting stone pelting and that it would prevent spread of rumours. The ban on internet failed to render desired results as the elections ended on a bloody note wherein eight civilians lost their lives and more than 150 were wounded after security forces opened fire on the protesters. Voter turnout was the lowest in the last 27 years. A re-poll was held on 13 April, but only 2 percent of voters showed up for that too.

Disgruntled by the selective portrayal of news events, the youth of Kashmir have taken things into their own hands and are using alternate mediums like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social networking sites to show the ground situation. They consider mainstream media especially the Indian television channels “a mere propaganda tool.” The people in Kashmir have used their cell phones as a weapon against everything they despise: police excesses, routine stop and search operations and anti-militancy operations. Any cell phone can capture the misconduct of the security forces, thereby embarrassing an already embattled government. The social media in Kashmir is evolving as a space for dissenting opinions and people are using it to publicise their dissent and garner support from around the world. The netizens are almost running a parallel discourse and despite the multi-pronged crackdown the alternate media seem to be threatening the foundations of the mainstream media.

Mohammad Rafi, online media manager of one of the Kashmir based e-magazines said the new media was filling the gaps created by the formal media. “It has really decentralized the whole information flow. The ordinary citizens produce news themselves thus keeping all the regulations at bay. The protestors, savvy with social media, communicate among local participants as well as stimulate an international response. But I don’t think alternate mediums have been able to run a parallel narrative in Kashmir”, he said, “I think government’s decision to ban social media is based on the international events particularly Arab spring and the role played by the alternate media in different uprisings”.

On 27 April the government banned nearly 22 social networking sites and applications including WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter in Kashmir as it believes these are being ‘misused’ by the antinational and anti-social elements for transmitting inflammatory messages. The ban suggests that the media discourse has now decisively moved to the social media.

But the government’s move has drawn criticism from different quarters.

“It is a blow to the freedom of expression and (it) not only violates the Indian Constitution but international laws. There is no solid study, which says social media foments trouble in Kashmir. The restrictions are not reasonable. Even if one buys the argument of the government that, a video which shows police excesses creates trouble, authorities cannot punish the entire population for the acts of a handful of ‘miscreants’. We already have enough laws that can be used to push the accused. The ban appears to muzzle dissenting voices which will disfigure the image of world’s largest democracy,” said Rafi.

As per media reports, Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed 30 instances of internet shutdowns, with ten instances in 2016. These figures are higher in Kashmir than in any other state of India. The longest period of mobile internet blackout happened after the killing of popular militant commander Burhan Wani on 8 July, 2016. The ban continued for quite a few months and postpaid mobile services were restored only in mid-November while prepaid services were restored on 30 January this year.

A Srinagar-based journalist, who wished to be not named, said that during the 2016 uprising every newspaper was sent a diktat not to carry photographs of pellet victims and protests. “Mainstream media is bound to follow certain government policies, but alternate media is ubiquitous and free. People here are using social media to record the daily happenings and broadcast it. There are no editorial policies and no hidden agendas. They simply share the happenings. This alternative discourse is puncturing the propaganda of most of the Indian TV channels,” he said.

As per the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Jammu and Kashmir has the highest internet penetration with 35-lakh internet subscribers and it has the distinction of having more internet subscribers in rural areas, which is the hotbed of militancy related activities. Against the 17.2-lakh internet subscribers in urban areas, there are 18.1 lakh such subscribers living in rural areas.

When Burhan Wani, who is believed to have opened a new chapter in Kashmir’s militancy, joined the Hizbul Mujahideen in 2013, internet penetration was just 5-6 percent, which has now risen to nearly 27 percent. This multi-fold increase has directly helped the militants as the majority of the youth in Kashmir share the same sentiment.

With a huge base of 980,805,242 mobile users, the internet is changing the dynamics of information flow and with cheaper data plans, every youth is a potential citizen journalist. Soon after the internet service was restored, youth bought Reliance Jio sim cards, which provided them with free internet services.

Equipped with the free high-speed internet, they began to live-stream the protest. The youths are risking their lives to make people aware about the ground situation in Kashmir.

On 12 February, at Frisal in south Kashmir, a bullet hit a protestor while he was live-streaming the stone-throwing incident at the site of a gun-battle. This was for the first time, stone-pelters were live-streaming the stone-throwing incident aimed at helping the militants to escape the security forces.

On 28 March, in central Kashmir’s Chadoora, 14 kilometers away from Srinagar, hundreds of youth came out to clash with the security forces to help a militant trapped in a house. Zahid Rashid Ganai, 22, tried to live stream the video of the clashes near gun battle on his Facebook profile. He was hit by a bullet in his neck and died en-route from home to hospital. When his body was being brought home in an ambulance, police officers stopped the vehicle near Lal Chowk in Srinagar and did not let it go further. One of the boys attending to the body recorded the whole episode and uploaded it on his Facebook. The video went viral within hours, evoking sharp criticism against the police action. Along with Ganai, two other boys were killed in police action near the encounter spot in Chadoora. The clashes between the youth and security forces continued for days after that encounter.

Just hundred meters away from the encounter site, Shah Adil, a 24-year techie was live streaming the whole gun-battle as he felt the mainstream media was not showing the right picture and was biased. “When media misrepresents the situation, we have to take things in our hand,” he said adding that Kashmiris do not need the TV channels who twist facts for the sake of the TRPs. “Look at their prime time debates they are so untrue that one feels like slamming the TV. If they show facts, people will not risk their lives. We risk lives for the truth. It’s also a kind of Jihad for us”, he said.

He argued that by going live, people deflated the security forces’ excuses of stray bullets causing civilian casualties. “Every time a civilian is killed they would be-fool the world by saying a stray bullet has hit him. However, people now are exposing everything themselves. It has an impact as well. The police changed their statement regarding the killing of a civilian at Chadoora. First, they said a stray bullet hit him. But after a video showing police directly shooting a protector came forth, they changed their story,” Shah said.

On 1 April, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, claimed on the floor of the Lok Sabha that a new trend has emerged in Kashmir wherein social media was being used by groups based in Pakistan to provoke protest activities. “I will appeal to the

youth not to be misguided by Pakistan. Some social media applications like Facebook are used to gather youth at the places of encounters. Those are based in Pakistan,” he said.

Police have also felt that social media was being used by the militant groups to influence youths and considered the rampant uploading of violent videos to be “threat to peace” regardless of the content the video was showing. A police officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the militant groups send audio messages to instigate youth to reach encounter sites and have posted fake videos on Facebook showing security forces committing atrocities on people. “During the Chadoora encounter, we intercepted hundreds of messages which originated in the neighbouring country. The message would ask people to help the militants flee as they are their brother and are fighting to liberate them. With these social networking sites, the militants are in touch with their Over Ground Workers, who motivate youth into violence and ultimately into militancy,” he said.

During a press conference on 30 March, the Director of Police, Shesh Paul Vaid said that enemies of India across the border use social networking sites to foment trouble in Kashmir. Speaking to reporters in Srinagar, the DGP said that some elements misuse social media to disturb peace in the Valley. “I would say this is a misuse of social media by people inimical to peace in the Valley and to our country. The moment an encounter starts, they activate around 300 WhatsApp groups, each having more than 250 members, and other social networking websites like Facebook get activated, instigating young boys to reach the encounter site and throw stones so that the terrorists escape from the spot”, he said. “Some of these accounts have been traced across (the border). It is an attempt by the enemies of India to create problems. All these numbers are being monitored and we will take action against those operating them from here”, he said. “Forces and police take the cover of a bulletproof vehicle or a house. Youths coming to the encounter sites are committing suicide,” he added.

__________

Chapter-15: Indian strategy to defame freedom struggle in Kashmir! (A Sovereign Kashmir: Random Thoughts-304) Dr. Abdul Ruff

_____

Of course colonial powers follow similar patterns of repressive techniques and India is no different from UK and Zionist Israel. All these are nuclear powers with huge arsenals of terror goods in their depots. Interestingly, UN has no serious objections. The months’ long non-stop demonstrations in Kashmir as part of Kashmir freedom struggle to secure sovereignty from a military India has obviously annoyed New Delhi and Indian PM abroad could not enjoy his free foreign trips along with corporate media lords and India's pampered multinationals as he has to present a sorry face in front of foreign dignitaries unable hide the shame of telling lies to the world that "everything is normal" in Kashmir. So, New Delhi has extended to Kashmir the “raids" in India mainland to track blackgrey money as well as anti-corruption operations. The federal government's National Investigation Agency (NIA) has "claimed" to have seized currency of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), besides “other "incriminating material” in raids at six locations in Jammu and Kashmir and at one location in Gurgaon on June 05. The NIA team which is in Srinagar to investigate charges of illegal funding to pro-freedom groups raided seven more locations in J&K and Gurgaon. “In continuation of yesterday’s searches at multiple locations in Kashmir, Delhi and Haryana, the NIA took up fresh searches today at seven more locations belonging to secessionist and separatist elements and traders suspected of Hawala activities and terror funding in JK. Searches were conducted in Srinagar, Jammu and Gurgaon,” the NIA spokesman said. He said that during the searches, “Pakistani currency (a few thousand) and currencies belonging to the UAE and Saudi Arabia have been found and seized, apart from other “incriminating material including correspondence with jailed troublemakers, suspicious transactions and mobile phones. in Jammu the NIA team raided businessman Kamal Agarwal’s house and warehouse in Jammu city. Agarwal is the proprietor of GM Trading Corporation and deals in spices and dry-fruits. In Kashmir, the NIA raided the residence of Hurriyat (G) spokesperson Ayaz Akbar at Maloora. The NIA also raided the Srinagar office of the Syed Ali Geelani-led Tehreek-i-Hurriyat. The house of a trader, Farooq Ahmad Boga, in Parimpora area of Srinagar was raided by the NIA team. Farooq has a shop at the Parimpora fruit mandi. The NIA had raided the houses of many pro-freedom activists and businessmen, including Nayeem Khan, Farooq Dar, Altaf Shah alias Altaf Fantosh, Raja Mairaj, Zafar Akbar, Zahoor Watali, Shahid ul Islam, Noor Kalwal, Raja Zahoor Khan, Muhammad Sultan Tangnuu, Nazir Ahmad Mir alias Nazir Gas, Farooq Ahmad Wani, Muhammad Sultan Chandu, Dr Bashir Ahmad Bhat Tariq Ahmad Khan, ex-President of the LOC Traders Association and Kamal@ Bittu of Jammu. During Saturday’s raids at 22 locations in Srinagar, Delhi and Haryana, cash of over Rs 1.15 crore.

Foreign currencies are available in every nation, including India where people trade in them. If NIA takes some pains to raid every locality in India it would find huge sums that would possibly outsmart the amount of Indian black money kept in foreign countries which the Modi government is supposed to bring back to India and distribute to every citizen. The BJP government has cheated the people and betrayed the voters as it has not done anything of that sort. Only PM Modi and big airbus team keep visiting foreign countries incurring huge expenditure money for India. People of India pay for all that! The leaders of Kashmir freedom movement have criticized the raids as a ploy to defame their long struggle for sovereignty from Indian military arrogance and Indian constitution. The Joint resistance leadership on Sunday said the policy of witch-hunt launched by Indian state against resistance leadership and businessmen of the Valley is meant to defame and weaken the people’s political struggle and crush Kashmir’s economy. In a statement, senior freedom leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Mohammad Yasin Malik, said these dirty ploys would neither demoralise the people from their faith in their political struggle and their leadership nor will it help shift focus from the actual issue on the ground and the unprecedented atrocities committed against Kashmiri people. “What such baseness exposes is the antiKashmir and anti-Muslim mindset of the ruling class both in India and in Kashmir, who are seeking revenge from people both at a political and economic level,” they said. Meanwhile, the joint resistance leadership and business community would discuss the situation against the backdrop of NIA raids during a meeting today at Geelani’s residence-cum-office. Later, the leadership would address a presser. India does everything possible in Kashmir to crush the freedom of Kashmiris and their movement for sovereignty. Earlier, authorities in Indian controlled Kashmir announced a one-month ban on 22 social media services, including Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp. The state government claimed the services were being misused by "anti-government elements" to incite violence to withstand and oppose the occupational crimes. It said "objectionable content" was being distributed to "spread disaffection" with the authorities. The JK state government order said social media networking sites were being used by "anti-national and subversive elements" to harm peace in the state. The reports on life without social media in the valley are simply annoying to any human who knows the value of internet. Srinagar-based photojournalist Javed Dar says that the ban on social media has left him "disconnected from people" and has also hampered his work. Dar says he had to invite friends and colleagues to a book

release event, but didn't have contact numbers for all. "Normally, I would have invited many through Facebook and Twitter. The ban on social media has made this impossible," he said. The internet is often suspended or restricted in Kashmir to quell civilian protests and anti-India demonstrations, which sometimes turn violent. According to a report by the Software Freedom Law Centre, the internet has been blocked in Kashmir at least 31 times between 2012 and 2016. However, this is for the first time that the authorities have placed a complete ban on social networking sites. 'Subversive elements'

Other social media services, communications tools and websites banned under the order include YouTube, Skype, Telegram, Snapchat and Reddit. Also, the faster 3G and 4G mobile phone services have been slower and erratic for more than a week. Dr Qazi Haroon, a government doctor, says many health awareness campaigns which his department was running on social media have taken a hit. "Now we have no other medium to promote awareness programmes related to immunization, mother and child care, neonatal care," he told the BBC. Advocacy groups like India's Centre for Internet and Society have described the ban a "blow to freedom of speech" and "legally unprecedented in India". And the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has asked India to revoke the ban. "The sweeping censorship of social media under the pretext of 'maintaining peace and order' will bring neither peace nor order," media reports quoting Steven Butler of CPJ said. Obviously, India just follows the policy of its former colonial masters from Britain ruling India for centuries in order to crush freedom movement. The NIA raids are a part of that objective. Not only UK sympathies with Indian crimes in Kashmir, it also guides all Indian terror operations in Kashmir. Meanwhile, as we read this, Indian authorities have placed Hurriyat Conference (M) chairman, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq under house arrest, sources said. Mirwaiz was to attend the joint resistance meeting at Hurriyat (G) chairman Syed Ali Geelaniâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residence later in the day. The resistance leaders were scheduled to address a press conference after the meeting. â&#x20AC;&#x153;But the anti Kashmiri state resorted to its usual tactic of curbing the leadership through force,â&#x20AC;? a Hurriyat (M) spokesman said in a statement. How long can India continue to curb freedoms to citizens of Kashmir and arrest the Kashmiri Muslims, denying their right to live with dignity as free citizens as Americans and others in Europe do?

Don’t Kashmiri Muslims Deserve? to live in peace and lead a life much better on their own without any instructions from New Delhi or Indian military bosses?

Chapter-16: Israel treats Palestinians as slaves or prisoners! -Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

US President Donald Trump's Middle East tour generated a lot of enthusiasm, cynicism as well. in the global media about the prospects for peace and justice in the region in terms of resolving the worst, explosive regional crisis and human disaster in Palestine, occupied by Israel that keeps killing Palestinians possibly to take revenge on Europeans for their holocaust of Jews. Trump’s first stop was in Saudi Arabia, where he signed a weapons deal worth $109.7 billion, the largest in history. This princely sum is expected to mushroom to $380 billion within 10 years.

By resetting America's relations with key regional players, Trump has done what seemed unthinkable even a few months ago, promoting a message of openness, tolerance and respect of Islam and the Muslim world. Gone is the Islamophobic election rhetoric, replaced by a more sober and responsible approach. After Saudi Arabia, Trump skipped other Arab states and quickly went to Israel. The public statements by both the US President and the Israeli PM indicating that the president’s “strong position on Iran” whether advances the prospects for peace in the region or not, it cements the Israeli-US terror links against Palestine and Arab world and Iran.

Donald Trump's visited Israel and the West Bank May 22-23, and that generated a lot of the euphoria globally as world expected him to remove the obstacles for peace talks and find a credible solution to end occupation of Palestine by Israel. Before going to Palestine, Israel first went to Israel and met Its hawkish PM Netanyahu and got instructions from him as to how to deal with Palestine. Netanyahu showed some video clips, maybe manufactured in Washington, to show the Abbas is not for peace and he is an inciter. Netanyahu told trump that well dressed Israeli leaders are innocent and hammerless. Unlike Indian leaders, Jewish leaders don’t even look innocent or harmless. Terrorism and fanaticism are their language and religion. Zionist leaders are liars.

Trump in Palestine with Zionist script Trump arrived in Bethlehem already charged up after a meeting with ultra fanatic Israeli PM Netanyahu, who had presented material to Trump allegedly proving that the Palestinian Authority (PA) continued to be involved in incitement against Israel and also continues to pay large sums of money to Palestinians, including terrorists, imprisoned in Israel.

The Palestinians claimed that the clip shown to the president by the Israelis had been edited and taken out of context. The next day, the Palestinians sent the Americans the entire video of Abbas’ speech. According to this version of events, the unedited video proved, from the Palestinians' perspective that Abbas did not touch on incitement or say that he is an inciter. According to the Palestinians, Abbas’ words were taken out of context through biased editing of the film. At this point, senior Fatah official Saeb Erekat intervened and told Trump that Netanyahu is the provocateur that the prime minister never stops inciting against Abbas in order to torpedo any chances for advancing negotiations.

The forty day hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners, spearheaded by Marwan Barghouti was in the background as the meeting between Trump and Abbas took place. On May 27th, the hunger strike has finally been suspended following talks involving the International Committee for the Red Cross and the Palestinian Authority concluding in a deal with Israel. The more than 1000 prisoners were attempting to raise concerns about the poor treatment of prisoners in Israeli jails. These included the practices of administrative detention allowing detentions on ‘secret evidence’, excessive use of solitary confinement, and the severe restriction of family visits. The prisoners’ strike is an important step in history of the prisoners’ movement towards full respect of the rights of Palestinian prisoners under international law. It is also an indication of the reality of the Israeli occupation, which has left no option to Palestinian prisoners but to starve themselves to achieve basic rights they are entitled to under international law. Trumps arrival with Israeli script caused uneasiness in Palestine. Bethlehem was not the only place where tensions rose. It has now emerged that harsh words were also uttered in the conversation between Netanyahu and Trump. Evidently the American president continued to subject the prime minister to steamroller pressure on the concessions that Israel will have to make and the need to quickly renew negotiations with the Palestinians. Netanyahu, when he appeared before the Likud faction in the Knesset on May 29 after Trump left, hinted at this. He told the Likud members, many of whom oppose negotiations, that Israel does not have a “blank check” with Trump in the diplomatic realm. One is not sure if now Israel also needs to pay huge sums for US help and support for promoting Zionist brutal expansionism and crimes against humanity in Palestine. Generally USA does all free of cost and even misuse sits UN veto to shield

all Zionist crimes in Palestine. Not only that. USA supplies terror goods to Israel on a regular basis, besides huge annual aid.

A section of media reported that the conversation between Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that took place in Bethlehem was harsh. The president even burst out shouting at the “prisoner with Palestinian leader- an international passport- claiming that Abbas had “deceived” him with statements about his commitment to peace at an earlier meeting between the two men in the White House. Netanyahu helped Trump to remember that incident. . So childish and silly!

Anti-Arab US media Trump deviated from its anti-Muslim rhetoric as he landed Saudi Arabia and later he spoke of friendly bonds between Arabs and Americans. Then he went to Israel to get charged with Zionist hate stuff before going to Palestine.

Trump has, indeed, fully embraced a ‘Zionist narrative’, and a rightwing version of it, for example, he made no reference to a Palestinian state. He said he would never forget Jews occupying Palestine. America does not find the hypocrisy of the whole endeavor. Trump’s speech at the Israeli Museum was so friendly and considerate of Israeli emotions,” reported the New Your Times, “that one right-wing Israeli legislator described it as deeply expressive of the ‘Zionist narrative.’ Former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, trying to decipher the supposedly complicated persona of Trump said: “Either Trump’s visit was substance-free — or he ‘is being uncharacteristically subtle’ in planting the seeds for new round of peace negotiations.” The so-called ‘Liberal’ US media, which has stooped to many lows in its attacks on Trump – including his family, his mannerism, his choice of words, even mere body language – became much more sober and quite respectful in the way they attempted to analyze his short trip to Israel, and the very brief detour to Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas. From an American mainstream media perspective, to be judged “presidential” enough, all US presidents would have to commit to three main policies. They are, in no particular order: privileging the economic business elites, war at will and unconditionally supporting Israel. They have now rallied behind him on two separate occasions: when he randomly bombed Syria to

showcase US military prowess and during his visit to Israel to promote Zionist criminal regime in West Asia to counter Arab nations.

As if he has, overnight, been transformed into a master politician, Donald Trump’s 27-hour trip to Israel has left many US-Zionist analysts mystified. The New York Times referred to Trump as the ‘Liberace of world leaders”. Apparently, Trump was expected to make his first ever foreign trip to Israel but he just included Saudi Arabia and Palestine. Trump has promised to make a historic deal possible. He will soon be tested and we will see if the US can finally assume a high moral ground and facilitate an honorable deal that ends the occupation and gives Palestinians their freedom, or will it bend under Israeli pressure and claim indifference, thereby leaving the root cause of extremism and instability in this region to fester? On the day Trump, along with rightwing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, lectured Palestinians on peace, a 17-year-old Tuqua Hammad was shot for allegedly throwing stones at Israeli military vehicles at the entrance of her village of Silwad, near Ramallah. Tuqua “was shot in the lower extremities and Israeli troops prevented a Palestinian ambulance from accessing the victim to treat her. Merely a few miles away, Trump was writing his remarks after visiting Israel’s Holocaust Museum. Regrettably, he failed to meet the expectations of the humanity against whom Zionism commits crimes. The irony of the whole story is inescapable; but American media seems to follow a script, in which Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom are hardly ever mentioned.

Palestinian emotions, however, were of no consequence, neither to the Trump entourage, nor, of course, to the New York Times or others in mainstream media. US media, as a part of their understanding of democracy, still glorify the Israeli Occupation and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians.

Can Trump really mean what he says?

Chapter-17: Trump must put together the Palestine pieces to make peace Indeed, wherever occupied Palestinians look, they find “man’s potential for great evil”: a 400mile Israeli Wall being mostly built over their land; hundreds of military checkpoints dotting

their landscape; a suffocating military occupation, controlling every aspect of their lives. They see the holiest of their cities, Bethlehem and Al-Quds – Occupied East Jerusalem – subdued by a massive military force; thousands of their leaders thrown into prison, many without charge or trial. They see siege; an endless war; daily deaths and senseless destruction. But since none of this matters to the ‘Zionist narrative’, it subsequently matters so very little to mainstream American media, as well. Jews were allowed and guided by USA, UK and allies to create Israel in Palestine by forcefully removing or killing the Palestinians after the WWII and during the peak of Cold war. Since then Jews strengthened Israel with help from USA and allies and weakened Palestine, confiscating their lands and killing the people in a sustained manner. Palestinians are now reduced to prisoner and slaves. According to official Israeli security data, between 750,000 and 800,000 Palestinians have been arrested and imprisoned by Israel since 1967, when Israel seized and occupied Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This is an incredible number, equivalent to a third of the population of Israel. “You don’t understand,” a high-placed Palestinian said: around a third of our people are familiar with the inside of your prisons. Almost a million human beings have rubbed shoulders with Israeli prison guards over the last 50 years. There is hardly a Palestinian household without a shahid (who sacrifices his life for the cause of Palestine or prisoner). This is engrained deeply in our genes. No leader has been born that can change this fact.” The Palestinian people see these prisoners as those who sacrificed and took part in the war against the occupation. In order to restart negotiations in a way that has any chance of making progress, Trump’s people will have to square the circle. They will have to mediate between two nations that speak different languages and hold completely different value systems, and more importantly, having different statuses- Israel the brutal occupier and Palestinians the occupied sufferers. Israel has strong military equipment, US terror goods, and nukes gifted by USA to threaten and attack Palestinians but Palestine has almost nothing.

The Palestinians incarcerated in Israel are viewed by the Israeli majority as despicable murderers who did not hesitate to slaughter innocent women and children. Nowadays, Israeli military targets youth and children just like India is doing in occupied Kashmir. The Palestinians, by contrast, view them as freedom fighters and assign them an almost holy status. What is needed to somehow resolve this complex situation is a “responsible adult,” someone who will seize the authority to tell the two sides something along these lines: Fate has brought the Palestinian nation and the Israeli nation to the same plot of land. The Palestinians will not change, and evidently the Israelis won’t either. All the useless arguments must be pushed aside and focus must be placed on the core issue — courageous negotiations must be held on the core issues (borders, Jerusalem, refugees). The prisoner problem should only be addressed

afterward. Any other mode of action will only perpetuate the bloody conflict that embitters everyone’s lives.

Is Trump the responsible adult who can conduct the mission? Many people might find the label “responsible adult” somewhat amusing when applied to Trump. With regard to everything connected to the negotiations, however, the president has so far revealed acute understanding, vision and execution. His problem is that the sides themselves don’t really want to enter the negotiating room, despite statements to the contrary. Netanyahu is deathly afraid of negotiations, and Abbas knows that he will be obliged to make decisions that no Palestinian leader has made before him. It is doubtful that Trump could pull it off.

Arab rulers must invest in education and infrastructure, to instill democratic values and empower women, to listen to the youth and provide them with hope. But unless the common cause of the people of this region is settled justly, the Palestinian issue will continue to be the great interrupter. Observation For Trump, his maiden foreign trip was a resounding success. He has secured billions of dollars in deals for America's economy, fulfilling a key election promise to create jobs at home, and in return he has assured America's Arab allies that the USA is reclaiming its traditional role in this part of the world, both as defender and key partner. Trump, who has a Jewish son in law at home, cannot do that if he also seeks the Zionist counsel on his foreign policy. Why does the superpower want Zionist advices on what he must or must not do. Trump visited Israel much earlier in his office than Obama and other presidents. The often-impulsive Trump this time stuck to the script – his own and Zionist- and followed his repeatedly rehearsed speech and media comments to the letter. Ironically, Trump has been often judged for lacking substance on numerous occasions in the past. There is no clear message from Trump about his Mideast trip.

Former US president Barack Obama promised to open a new chapter with the Arab and Muslim worlds in his famous Cairo speech in 2009. But he was unable to deliver. A good starting point would have been to address the historic injustice that has befallen the Palestinian people for almost a century. Obama tried and failed.

That the USA, calling itself a great democracy, calls the Palestinians victims as terrorists and Israeli criminal Jews as victims is a slap on US modernism and globalism.

The trillion dollar question is if unpredictable Trump can deliver on his promise of Mideast peace. Trump must be interested in a Nobel Peace Prize that had gone to his predecessor very easily and quickly.

Americans have made Israel a spoiled terror child that exploits the weakness of USA and other nations. Can Trump really make Israel behave like a normal nation by shedding its criminal mindset? Obama in his last part of White House enjoyment tried to reign in Zionist criminal regime but failed many because he was not sincere enough. He refused to cut the aid and regular supply of terror goods to Israel. Can President Trump do that so that Israel becomes a normal state and understands the problems of the besieged Palestinians as occupied nation? -----------

Chapter-18: Denuclearization of West Asia: Dangerous Israel’s nukes should be dismantled! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _______

Israel has become its worst enemy by playing double standards in the political landscape, particularly with respect to its nuclear weapons. And by siding with terrorist regimes in the Middle East, the Trump administration has actually taken “sides in the Middle East.” Israel has become its worst enemy by playing double standards in the political landscape, particularly with respect to its nuclear weapons. And by siding with terrorist regimes in the Middle East, the Trump administration has actually taken “sides in the Middle East.” Pillar wrote back in 2014: “That the United States is so out of step on this subject with the rest of the world is taken by the rest of the world as one more example of double standards that the United States applies to shield Israel. “Even further, it is taken as not just a double standard but living a lie. Whatever the United States says about nuclear weapons will always be taken with a grain of salt or with some measure of disdain as long as the United States says nothing about kumquats (one of Israel’s nuclear programs). “We have the spectacle of the government of Israel being by far the most energetic rabblerouser on the subject of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, to the extent of repeatedly threatening to attack Iran militarily. “Some might call this irony; others would

call it chutzpah. Anyone would be entitled to say that any state that not only refuses to become a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or to subject any of its nuclear activities to any kind of international inspection or control but also already possesses kumquats or their equivalents has no standing to conduct such agitation about Iran, which is a party to the NPT, has already subjected its nuclear activities to an unprecedented degree of intrusive inspection, and is in the process of negotiating an agreement to place even further limits on its nuclear program to ensure it stays peaceful.” Obviously this is contrary to what Immanuel Kant would have called practical reason. Israeli officials have boxed themselves into a corner by trying to force a foreign policy on Iran while they are not willing to apply the same policy in Israel. Iran signed the NonProliferation Treaty, but Israel didn’t; Iran allows inspections, Israel does not allow any inspections whatsoever. Israel does not even want to discuss the issue. On the other side of the spectrum, both the Neoconservative machine and AIPAC have been handcuffing U.S. officials to either stop Iran from acquiring nuclear energy or face another war in the Middle East At the same time, more than five million decent Americans have been out of jobs, learning in the spring of 2012 that the government is going to cut unemployment funding. Moreover, programs at major universities such as the University of California will have to be cut because of a lack of funding. In 2011, state education officials asked the financial manager of the Detroit Public School district to shut down half their schools. Meanwhile tuition keeps increasing, and class sizes keep doubling at major universities. New York officials also plan to shut down three charter high schools that have had a long history of financial and management problems. On top of that, young people with college degrees are finding it hard to get a decent job. It seems then that useless and detrimental wars in the Middle East are more important than the average American being unable to find a job. By May 2012, the U.S. told Israel that they were ready to strike Iran if it failed to drop its nuclear program. While the IAEA was making progress toward serious dialogue with Iran, Israel and the Zionist machine kept saying that Iran was deceiving the West, despite the fact that both U.S. intelligence and Israeli communities agree that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA then succumbed to ideology. Even though they knew that Iran did not have weapons of mass destruction, they still believed in November 2012 that Iran could have other weapons somewhere! In other words, the weapons had to exist. Sure enough, by the middle of the month, the IAEA “found” what they were looking for: a nuclear fuel which they believed could be converted to nuclear weapons. David Sanger of the New York Times was quick to title one of his articles “Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Complex Reaches Capacity.” In other words, we are back to the same old propaganda machine that led us to Iraq. According to Zionist propaganda, which is Talmudic in its political orientation, Israel’s existential threat was Iraq, but now it is Iran. In the process, many rabbis are praying that this new mortal foe against the Jewish people will soon pass as well.

For his part, Netanyahu blames Western powers for even trying to come up with a reasonable proposal with Iran. Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon said something similar, declaring that Iran is playing games with the West while it is building its bomb. Not only that, contrary to evidence (and inciting panic), the Institute for Science and International Security put out a report in the midst of the talks with Iran saying that Iran has enough enriched uranium to build five bombs! During the talks, Iranian officials meticulously crafted their argument on the NonProliferation Treaty, a treaty that has been acknowledged by all Western powers.[20] The Treaty acknowledges “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran also made it clear that its nuclear program will not exceed the 20 percent benchmark, which is right in line with the Treaty itself. Yet the Zionist regime both in Israel and America continued to claim that Iran was being unreasonable. This is no surprise at all, for Iran has tried this in 2004 and in 2005, demonstrating that it was ready to compromise its nuclear program and even convert all its nuclear energy to fuel rods if the U.S. would support it. Under such a program, the IAEA would be free to check any undeclared facilities. Some officials in England were even willing to admit that Iran was reaching out to the West. Peter Jenkins, British representative to the IAEA and member of the British delegation to Paris, declared, “All of us were impressed by the proposal.” But the U.S., under Bush, dismissed the offer and wanted Iran to shut down all its nuclear programs. England followed suit. “The British objective was to eliminate entirely Iran’s enrichment capability,” Jenkins continued. “I remember we couldn’t even allow Iran to have 20 centrifuges for R&D (research and development) purposes, because we ourselves had mastered the technology with even fewer than that.” After months of propaganda by the Zionist machine, Western powers denied Iran the right to even keep its 20 percent uranium for medical and power plant purposes. Iranian officials then refused to give up that 20 percent, with good reason, saying, “We have no reason to cede on 20 percent, because we produce only as much of the 20 percent fuel as we need. No more, no less.” Right after the secondround talks with Iran, one unidentified U.S. official declared, “Obviously that was not something we were prepared to do.”That “something” was giving Iran the right to continue to have uranium up to 20 percent, even though this is not against the NonProliferation Treaty. In order to maintain their total shutdown position, the IAEA had to propagate the idea that Iran is building hundreds of enrichment machines to increase their uranium capabilities, finally concluding that Iran was the one being unreasonable. Some Western officials see the illogical leap of this but they remain silent. The only country that has been vocal in their stand against going to war against a sovereign country such as Iran is Russia.

Moreover, it has been reported that 20 percent “highly enriched uranium,” which is what Iran has, is not enough to build nuclear weapons. 90 percent or more is needed, and there is no evidence suggesting that Iran could reach that number anytime soon. Some scientists, like Clinton Bastin, argue that Iran cannot reach that number at all. Bastin, the head of the US. Atomic Energy Commission, is a nuclear scientist who also served as a Marine in World War II. Bastin declared that Iran wanted to use its uranium to build nuclear power plants, and even negotiated with the United States in the 1970s to buy five plants. Though the United States promised to sell them the plants, it later denied doing so. As a result, Iran cancelled its deal and looked elsewhere, particularly to Russia, which was more than ready to help. Now Iran is committed to building its own nuclear power plant, but the Zionist regime in Israel has tried to persuade the entire Western world that Iran is building nuclear weapons, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials and even some Israeli officials and intelligence agencies, including the Mossad, have repeatedly declared that Iran is not researching nuclear weapons. Bastin also declared that many of the inspectors at the IAEA are not scientists and are not familiar with nuclear chemicals, and thus are more likely to be driven by ideology or external misinformation. It must be made clear that the 20 percent uranium threshold is legitimate and legal under the NonProliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and Israel has not.atherine Ashton, foreign minister for the European Union, made it clear that Iran has the right “to the peaceful use of nuclear power.” Here is the interesting fact: in the 1960s the United States sold Iran a research reactor and enough weaponsgrade uranium to set up nuclear fuel along with atomic power plants in Iran. The same reactor “still operates, supplying isotopes used in the medical treatment of 800,000” Iranians every year. Since the reactor is dependent on other fuel reactors, which the United States can provide, Iran asked them to help in 2010. Bad move. Instead, the United States asked for more sanctions on Iran, even though Iran’s goal was to protect Iranian citizens with respect to medical research. In other words, serious U.S. officials know that nuclear power does not necessarily mean nuclear weapons! But because we have a problem child in the Middle East, namely Israel, U.S. officials and marionettes cannot even breathe in the Middle East without getting a permit from the Israeli regime. As already suggested, Israel does not even allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, as one of the laws articulated by the NonProliferation Acts. Israel has been pushing the West, most particularly the United States, to sanction Iran because they perceive that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Yet the issue that Israel does not want to be transparent about its nuclear weapons program created a firestorm of discussion. In the midst of all that, Israel claimed that perhaps one day they will change their nuclear weapons policy on their own terms and not on anyone else’s. Based on that faulty logic, who then should be considered the real threat? This is why decent CIA officials are now denouncing

Israel as dangerous. As former CIA official Philip Giraldi has recently showed, this wicked entity has cost America dearly No American president or any other top leader has so far spoken about Israel’s secret nuke precisely because USA supplied them .to Israel and did not let the IAEA to inspect the nuclear sites inside Israel. . Will Trump be the first US president to speak about Israeli nukes and the danger it poses to Mideast, Iran, Europe and even USA. By offering Nobel Peace prize to the first black American President Obama as soon as he became US President the West saw to it that he did not disturb the secret equations existing in the world and Obama politely obey them and invaded African Libya to show that he is with White Americans who elected him to presidency. . . .

Chapter-19: Daring North Korea fires Scud-class ballistic missile toward Japan! -Dr. Abdul Ruff ________

For quite some time North Korea, threatened by USA, South Korea and Japan, has been testing new missile capabilities to equal similar capabilities of neighboring nations and USA.

On Monday the May 29 North Korea fired at least one short-range ballistic missile that landed in the sea off its east coast into Japan's maritime economic zone. It was the latest in a fastpaced series of missile tests defying world pressure and threats of more sanctions. The missile was believed to be a Scud-class ballistic missile and flew about USA considers it the latest in a series of provocative launches that have ratcheted up tensions over its nuclear weapons ambitions. 450 km (280 miles), South Korean officials said. North Korea has a large stockpile of the short-range missiles, originally developed by the Soviet Union.

It was the third ballistic missile test-launch (and the 12th this yea) since South Korea's liberal President Moon Jae-in took office on May 10 pledging to engage with the reclusive neighbor in dialogue. Moon says sanctions alone have failed to resolve the growing threat from the North's advancing nuclear and missile program.

The test is the latest launch by Pyongyang this year as the isolated regime steps up efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental USA

North Korea, which has conducted dozens of missile tests and tested two nuclear bombs since the beginning of 2016 in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, says the program is necessary to counter US aggression.

North Korea last test-fired a ballistic missile on May 21 off its east coast and said it had tested a new anti-aircraft weapon supervised by leader Kim Jong Un. The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on Earth, which is the capital of South Korea. In the program "Face the Nation", he said in the event of war, they would bring danger to China and to Russia as well". Modified versions of the Scud have a range of up to 1,000 km (620 miles). Monday's launch followed two successful tests of medium- to long-range missiles in as many weeks by the North, which has been conducting such tests at an unprecedented pace in an effort to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting the mainland United States.

The launch comes in fresh defiance of tough talk from US President Donald Trump, who promised last week at the G7 summit that the "big problem" of North Korea "will be solved". North Korea has tested Scud-type, short-range missiles many times in the past, most recently in April, according to US officials. However, experts say it may be trying to test new capabilities that may be fed into its efforts to build an ICBM. "There are many possibilities It could have been a test for a different type of engine. Or to verify the credibility of the main engine for ICBM's first stage rocket," said Kim Dong-yub, a military expert at Kyungnam University's Far Eastern Studies department in Seoul.

The missile launches, and Pyongyang's threat to stage its sixth nuclear test, have prompted calls for tougher UN sanctions and a warning from Trump that military intervention was an option under consideration. US military monitors said the short-range missile flew for six minutes, while Japan said it fell into the country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) -- waters extending 200 nautical miles from its coast.

North Korea likely showing its determination to push ahead in the face of international pressure to rein in its missile program and "to pressure the (South Korean) government to change its policy on the North", South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Roh Jae-cheon said. The missile reached an altitude of 120 km (75 miles), Roh said. "The assessment is there was at least one missile but we are analyzing the number of missiles," he said.

Japan lodged a protest against the test missile, which appeared to have landed in its exclusive economic zone. Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe swiftly condemned the test and vowed concerted action along with its US ally. "We will never tolerate North Korea's continued provocations that ignore repeated warnings by the international community," Abe told reporters. "As agreed during the G7 summit, the North Korean problem is the international community's top priority. In order to deter North Korea, we will take concrete action with the United States."

South Korea's Moon swiftly called a meeting of the National Security Council, South Korea's Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. Seoul's new liberal administration has said Pyongyang's repeated test launches were dashing hopes for peace.

The White House said President Donald Trump had been briefed about the launch. The US Pacific Command said it tracked what appeared to be a short-range ballistic missile for six minutes and assessed it did not pose a threat to North America. The USA has said it was looking at discussing with China a new UN Security Council resolution and that Beijing, North Korea's main diplomatic ally and neighbor, realizes time was limited to rein in its weapons program through negotiations. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, asked what a military conflict with North Korea might look like if diplomacy failed, warned it would be "probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes".

China reiterated that UN Security Council resolutions had "clear rules" about North Korean missile activities and it urged Pyongyang not to contravene them. "The situation on the Korean peninsula is complex and sensitive, and we hope all relevant sides maintain calm and exercise restraint, ease the tense situation as soon as possible and put the issue back onto the correct track of peaceful dialogue," China's foreign ministry said in a statement.

Russia condemned the launched and also called for restraint, "including towards military activity", from the partners it was working with, the RIA news agency quoted a deputy Russian foreign minister as saying.

The isolated but nuclear-armed North has test-fired a missile almost every week for the past three weeks. The latest, a short-range Scud, flew about 450 kilometres (280 miles) before landing in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) between the Korean peninsula and Japan, the US Pacific

Command said. The test also marked the second time this year that a North Korean missile fell provocatively close to its neighbour Japan. Despite US President Trump's strident warnings, Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in an interview that aired before the launch that a war with North Korea would be "catastrophic." "This regime is a threat to the region, to Japan, to South Korea. And in the event of war, they would bring danger to China and to Russia as well. But the bottom line is, it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into a combat, if we're not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means."Mattis declined to say what kind of action from Pyongyang would constitute a "red line" for Washington, saying the administration needs "political manoeuvre room." South Korea's new president, Moon Jae-In, ordered a meeting of the national Security Council to assess the launch, which came a day after North Korea, said its leader Kim Jong-Un had overseen a test of a new anti-aircraft weapons system. The South condemned the test as a "grave threat" and a challenge to the new leader who advocates dialogue with the North in a break from his conservative predecessors. "That the North repeated such provocations after the inauguration of our new leadership... is a direct challenge to our demand for peace and denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," the foreign ministry said. Following North Korea's test-firing of what analysts said was its longest-range rocket yet earlier this month, the UN Security Council vowed to push all countries to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang. But China, the North's main trade partner and ally, has made it clear that the push for diplomatic talks -- and not imposing more sanctions -- is the priority. The USA has said it is willing to enter into talks with North Korea -- but only if it halts its missile and nuclear tests. Meanwhile, the USA will test an existing missile defense system on Tuesday to try to intercept an ICBM, the first such test, officials said.

All said and done one thing is certain: there is no possibility of a missile war between North Korea and other competing powers or USA precisely because any war could be disastrous for the war torn nations as in the case of Afghanistan and Arab nations. USA takes all precautions to deny any chance to North Korea to start a war and hence it uses China towards that purpose. .

____ Chapter-20: Israeli detention conditions and Palestinian prisoners! -Dr. Abdul Ruff

_______

Palestinians are treated like open floor prisoners by USA and its allies like USA. Even while peace has been elusive in Mideast as Israel continues to create obstacles to the establishment of Palestine, Israel arrests any Palestinian it thinks is working for a Palestine state. Israeli regime, military, judiciary, police and jail authorities jointly ill treat Palestinians outside and in the jails. More than 1,000 Palestinians held in Israeli jails ended a mass hunger strike against detention conditions. Israeli officials said the move – at the start of the holy month of Ramadan – came after an agreement to allow two family visits per month, not just one. The action was led by Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian leader jailed by Israel for life for “murders”. Barghouti has been touted as a possible future successor to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. There were about 7,000 Palestinians held in Israeli jails by the end of last year, according to Palestinian prisoners’ groups. Israel, like any colonist regime, meticulously plans its terror actions well advance and trap the Palestinians. Americans are already in the Zionist pocket. The issue of Palestinians held in Israeli jails is an ongoing source of tension between the two sides. Palestinians regard the detainees as political prisoners. Many have been convicted of attacks against Israelis and other offences. Some 1,187 detainees observed the strike, according to Israel’s prison service. It began on 17 April, the annual Palestinian Prisoners Day, when Palestinians remember detained friends and relatives. Others are detained under so-called Administrative Detention, which allows suspects to be held without charge for six-month intervals. Meanwhile, US President Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas make an optimistic statement about prospects of peace between Israel and Palestinians when the former met the latter in Palestine, Bethlehem. The White House booked the entire King David Hotel for the president and his entourage. The Israeli and Palestinian authorities cleared the main roads of Jerusalem and Bethlehem for the movements of his armed and mighty motorcade.

In recent times every American president also brings with him new hopes and fears for Israelis and Palestinians. In 2009, when President Barack Obama was trying to re-set relations with Arabs and Muslims, he alienated Israelis and its leaders never forgave him. His first act as president was to appoint a Middle East envoy whose peace mission, in the end, failed. Israel and Pentagon never let Obama make friends with Islamic world, especially with Arab world. That is the way USA pampered Israel and shielded it crimes against humanity and made it a criminal state, killing even children in Palestine. IS presidents have been insincere about peace in Mideast as it promote essentially a fascist regime in Mideast called Israel. George W Bush sponsored a peace conference in Annapolis in 2007, which for a while was hailed, in vain, as a major step towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Bill Clinton presided over the moment in 1993 at the White House when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin exchanged a historic handshake and signed the Oslo peace agreement. At the end of his presidency in 2000, a make or break summit failed and was followed by years of violence and unrest. It has been a routine rhetoric of peace in Mideast by US president when he takes power at White House but he purses only the Zionist policy and makes Israeli military and economy stronger while allowing Israeli military to attack Palestine with US terror goods and kill Palestinians for their lands for colony proliferations for illegal Jewish settlements. Now President Trump, who sees himself as the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best dealmaker, says he would like to pull off the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s toughest deal and make Mideast safe and let Palestinians build their own nation. After the first leg of his trip in Saudi Arabia, President Trump seems to hope that Sunni Arab countries might be part of any solution between Israel and the Palestinians. Without doubt the Saudis and the Israelis are talking, because they view Iran as their shared enemy. But the Saudis have had their own Arab peace plan on the table for the last 15 years, offering full peace and recognition of Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the entire territory of the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in East Jerusalem. In all the speeches President Trump made during the trip there was no detail about how he might succeed when so many others have failed. So signs and symbols and implicit messages are being pored over for meaning. Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, is being taken by Jews as US support for Israel.The wall is in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after it was captured 50 years ago and which most of the world outside Israel regards as

occupied land. But the fact that the US president declined the Israeli PM Netanyahu’s request to accompany him as a sign of support for the status quo view that it is occupied territory. In his final speech, at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, President Trump also identified himself, his government and the USA four-square with Israel, making a mockery of his “desire” for Mideast peace. He repeated, to lots of applause, that he would never let Iran have nuclear weapons. Israel has a substantial and officially undeclared nuclear arsenal. That is US doublespeak which Trump has inherited. Trying to thrown Trump into his basket, Netanyahu said that if the bomber in Manchester was Palestinian, and his victims were Israelis, the Palestinian Authority would be paying a stipend to his family. He was referring to a Palestinian Martyrs’ fund. It pays pensions to people it regards as victims of the occupation, including the families of individuals who have been killed attacking Israelis. There is also a fund to support Palestinians who have been imprisoned by Israel. The Palestinians have compared the payments to the salaries Israel pays to soldiers. President Trump, in his speech, did not pick up the cue. After making many warm remarks about Israel, which earned him standing ovations, Trump, however, said that the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, was serious about making peace. Israel hates peace efforts by Abbas and would do so with Trump as well if he goes ahead with UN efforts for Palestine state. That is an important disagreement. Israel is far apart on the main issues, like the future of east Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state and the fate of Palestinian refugees. If President Trump’s hopes ever become negotiations about substance he will find that there are many others. Trump is right on one point. Israel-Palestine is a conflict that badly needs settling. If that is not possible, there needs to be political progress. History shows that bloodshed tends to fill the void left by the absence of hope. Israel now targets the Palestinians children and women for attacks. Is Trump sincere enough? Will he use his Jewish son in law for a credible Mideast peace or will he be used by his son in law to further consolidate the Zionist criminal system of perpetual expansionism and genocides? That is the trillion dollar question! ____________

Chapter-21: Denial of mass crimes by Sri Lanka: UNSC must initiate punitive measures! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

The truth remains that all terrorisms are the creation of the states that behave irrationally and attack minorities on the strength of their majority and military power. Israel invented terrorism and USA used it a perfect tool to advance its imperialist goals. USA and Israel jointly launched many Islamic terrorist organizations by giving them suitable Arabic and English names to confuse and terrorize the humanity, invade energy rich Arab nations and to defame Islam as a terrorist religion. They have jointly destabilized Arab world after looting their resources, murdering them in millions. Sri Lanka is one of those weak nations that terrorized the minority community with military force and also claim to be innocent and victims. They almost succeeded in committing a holocaust of Tamils in their nation. They donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t bother about international legal system or punishment for their state crimes.

Sri Lanka first used the Tamils as their servants and Tamils obliged them. Sri Lanka refused to give them human status even after several decades of residency and denied many basis rights to them.

Tamils protested. The LTTE came much later to serve their causes. Tamils got several rights. The majority Singhalese were annoyed about giving any status of to Tamils from Southern India who had come to the island nation to work for them and strengthen their economy. It was during the British era. Then Singhalese community began hating Tamils for sharing their jobs in government.

In the face of credible allegations that his forces had slaughtered tens of thousands of Tamil civilians, the claim was jaw-droopingly brazen. Yet, as the evidence mounted, the Rajapaksa government and its representatives continued to dispute not only its culpability, but also the very fact of mass civilian death.

The Sirisena regime promised action against Rajapaksha and the military bosses for their collective crimes against Tamils and proposed reconciliation with Tamils but he did not begin that effort. He asked Indian government to save the Tamils with economic assistance. . Hatred for Tamils in Sri Lanka has grown too much that now it attacks the Tamil fishermen who traditionally fish for their supporting their livelihood, loot their boats, arrest them and put them in jails, expecting Indian government to plead and (even beg) with Sirisena to do the “favor” of releasing the Indians and returning their belongings. Indian government did all this because of the pressure from Tamil nadu government.

Sri Lankan regime feels happy and even proud of its “strategic” advantages over India and wants the USA to co-opt Colombo as a “reliable” strategic partner. Tamil Nadu and Ceylon were historically not separated as they are now. Even in 1970s before the start of Civil war and consequent loss of freedom in Sri Lanka, fishermen communities from either side frequently visited each other’s places. It is told that people from Lanka would take a boat and come to present day Nagapattinam District, watch a movie in talkies and will get back same day. Then fishermen did not have any problem with fishing boundaries since all the problem areas are traditional fishing grounds. The present problem had its origin in formation of India and Sri Lanka as two sovereign countries. Now fishermen from both sides had to follow boundaries. The problem was compounded by Katchatheevu island settlement in 1974(this agreement is not constitutionally valid since it is not ratified by parliament). Fishermen from Indian side lost additional areas due to loss of Katchatheevu.

India-Sri Lanka fishing issue. Relation between two countries comes under pressure due to fishermen straying into each other's waters. Every month dozens of fishermen from each country get arrested for illegal poaching. The fishing controversy is due to the unclear demarcation over the Palk Strait, a narrow strip of sea between the two countries. As for Sri Lankan fishermen, they do not know where Sri Lankan waters end and the Indian waters begin. They also lack GPS in boats.

The Palk Strait is a strip of ocean that separates Tamil Nadu in India from the Mannar district in Sri Lanka. Its width is between 53 and 80 km, the narrow division between the two countries has resulted in confusion over who holds ownership over the waters. In the case of the Palk Strait, both Sri Lanka's and India's EEZ overlap each other. This has now resulted in the conflict that has arisen between the two nation's fishing communities.

Both Indian and Sri Lankan prefer to go towards the Katchatheevu Island area in the strait, where fish reserves are said to be abundant due to presence of deep waters and the rocky formation. For Sri Lankan fishermen it is within their maritime boundary. Sri Lanka doesn't agree with Indian Fisherman's practice of doing bottom trawling which not only captures fishes but also disturbs their habitat. This leads to less fishes coming to those areas because of lack of nutrients. Bottom trawling is banned in many countries

The issue of fishermen came to the fore only with emergence of violent ethnic conflict between the Tamil militants and the Sri Lankan government in the mid 1980s. Increased vigilance by the Sri Lankan Navy to check intermittent flow of Tamil refugees into India and flow of arms and supplies to Tamil militant groups made fishing difficult and risky.

World powers, especially those that claim that democracy and rule of law are central to global governance, have not taken the mass murder of minority Tamils by Sri Lankan regime under President Rajapaksha to be a serious crime. They seem to suggest that all state crimes are a part of democracy and rule of law and hence they are lawful and no need to punish the rulers for their crimes against humanity.

Then President Mahinda Rajapaksa defends Sri Lanka’s military offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the mass murder of the Tamils because he does not distinguish between Tamil community and LTTE. What exactly he and his military had tried was a holocaust of Tamil community on the Island land. Although Rajapaksha could achieve full holocaust, he succeeded in perpetrating genocides of Tamils and terrorizing them to leave the Sri Lanka.

Not only Rajapaksha but even Sirisena who defeated him in the poll to become the President seems to support the military crimes against humanity. Yes, not only Sri Lankan leaders even the USA also seems to support the crimes of Sri Lanka against minority community. . Lankan regime justified the genocides of Tamils in Lanka as war terror and hence very much humane act as it had to fight the LTTE. Much has been made of the example set by Sri Lanka’s ruthless strategy as an alternative to “hearts and minds” counterinsurgency efforts. Governments battling stubborn militant movements continue to seek advice from Colombo on employing the “Rajapaksa model.” But the successful elimination of the LTTE in 2009 wasn’t the

only unexpected feat Sri Lanka accomplished. Sri Lanka managed to preempt international action long enough to conclude its brutal campaign, despite state-perpetrated civilian casualties on a massive scale.

Sirisena’s reaction to accusations of war crimes is very cool as if nothing bad had happened in his country when he was a loyal minister in Rajapaksha government. Although Sirisena has not rejected all allegations of atrocities as pure imagination of the world, he has refused legal action against Rajapaksha. There plays the Sinhala politics where all Singhalese leaders have ganged up to defend both Rajapaksha and Lankan from punishment for their heinous crimes.

The Sirisena government, therefore, doesn’t allow the UN to investigate the war crimes committed by his predecessor Rajapaksha he still maintain cordial al relations with him. . And importantly, the Rajapaksa government then enjoyed much greater international support than any other despot on earth.

Sirisena would argue that the LTTE had significant popular support and hence their genocides are logical and apr to rule of law. USA and other so-called democracies refused to discuss the pattern of human right violations in Sri Lanka where the Tamils were cornered by the military, police. The government justifies all custodial torture and extrajudicial killings of suspected regime opponents, attacks on civilian targets including hospitals and aid conveys, and the use of prohibited weapons. And in both cases international audiences raised the alarm about mass atrocities.. In addition to forbidding foreign correspondents and human rights organizations access to the conflict zone, the Sri Lankan government terrorized the domestic press. Under Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka became one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist. The delivery of humanitarian aid was also severely restricted. In September 2008, the government ordered all aid workers out of the conflict zone in northern Sri Lanka. While foreign journalists are not officially banned from the country, access to regime-held territory is limited to pre-approved journalists, often accompanied by a minder. Today, it tops the list of deadliest countries for journalists, in large part due to regime attacks on the domestic press. Humanitarian aid delivery has been restricted since the conflict began. In Sri Lanka these measures cut off nearly all sources of independent information.

The second tactic out of Colombo’s playbook is to vehemently contest the limited information that does trickle out of the war zone. The Sri Lankan government challenged all casualty reports as “Tiger propaganda.” In late April 2009, as thousands were dying from government shelling, the Sri Lankan Air Force denied that it was carrying out any operations. Both during and after

the war, the Rajapaksa regime also challenged the veracity of all photographic and video evidence. The regime disputed the authenticity of photo and video evidence of weapons attacks, barrel bombs, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Sri Lanka boldly claims that video evidence of extrajudicial killing was faked by “Tamil rebels in army uniform.”

Despite the implausibility of the claim, Sri Lanka insisted that any shelling of civilian targets had been committed not by his military boys but by the “terrorists.” The government also repeatedly accused the LTTE of employing civilians as human shields, arguing that this exonerated the military of any responsibility for their deaths.

Any criminal regime would try to justify its crimes just like any street criminal does. On first look, these tactics – all of which amount to contesting empirically verifiable facts – appear deluded. Against reams of physical and testimonial evidence of war crimes, who would believe a self-interested denial?

But sometimes it works and the strategy paid off for Sri Lanka. In fact, immediately following its victory, the Rajapaksa regime was commended by the U.N. Human Rights Council for its efforts “to ensure the safety and security of all Sri Lankans.” And as impunity for war crimes was compounded by a litany of human rights abuses in the aftermath of the war, the most significant sanctions the government faced were reductions in aid and trade. The war ended eight years ago this week, and to this day no member of the civilian or military leadership has faced justice for war crimes.

But now Sri Lanka wages a regular war on Tamil fishing community.

Sri Lanka’s apparent success in influencing international community not act on SL state terror operations did not depend on actually convincing anyone that it hadn’t committed war crimes. It simply relied on muddying the waters enough to prevent international action. Two structural features of the situation enabled this strategy: First, Sri Lanka was mostly insulated from action at the UN Security Council or at the International Criminal Court. Consequently, there was no straightforward path to halting the violations or ensuring justice for them.

Any intervention (military, judicial, or otherwise) would have been costly and challenging to coordinate. And the final phase of the conflict played out against the backdrop of the Global War on Terror, allowing Sri Lanka to emphasize the LTTE’s use of terrorist tactics and

characterize their eradication as an international necessity. There was widespread support (both overt and tacit) for the fight against the LTTE as a terror group. If the first dynamic meant that the bar for international action was set higher than it would have been otherwise, the second meant that Sri Lankaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actions, seen through the more permissive lens of a fight against terrorism, were less likely to clear that bar.

War crimes are thus justified.

International action on mass atrocities is the exception rather than the rule and Sri Lanka is eager to escape punishment. . The Sri Lankan experience shows that obfuscation and denial can be enough to exploit this inertia and prevent intervention from international community, especially India, which shamelessly kills Kashmiris in their own nation Kashmir which is under Indian military occupation - and alas, UN and UNSC do not intervene to stop the Indian state crimes in Kashmir, does not press for UN investigation and punishing the guilty.

For Sri Lanka, Israel and India are the models in perpetrating crimes against minorities and terrorizing nations under their illegal occupation - Kashmir and Palestine, respectively. Can USA, ICC and UNSC let Sri Lankan regime get away with mass murder, giving precedence for other criminal regimes to emulate it?

Since Sri Lanka is in denial of mass crimes by its military-police, it is time the UNSC stepped in to initiate punitive measures!

_________

Chapter-22: Indian coercive strategy has made Kashmiris more alienated than ever before!

(A Sovereign Kashmir: Random Thoughts-302) -Dr. Abdul Ruff

_____ Jammu Kashmir was a soverign nation until India and Pakistan invaded and occupied it after their own independence from Great Britain. Both India and Pakistan wanted to expand their

territories by annexing neighboring Jammu Kashmir and they have done with blessings from their colonial master UK.

India and Pakistan have disputed the territory for nearly 70 years - since independence from Britain. Both countries claim the whole territory but control only parts of it. Two out of three wars fought between India and Pakistan centered on Kashmir. Since 1989 there has been an armed revolt in the Muslim-majority region against rule by India. High unemployment and complaints of heavy-handed tactics by security forces battling street protesters and fighting insurgents have aggravated the problem

Unable to tolerate Indian brutality, Kashmiris are on revolt against Indian occupational crimes. They want USA, UK and other veto members to consider the pathetic plight of Kashmiri Muslims and give them their sovereignty back so that at least their children could live in peace without having to face the Indian military brutality.

India is fast losing Jammu Kashmir as it hates Kashmiris for demanding freedom and sovereignty from occupying Indian military which now enjoys more draconian powers to target Kashmiris at will. Indian regime never cares for human rights violations by its military in Kashmir.

New Delhi has conveniently fooled Kashmiris on its promise of greater autonomy for the region for efficiency while core Indian media lords spread lies about Kashmiris through 24 hours in their TV channels.

Now India is using Kashmiris as military shield with more and more army’s intimidation, wrongful confinement of Kashmiri youth.

Instead of punishing the guilty in their ranks for misusing their powers by ruthlessly attacking Kashmiri Muslims through fake encounters, among other techniques, it honors the guilty with awards and more money for their “meritorious services”. This anomaly has annoyed Kashmiri leaders.

A Kashmir Muslim, Farooq Ahmad Dar, who was tied to an army jeep by military solders and

used him as a human shield in India-occupied Kashmir has said he is "afraid" after the officer responsible for the incident was awarded a commendation by the military. "I was under the impression he would be punished. But he was given a reward," Farooq Ahmad Dar told BBC. The decision, announced on Monday, was met with shock in Kashmir. The army officer responsible for the action said he did it to make India stronger.

Dar had just finished casting his vote at a polling booth when the incident took place. Tied to the jeep, he was driven around villages, as an "example" of what would happen to anyone who threw stones at armed forces. "I was persecuted even though I was one of the few who voted,â&#x20AC;? Dar said. "Since the day the officer was awarded, I'm even more afraid. Now he will return to the same camp, and I am in danger."I am feeling under tremendous pressure. He will be back and my situation will worsen."

The army officer at the centre of the controversy, Major Nitin Gogoi, in a rare departure from official protocol, was allowed to address a media conference and defended his actions. â&#x20AC;&#x153;With this new India idea, I have saved many peoples' lives."

The foremost leader of freedoms struggle Syed Ali Geelani, chairman of the Hurriyat - an umbrella group of separatists in Kashmir - called the army decision "distressing and shameful". Amnesty International India also condemned the decision, saying it gave out the impression that the Indian army "condones human rights abuses". But views on social media were sharply divided between those who criticised the army decision and those who said Major Gogoi was a hero.

Former chief minister Omar Abdullah said the army decision was "wrong". He said the consequences could be "disastrous", adding that "the use of human shields is now officially fair and justified in a Kashmir that stands more alienated than ever before". The Urdu language newspaper Kashmir Uzma saw the move as an "open warning". "It seems that by honoring the officer, the authorities in New Delhi are trying to send a clear message to Kashmiris that they have reliable tactics for restoring order, even when it involves violating human rights," it said.

For quite some time, India has been running from country to country and invites rulers from every country to inform that Kashmir has been a part of India for centuries and Pakistan is spoiling the minds of Kashmiris to protest against Indian misrule. New Delhi might think foreign leaders, like Indian media lords, have no knowledge of the past and history. . Last summer was one of the bloodiest in the Muslim-dominated valley in recent years.

Following the killing of influential freedom fighting militant Burhan Wani by Indian forces last July, more than 100 civilians lost their lives in clashes during a four-month-long security lockdown in the valley. It's not looking very promising this summer.

India occupied Kashmir has seen a fresh upsurge of violence in the past few months, with stone-throwing civilians pitted against military personnel. India is not happy that the youth has not taken real weapons so that Indian military could kill all of them and ask Indian core media lords, controlled by intelligence, to call the Kashmiris â&#x20AC;&#x153;TERRORISTSâ&#x20AC;?.

As its usual safe tactic, whenever there is an upsurge in Sri Nagar, India quickly blames Pakistan for inciting the violence, a charge the latter dutifully denies. This month's parliamentary election in Srinagar was scarred by violence and a record-low turnout of voters. To add fuel to the fire, graphic social videos surfaced claiming to show abuses by security forces and young people who oppose Indian rule. A full-blown protest by students has now erupted on the streets; and, in a rare sight, even schoolgirls are throwing stones and hitting police vehicles.

JK Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, who leads an awkward ruling coalition with the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), rushed to Delhi last week to urge the federal Modi government to "announce a dialogue and show reconciliatory gestures".

India ignores the military atrocities on Kashmiri Muslims being ritually committed as a tool to silence the Kashmiri youth. Apparently, PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Rajnath Singh told her that they could not "offer a dialogue with separatists and other restive groups in the valley" while fierce violence and militant attacks continued. Former chief minister and leader of the regional National Conference party Farooq Abdullah warned India that it was "losing Kashmir". What Abdullah suggested was unexceptionable: the government should begin talking with the stakeholders - Pakistan, the separatists, mainstream parties - and start "thinking of not a military solution, but a political way". Ignoring the plight of Muslims in the valley, but only thinking only about Hindus in Kashmir as being propelled by Hindutva zealots in the media is not good. Kashmir is one of most militarized zones on earth with military troops occupying almost every place so that any protest for freedom could be put done forthwith while informing the media to

cook stories to make reports about â&#x20AC;&#x153;Muslim terrorists attacked or killedâ&#x20AC;? type headings. With more than 500,000 security forces in the region, India is unlikely to lose territory in Kashmir but Kashmiris are not with India. .Shekhar Gupta, a leading columnist, says that while Kashmir is "territorially secure, we are fast losing it emotionally and psychologically". The abysmal 7% turnout in the Srinagar poll proved that "while your grip on the land is firm, you are losing its people". So what is new about Kashmir that is worrying India and even provoking senior army officials to admit that the situation is fragile? Kashmiri youth is now politically matured and they know they need sovereignty for self development and regain dignity. . For one, a more reckless and alienated younger generation of local youth is now leading the anti-India protests. More than 60% of the men in the valley are under 30. Many of them are angry and confused about what India plans and wants in Kashmir. Hope has evaporated for his generation "in face of Indian oppression" and he and his friends did not "fear death". When I took him aside after a while to ask about his ambitions in life, he said he wanted to become a bureaucrat and serve Kashmir. "It is wrong to say that the Kashmiri youth has become fearless. He just feels alienated, sidelined and humiliated. When he feels like that, fear takes a backseat, and he becomes reckless. This is irrational behavior," says National Conference leader Junaid Azim Mattoo.

Secondly, the new younger militants are educated and come from relatively well-off families. Youthful Kashmiri leader Wani, who was killed last July as the militant, headed a prominent rebel group and came from a highly-educated upper-class Kashmiri family: his father is a government school teacher. Wani's younger brother, Khalid, who was killed by security forces in 2013, was a student of political science. The new commander of the rebel group, Zakir Rashid Bhat, studied engineering in the northern Indian city of Chandigarh. The two-year-old fragile PDP-BJP ruling alliance, many say, has been unable to deliver on its promises. While BJP is trying to increase its base in Jammu Kashmir, PDP is fast losing popular faith in its ability to defend Muslims in Kashmir. An alliance between a regional party which advocates soft separatism (PDP) and a federal Hindutva nationalist party (BJP), they believe, makes for the strangest bedfellows, hobbled by two conflicting ideologies trying to work their way together in a contested, conflicted land. Both Congress and NC are trying to make maximum mileage from the weak government in Sri Nagar.

The federal government's message on Kashmir appears to be backfiring.

When PM Modi recently said the youth in Kashmir had to choose between terrorism and tourism, many Kashmiris accused him of trivializing their "protracted struggle". When BJP

general secretary Ram Madhav told a newspaper that his government "would have choked" the valley people if it was against them, many locals said it was proof of the government's arrogance. The shrill anti-Muslim rhetoric by radical Hindutva groups and politics of incidents of cow protection attacking Muslim cattle traders in other parts of India could end up further polarising people in the valley. "The danger," a prominent leader told me, "is that the moderate Kashmiri Muslim is becoming sidelined, and he is being politically radicalized." The security forces Kashmir, now adhering to Hindutva politics, differ and say they are actually worried about rising "religious radicalization" among the youth in the valley. A top army official in Kashmir, Lt-Gen JS Sadhu, told a newspaper that the "public support to terrorists, their glorification and increased radicalization are issues of concern". Kashmiri public does not the government or governor or New Delhi masters. One army official said that religious radicalization was a "bigger challenge than stone pelting protesters". He even claims that some 3,000 Saudi-inspired Wahhabi sect mosques had sprung up in Kashmir in the past decade. The military is eager to build some Hindu structures in Kashmir valley al s well.

Most Kashmiris say the government should be more worried about the cause of "political radicalization" of the young, and that fears of religious radicalization were exaggerated and overblown. Also, the low turnout in this month's elections has rattled the region's mainstream parties. "If mainstream politics is delegitimized and people refuse to vote for them, the vacuum will be obviously filled up with a disorganized mob-led constituency," Mattoo of the National Conference said.

In his memoirs, Amarjit Singh Daulat, the former chief of India's spy agency RAW wrote that "nothing is constant; least of all Kashmir". But right now, the anomie and anger of the youth, and a worrying people's revolt against Indian rule, appear to be the only constants. If New Delhi still believes that Indian military in Kashmir could solve the Kashmir problems by Zionist or Indian guns there it is mistaken- it is ridiculous for any regime which is serious about democracy to think of a military solution. Kashmir requires political solution. If India still think Kashmiris want to be controlled by Indian military, then, a referendum should be organized under the UN flag. As India's most restive region JK stares down the abyss of what a commentator calls another "hot summer of violence", the doom-laden headline has returned with a vengeance: Should India let Kashmiris live on their own as a soverign nation?

Chapter-23: Elusive Syrian peace! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

Neither the Syrian President Assad wants the war to end; nor the USA nor Russia nor is the opposition in Syria eager for any peaceful settlement of the crisis. That is fate of Arabs today-not just the Syrians. USA and Russia dictate their own terms to Arab nations. Now all of them focus on their common enemy - so-called Islamic State. Syria is at a critical crossroads as the battle continues against the ISIS which now USA calls as .Daesh. At the World Economic Forum on the Middle

East and North Africa, panelists agreed that itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important to create a culture of hope rather than one of despair. But they have no credible solutions to achieve at least that. The Syrian war is a complete humanitarian disaster, meticulously planned and engineered by the anti-Islamic nations led by USA. Heavy causalities and destructions while media lords continue to en joy the process of genocides and demolitions by the enemy bombings. Americans kill Syrians; Russians sill Syrians. Syrians also kill Syrians. The six years of civil war has killed 400,000 people and 33 million children have been out of school since the outbreak of the war. Millions of Syrians have been injured seriously and/or taken refugee abroad. The USA has put together a really competent security team to monitor the Syrian movements in the country and target them.

Syrian military official said Friday that an airstrike by the U.S.-led coalition on a government military position near the border with Jordan had killed several soldiers and caused material damage. May 19, a

The unnamed official's comments were carried by Syrian state TV a day after the U.S.-led coalition said a U.S. airstrike had struck pro-Syrian government forces that the coalition said posed a threat to American troops and allied rebels operating near the border with Jordan. he attack was the first such close confrontation between U.S. forces and fighters backing President Bashar Assad.

Russia also criticized the strike, with Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov Gatilov accusing the U.S. on Friday of violating Syria's sovereignty and alleging the airstrike hit civilians, according to Russian media. The official cited by Syrian state TV only mentioned "one of our military points" being targeted, without providing further detail. The official did not give a number for how many soldiers were killed, but said the Syrian army was fighting terrorism and no one else had the right to decide in which areas it can carry out operations. the U.S. sent aircraft to strike Syrian regime vehicles that violated a "deconfliction" zone set up around al-Tanf, an army base where U.S. and allied special forces are training Syrian militias, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported. American officials and Syrian activists said the strike hit the pro-Syrian government forces as they were setting up fighting positions in a protected area in the desert near the border with Jordan. A bulldozer and a tank were hit, but U.S. officials said it was unclear on Thursday whether they had struck the Syrian army or just militias allied with the government. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the U.S. would defend its troops in case of "aggressive" steps against them. He was asked if the airstrike represented an increase in the U.S. role in the Syrian war. "We are not increasing our role in the Syrian civil war, but we will defend our troops," Mattis said. "And that is a coalition element made up of more than just U.S. troops, and so we will defend ourselves (if) people take aggressive steps against us." The U.S. strike marks a new approach in what has become an intensely crowded and complicated war zone. Thursday's strike was the coalition's first on proAssad forces in the battlefield. The coalition had so far kept its military operations focused on Islamic State militants and al-Qaida-linked groups. Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), said in a statement that "the coalition struck pro-regime forces that were advancing well inside an established de-confliction zone" and "posed a threat to U.S. and partner forces." Even after civil war ends, there is going to be a huge reconstruction work needed to bring aback Syria in some measure. Since the amount of money needed will be huge, USA which is cause of the civil war in snot interested in a big plan for the reconstruction of Syria, militarily, economically, socially. As world has seen none of the countries USA/NATO invaded on fake pretexts has been allowed to return to

normalcy as inner fighting and sectarian wars begin as current terror war ends. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq etc have been totally destabilized and there is not even the near resemblance of former might of these nations. However, some t rich leaders are allowed to loot resources and mint money and enjoy life while the nations go on fire

This Perspective presents scenarios for sectarian relations in the Middle East out to 2026. It does so by identifying key assumptions and drivers that will inform the trajectory of sectarian relations in this region. The scenario inputs were the product of structured discussions among the RAND authors and external subject-matter experts. The Perspective lays out four different scenarios as plausible examples of an even greater number of alternative futures. Those scenarios encompass both a ratcheting up and de-escalation of sectarian conflict, depending upon such key factors as the orientation of regional powers and the quality of governance. The authors conclude that while sectarianism casts a shadow over the Middle East, it is only one lens for understanding the region's conflicts and some of the drivers of sectarianism are amenable to policy interventions.

Chapter-24: President Trump calls on Pope Francis at the Vatican! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

One gets the impression that US President Donald Trump could lead his nation and world at large to a new world without conflicts. However, if he misleads the world by his mischief as a usual US leader, then, like his predecessors have done before him, would betray the humanity beyond Mideast and the humanity would be the silent victim to war mongers and looters. US President Donald Trump has met Pope Francis on May 24 morning at the Vatican for a short private audience on the third leg of his overseas trip before going to Europe to conclude his madden tour as the custodian of White House. Trump is now

due to meet Italy's president and prime minister. He will then fly to Brussels for a NATO summit. The US President arrived for the meeting along with his wife Melania, daughter Ivanka

and Jewish soninlaw Jared Kushner after their visit to Israel. The meeting was keenly

awaited as the two men have already clashed at a distance on issues including migration and climate change. Trump and his entourage arrived at the Vatican n the morning just before 08:30 local time; the meeting was arranged last minute which resulted in the early start time. The US president was greeted by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, the head of the papal household, and escorted by the Swiss Guard from the Vatican courtyard to the offices of Pope Francis. Journalists who covered the initial greeting said the pair were cordial with each other. Trump told the Pope "it is a great honour". The two men spoke privately for about 20 minutes before returning to a public arena to exchange gifts. Though this is their first meeting, they've already sparred. During the election the Pope on a visit to the MexicoUS border said that people who only think of building walls instead of bridges were not Christians. Donald Trump described those comments as disgraceful, and accused the pontiff of being a pawn of the Mexican government. But on Wednesday both men were seeking to find common ground. It is hard to think of two more contrasting characters than Pope Francis and President Trump. On one hand, the Jesuit who has made his mission the championing of the poor and dispossessed; on the other the property developer who has championed getting rich, and surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet. Interestingly, Trump gave the Pope a boxed set of writings by the black civil rights leader Martin Luther King. The Pope gave Trump a signed copy of a message he delivered for World Peace Day, along with some of his writings about the need to protect the environment. "Well, I'll be reading them," Trump told him. Trump seemed subdued during their initial meeting, while Pope Francis was not as jovial as he sometimes is with world leaders. The two men appeared much more relaxed at the end of their 30minute private meeting. He was granted a short private audience with the head of the Catholic Church on the latest leg of his overseas trip. The two men have in the past clashed on issues such as migration, climate change and a MexicoUS wall. On international affairs, their "exchange of views" covered the "promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation and interreligious dialogue", and highlighted the need to protect Christian communities in the Middle East. The Vatican said later that they shared a commitment to "life, and freedom of worship and conscience" and expressed hope that they can collaborate "in service to the people in the fields of healthcare, education and assistance to migrants".

Saudi Arabia and Iran

Trump vowed to help Israelis and Palestinians achieve durable peace, as he ended

the Middle East leg of his tour. The US leader began his foreign trip with a twoday stop in Saudi Arabia over the weekend, urging Muslim countries to take the lead in combating radicalization. Western powers make maximum benefits of the illogical Saudi-Iran rift.

After the first leg of his trip in Saudi Arabia, President Trump seems to hope that Sunni Arab countries might be part of any solution between Israel and the Palestinians. Without doubt the Saudis and the Israelis are talking, because Iran is their shared enemy. But the Saudis have had their own Arab peace plan on the table for the last 15 years, offering full peace and recognition of Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the entire territory of the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in East Jerusalem. That is something the current Israeli government is not prepared to concede. Antipathy towards Iran is the one thing that Washington's disparate allies in the region agree upon. So, bashing of Tehran has been a prominent theme for Trump both in Saudi Arabia and now in Israel. Hostility to Iran is the glue that binds what some would like to believe is an emerging coalition between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf States together. But how far it really promises to shake up the sterile politics of the region is unclear. A common purpose to contain Iran is one thing but can it really extend to bringing a new diplomatic dawn to the region? For Trump, criticising Tehran performs multiple functions. It allows him to sound tough on the world stage. Tougher than his predecessor, Barack Obama, who, he believes, signed one of the worst deals in history in reaching the nuclear accord with Iran. It enables him to reassure both the Gulf Arabs and Israel at one and the same time. And it underscores the narrative of a common front emerging in the region that at least according to the Trump administration holds the enticing promise of a new dynamic in the logjammed struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. And, of course, it also sends a warning signal to Tehran about aspects of its policy in the region that Washington sees as contrary to US interests. It is also not a policy of nuance or one that contends with complex reality. How does it look providing ringing endorsements to the Saudis and selling them a fortune of weaponry, when they are engaged in a brutal war in Yemen? The Trump government's almost brash belief in the possibilities of a wider Middle East peace seems to be at variance with most experts who know the region well. They argue

neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are ready to make the hard compromises necessary to achieve a lasting peace. Some have argued that rather than focusing on a comprehensive deal that would have to resolve the hard questions like Jerusalem and refugees, the goal should be less ambitious; an interim deal that might mark the restarting of a longer term diplomatic process. But it is not clear yet if the new US administration has the patience for this kind of worthy diplomacy. And this brings us back to Iran. Just what is the Trump administration's policy towards Tehran? Indeed the reelection of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani may complicate matters further. He was perceived as the more moderate candidate after all, even if the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard still retain a key grip on foreign policy. President Rouhani is already encouraging some European politicians to talk of the search for an opening to Tehran. That may not go down well in Washington. But then there is the very complexity of the region that Trump’s rhetoric often overlooks. Interestingly, the Iraqi government is now one of Washington's main allies against so called Islamic State. But Iran too is a strong supporter of Baghdad and has deployed militia forces and advisers on the ground to aid the war effort.

Dealmaker’s hopes

President George W Bush sponsored a peace conference in Annapolis in 2007, which for a while was hailed, in vain, as a major step towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. President Bill Clinton presided over the moment in 1993 at the White House when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin exchanged a historic handshake and signed the Oslo peace agreement. At the end of his presidency in 2000, a make or break summit failed and was followed by years of violence and unrest. In recent times every American president also brings with him new hopes and fears for Israelis and Palestinians. In 2009 President Barack Obama trying to reset relations with Arabs and Muslims. In the process he alienated Israelis and its leaders never forgave him. His first act as president was to appoint a Middle East envoy whose peace mission, in the end, failed. Nobel foundations have played mischief by offering Obama the coveted Nobel Peace prize even before he could do nay thing meaningful in his presidency in the proper way. Nobel committee denied any chance for Middle East peace by almost imposing on him Peace Award that made him ineffective in solving the Mideast puzzle by establishing

Palestine. Perhaps had he not got the Nobel Peace Award, Palestine would have become a sure reality as he supported the Palestine cause towards the end of tenure at White House. . Now President Trump, who sees himself as the world's best dealmaker, says he would like to pull off the world's toughest deal. How quickly Trump would be able to get Israeli leadership on board to settle the world’s deadliest conflict in the name of Israel war on Palestine would determine the success of his efforts to end the blood bath in Palestine where Palestinians have been facing cruelty form Zionist military. . The US leader began his foreign trip with a two-day stop in Saudi Arabia over the weekend, urging Muslim countries to take the lead in combating radicalization. In

his final speech, at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, President Trump also identified himself, his government and the USA foursquare with Israel. He repeated, to lots of applause, that he would never let Iran have nuclear weapons. Israel has a substantial illegally obtained from USA and officially undeclared nuclear arsenal. Trump became the first serving American president to visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the holiest place where Jews can pray. That is being taken by Jews as his support for Israel. Trump became the first serving American president to visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the holiest place where Jews can pray. That is being taken as support for Israel. The wall is in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after it was captured 50 years ago and which most of the world outside Israel regards as occupied land. Some will interpret the fact that the president declined the Israeli prime minister's request to accompany him as a sign of support for the status quo view that it is occupied territory. President Trump, in his speech, did not pick up the cue. After making many warm remarks about Israel, which earned him standing ovations, he said he believed that the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, was serious about making peace. One pointer to a potential difference with Israel's hawkish PM Netanyahu came at the museum. In his opening remarks, Netanyahu said that if the bomber in Manchester was Palestinian, and his victims were Israelis, the Palestinian Authority would be paying a stipend to his family. He was referring to a Palestinian Martyrs' fund. It pays pensions to people it regards as victims of the occupation, including the families of individuals who have been killed attacking Israelis. There is also a fund to support Palestinians who have been imprisoned by Israel. The Palestinians have compared the payments to the salaries Israel pays to soldiers. Senior Israeli politicians and officials in the room disagree. Netanyahu said earlier this year that President Abbas lied to Donald Trump when they met in the White House. That is an important disagreement. If President Trump's hopes ever become

negotiations about substance he will find that there are many others. The two sides are far apart on the main issues, like the future of east Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state and the fate of Palestinian refugees. President Trump brought with him to Jerusalem most of his top advisers, dozens of vehicles and his own helicopters. The White House booked the entire King David Hotel for the president and his entourage. The Israeli and Palestinian authorities cleared the main roads of Jerusalem and Bethlehem for the movements of his armed and mighty motorcade. NATO President Donald Trump has arrived in Brussels ahead of a NATO summit where he will push the security alliance’s 28 members to meet their spending obligations and do more to combat terrorism. The fight against terrorism will be top of the agenda at the May 25 meeting in the Belgian capital, a stop on Trump’s first trip abroad since he took office in January. It is believed that the bombing in Britain that killed 22 people has been engineered to further strengthen the NATO and its brand state terrorism encompassing Islamic world. The whole idea for all this is to brand Islam a terrorist religion and to force Islamic regimes to kill Muslims as terrorists in order to reduce Islamic populations and loot their resources, valuable assets. . . . .

This is Trump’s first visit to Europe since taking office in January. Security has been stepped up across Rome, with the areas around the Vatican City, the Italian presidential palace and the American ambassador's residence, where Trump is staying, temporarily closed to traffic. Trump called NATO “obsolete” during the US presidential campaign last year, saying it was not doing enough to fight terrorism. He has also chided some members for not following NATO guidelines on spending. This visit will be about damage limitation with the fervent hope of establishing some kind of transatlantic chemistry. The tone in Brussels has gone from offtherecord sneering when the erratic and unpredictable Trump first won the November elections, to outright concern now that the implications of his presidency have begun to sink in.

Despite the heavy police presence, about 100 antiTrump protesters held a rally in one of Rome's squares on Tuesday evening. Significant protests are also expected in Brussels where he will meet EU and NATO officials. Trump is now in Brussels for talks with NATO and EU officials. He will also hold meetings with Belgium's King Philippe and Prime Minister Charles Michel. Later on

Wednesday, Trump flew to Brussels, where significant protests are expected. For the EU and for NATO, this visit is about damage limitation with the fervent hope of

establishing some kind of transatlantic chemistry, the BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler says. She adds that the tone in Brussels has gone from offtherecord sneering when the erratic and unpredictable Trump first won the November elections, to outright concern now that the implications of his presidency have begun to sink in. After his visit to Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, and to Israel, this is the final leg of the tour of three of the world's major religions. President Trump's commitment to fighting extremism and intolerance will win approval from the Pope, as will his determination to bring peace to the Middle East. And the president thinks there's another reason why they will get on. Back in 2013 he tweeted: "The new Pope is a humble man, very much like me." Trump was joined not only by his wife, daughter and soninlaw but also Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser HR McMaster. Both Melania and Ivanka Trump were dressed in black with their heads partially covered, in keeping with a traditional Vatican protocol that is no longer expected to be rigorously observed. Melania, a Catholic, asked the Pope to bless her rosary beads. Following his visit to the Vatican, Trump was moving on for talks with Italian President Sergio Mattarella and Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni in what is his first visit to Europe since taking office in January. Security has been stepped up across Rome, with the areas around the Vatican City, the Italian presidential palace and the American ambassador's residence, where Trump is staying, temporarily closed to traffic. Despite the heavy police presence, about 100 antiTrump protesters held a rally in one of Rome's squares. After the meeting between President Trump and the Pope, the Vatican said there had been an "exchange of views" on international issues, while Trump said they had had a "fantastic meeting". Trump also tweeted: "Honor of a lifetime to meet His Holiness Pope Francis. I leave the Vatican more determined than ever to pursue PEACE in our world." He arrived in Europe from Israel and the Palestinian territories, where he vowed to try to achieve peace in the region.

Observation

Today the world is at a cross roads. Palestinians and Kashmiris like other oppressed nations, brutally occupied colonist and imperialist regimes, continue to be strangled to death by democracy militaries aided by high precision terror equipment. President Trump has given a new hope for the survival of occupied masses with some dignity. . Whether or not he could be trusted remains a trillion dollar question.

. .

Enemies of Islam have succeeded creating a solid wedge between Saudi Arabia and Iran and through that a vertical split in Islamic world. That trend may not end any soon because Saudi led Sunni Arab states view Iran as their worst foe- even worse than Israel and all anti-Islamic rogue states operating in coalition to destroy Islam. Interestingly, a few Muslim regimes also led support to the destructive format of anti-Islamic forces globally. Absolute foolishness and fatal ignorance are not a part of Islamic faith. Nor reluctance to mold the mindset of Arab leaders could be an excuse to let the enemies of Islam invade energy rich Arab world. Donald Trump deserves global appreciation as he has said he is "more determined than ever" to pursue peace in the world after meeting Pope Francis at the Vatican.

The main problem is Israel does not want to resolve the conflict. Trump is right on one point. This is a conflict that badly needs settling. If that is not possible, there needs to be political progress. History shows that bloodshed tends to fill the void left by the absence of hope. Well, for all the rhetoric the practical reality of Trump's foreign policy is more guarded. So beyond a raft of trade deals in Saudi Arabia what have we really learnt so far. All the indications are, for example, that the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem has been put on hold. US Presidents have never talked about Zionist nukes and their danger posed to the humanity. Trump also never questioned the validity of Isabel possessing nukes illegally. For all of the president's repeated condemnation of the Iran nuclear deal, is he really capable of walking away from it? A Trump foreign policy is still very much a work in progress. Much of Trump's world view is now coming into a jarring contact with reality. This current trip is in large part ceremonial, it is very early in his presidency to be putting a toe into Middle Eastern waters. This is President Donald Trump's first foray to the Middle East and of course it will not be his last. He has already got one thing clear. Adversity really does make strange bedfellows. In all the speeches President Trump made during the trip there was no detail about how he might succeed when so many others have failed. So signs and symbols and implicit messages are being pored over for meaning.

Once his first foreign trip draws to a close on May 27 Saturday, President Trump will return to the US where his approval ratings are low and he is coming under increasing pressure over alleged Russian meddling in November's election.

Chapter-25: Tasks before reelected Iran President Hassan Rouhani! -Dr. Abdul Ruff ________

As expected, the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has been re-elected in a landslide victory, endorsing his efforts to re-engage with the west and offer greater freedoms at home.

Amid a large 73 percent turnout of eligible voters, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani won a first-round victory in the May 19 presidential election, garnering a decisive 57 percent of the vote, far exceeding his 50.7 percent majority in the 2013 election. Rouhani’s main rival, Ibrahim Raisi, garnered 38 percent of the vote despite having the clear backing of Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the security establishment led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Since July 2016, Raisi has been considered a front-runner to potentially succeed Khamenei as Supreme Leader. The 2017 election outcome could represent a key turning point in Iranian politics and Iran’s relationship to the international community.

Iranians have said a resounding Yes to President Rouhani who, in recent years and particularly during the last several weeks of campaigning, promised to expand individual and political freedoms and make all those centres of power, like the Revolutionary Guard, accountable. He also promised a moderate vision and an outward-looking Iran and, at rallies, openly attacked the conservative-dominated judiciary and security services. Another challenge will come from abroad, and the relations with the new US government. President Donald Trump opposes the nuclear deal which eased sanctions on the Middle Eastern country, but his White House renewed it earlier this week.

The election was seen by many as a verdict on Rouhani's policy of opening up Iran to the world and his efforts to rebuild its stagnant economy. Rouhani swept into office four years ago on a promise to reduce Iran's international isolation. Friday poll was the first since Rouhani negotiated a historic deal with world powers in 2015 to curb the country's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. In

the campaign trail, Rouhani sought to frame the vote as a choice between greater civil liberties and "extremism", criticising the continued arrest of reformist leaders and activists. Raisi, for his part, accused Rouhani of mismanaging the economy and positioned himself as a defender of the poor and calling for a much tougher line with the West.

Rouhani managed to strike an historic deal in 2015 with world powers over Iran's controversial nuclear programme, resolving a long-standing crisis with the West. International sanctions were lifted as a result, but average Iranians say they do not feel the economic benefits in their daily lives.

Iran today faces two most important problems: one its forward looking foreign policy and economic stagnancy- both are intertwined. The core reason for Rouhani’s significant victory is that he had delivered on a key promise—achieving the lifting of sanctions in conjunction with a landmark agreement with the United States and other major powers to implement restraints on Iran’s nuclear program. Iranians have faith in his leadership.

On foreign policy, Rouhani attracted voters with a promise to not only adhere to the seminal nuclear deal but to go beyond the agreement to reach broader understandings with the United States. Such understandings could yield the lifting of the remaining U.S. sanctions that make international firms hesitant to re-engage in Iran, but which would also entail compromises that the Supreme leader and IRGC are likely to thwart. A lifting of US terrorism-related sanctions would require Iran to sharply curtail its support for Lebanese Hezbollah and President Bashar alAssad of Syria—requirements that the hardline Iranian establishment would not permit under almost any circumstances. Similarly, the lifting of US proliferation sanctions would require Iran to cease developing ballistic missiles—a reversal that Iran’s hardliners would almost certainly block. US approach to the Syrian crisis would determine US policy o for Iran.

Washington wants the Iranian president to reign in the Spiritual leader and take full control of important institutions like IRGC and judiciary, thereby crate tension with the Spiritual leader. Rouhani’s inability to change Iran’s key national security policies will likely ensure that the Trump administration continues to strengthen alliances with Iran’s regional adversaries. President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia this past weekend came with the signing of a major package of new US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, including a Saudi purchase of the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile system designed to intercept Iranian missiles. Trump’s visit also included discussions of institutionalizing US-Arab alliances intended, in large part, to counter Iran’s regional influence.

Even though most Iranians have not yet experienced tangible economic benefits from sanctions relief, Iranian voters clearly turned away from Raisi’s candidacy in part for his potential to increase tensions with the international community and possibly trigger a re-imposition of those sanctions.

The economy that received setback due to sanctions form the western powers and allies remains the number one challenge for Rouhani, 68, who signed a nuclear deal between Iran, the USA and other countries in 2015. International sanctions were lifted as a result, but average Iranians say they do not feel the economic benefits in their daily lives. While oil exports have rebounded and inflation is back at singledigits, unemployment remains high, especially among the young people.

A vibrant economy alone could bring Iran closer to the western world. Rouhani, a moderate who agreed a deal with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear program, pledged to "remain true" to his promises. The decisive victory gives him a strong mandate to seek reforms and revive Iran's ailing economy, analysts say. In his first remarks after winning the poll, Rouhani said: "Great people of Iran, you're the winners of the election." Rouhani’s victory is welcomed by Iranian reformists as well as the country’s opposition green movement.

President Rouhani has brought GDP growth back into the black, inflation into singledigits and trade deficit into a surplus. But expectations are high and Rouhani himself is to blame, having promised miracles once the sanctions were lifted. Rouhani will now have a bigger mandate to push through his reforms, to put an end to extremism, to build bridges with the outside world, to put the economy back on track.

That growth came mostly from increased oil exports following the lifting of sanctions. Iran's highest record in the past four decades has been creating 600,000 jobs a year. Iran's current unemployment rate stands at 12.7%, up 1.7% over the past year. That puts the number of those with absolutely no employment at 3.3 million.

Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his two terms (2005-2013) started cash hand-outs when removing subsidies, offered low-interest loans for small businesses and launched massive projects of affordable housing for the poor. But when Ahmadinejad left office the economy was shrinking by 7% a year and inflation reached 40%. He blamed international sanctions. Economists blamed Ahmadinejad’s populist policies and his mismanagement of the economy.

Rouhani has brought inflation down from around 40 percent when he took over in 2013, but prices are still rising by over seven percent a year. Oil sales have rebounded since the nuclear deal took effect in January 2016, but growth in the rest of the economy has been limited, leaving unemployment at 12.5 percent overall - close to 30 percent for the young - and many more are under-employed or struggling to get by. "Rouhani now gets his second term, and will be able to continue the work that he started in his first four-year term trying to reform Iran," Hull said. "And moving on, crucially, from the nuclear deal to try and bring much more economic progress to satisfy the people who have found themselves extremely disappointed with the very slow pace of change since that agreement was signed." When it comes to young people, one in every three of those aged 15-24 is jobless. In that age group, every other woman is unemployed. For those without a job, Qalibaf is also offering a 2.5m rial ($66) monthly unemployment benefit, a first in the 38 years since the Islamic Revolution. The price tag for this election promise alone is a staggering $2.6bn. Iran's housing sector shrank 13% in the year to March 2017, while the country's overall economy grew by almost 6.6%, estimates International Monetary Fund. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has veto power over all policies and ultimate control of the security forces, While Rouhani has been unable to secure the release of reformist leaders from house arrest. While the nuclear deal was at the forefront of the election, the campaign was dominated by the issues of poverty and unemployment.

Rouhani considers himself a bridge between hardliners and reformists. Rouhani is also expected to face the same restrictions that prevented him from delivering substantial social change in his first term. Rouhani, during an "increasingly acrimonious election campaign, alienated a lot of Iran's significant state institutions who may be in no mood to cooperate with him going forward".

In Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique and uneasy hybrid of democracy and theocracy, the president has significant power to shape government, although he is ultimately constrained by the supreme leader. Khamenei, a hardliner thought to have favored Raisi in the election and as a possible successor for his own job, generally steers clear of daily politics but controls powerful bodies from the judiciary to the Revolutionary Guards. The Rouhani re-election offers the potential for the Trump government to incorporate some direct diplomacy with Iran into its overall strategy. While criticizing Iranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s policies extensively, in April the Trump administration certified Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, and it continued to waive US sanctions under the agreement in May. During Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visit to Saudi Arabia, which began as

Rouhani was declared the winner in Iran, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicated that, at some point, he expected to talk directly with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. Such direct bilateral engagement could overcome decades of mutual hostility and put the relationship on a more peaceful and productive trajectory, offering a new opportunity for engagement between the two long-time adversaries.

Chapter-26: President Putin calls for Eurasia integration! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

The loss of a mighty Soviet empire stills haunts Russians, their leaders. Russian President Putin has not made any secret of his anguish and anger over the unexpected disintegration of Soviet Union that made Russia a less important super power. Initially Putin made efforts to rebuild the Soviet state but could not succeed as many former Soviet republics now independent nations refused to join the Russia dominated single nation. The way he crushed the Chechens on his ascendance to presidency forced many of those pro-Russia states within the Soviet space rethink their desire to promote a mighty Russia. Putin has been making conscious efforts to rebuild the former Soviet states in some format by launching economic, political and military formations but they have not become as successful as the Warsaw Pact or COMCON had been during the Cold War. The concept of Eurasia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; bringing Europe and Asia together- got a phillip under Putin who is eager to see the region emerge more important and larger continent than EU in all respects, especially in economics and defense. However, USA is not impressed by the Russian move to counter its NATO in the longer context. Inspired by the Chinese initiative of OBOR and its vast potentials for the region covering three continents, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Beijing on May 14 that he salutes China's "large-scale" Belt and Road Initiative and called for greater Eurasian partnership. Putin made the remarks at the opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Initiative Forum for International Cooperation taking place in Beijing on May 14-15.

The Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China in 2013 consists of the Silk

Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road. It aims to build a trade and infrastructure network connecting Asia with Europe and Africa along and beyond the ancient Silk Road trade routes. During a visit to Moscow in May 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping signed an agreement with Putin on aligning the Belt and Road Initiative with the EEU, which currently groups Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. Calling the Belt and Road Initiative an example of cooperation in such fields as infrastructure, transport and industry, the Russian president said his country has supported the initiative from the very beginning. He said the historical experience of cooperation between countries linked by the ancient Silk Road through Asia, Europe and Africa is important in the 21st century when the world is facing "very serious challenges." Putin called for more cooperation to meet worldwide challenges like unbalanced development in globalization, poverty and regional conflicts, saying that Russia is working with its partners to advance the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), among others. The integration of the Belt and Road Initiative, the EEU, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has laid the groundwork for building a great Eurasian partnership, he said. Meanwhile, Putin urged concrete actions to materialize the existing initiatives by facilitating flow of goods, cooperation between enterprises of different countries in Eurasia, infrastructure construction and establishment of joint and large-scale research institutions. He said the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China is "very timely and promising." China goes farther than Russiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eurasia in approach with its OBOR concept to include the African continent as well. Both ideas are, however, despised by Washington that considers Russia-China alliance the most dangerous to its own global military supremacy scheme. Already, China is very close to USA in economic and military dolmans. --------

Chapter-27: Peace talks restart in Geneva over Syria: Will they do any good?

-Dr. Abdul Ruff _____

Six years ago, USA successfully instigated a civil war in Syria by using its opposition in order to remove President Assad from power and now with Russia supporting the Assad regime, escalation has reached the zenith. They now seek de-escalation of crisis in Syria without any sincere intention even as there is no possibility for Assad to step down or removed in any way.

In fact, USA did not want to remove or kill Assad as it had done with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It only wanted to destabilize entire Arab world one by one. While President Saddam Hussein was a threat to US imperialism and its efforts to control Arab oil, Libyan leader President M. Qaddafi challenged US power, Syrian leader Assad was never such a threat to US power and control mechanism. That is the prime reason why Pentagon-CIA duo has left Assad alive. After all, he is only helping with the execution of US agenda of destabilization of Mideast.

That is the reason why all the peace efforts by UN have failed. The United Nations has now convened a new round of indirect Syrian peace talks in Geneva, despite President Bashar al-Assad dismissing them as irrelevant. De Mistura met the government's chief representative, Bashar al-Jaafari, at UN headquarters on Tuesday morning as the sixth round of talks got under way.

The UN envoy said he would see Nasr al-Hariri and Mohammad Sabra of the main umbrella group representing political and armed opposition factions, the High Negotiations Committee (HNC). De Mistura told reporters the intention was to be "more businesslike, both in our meetings and in the way we hope we can get some progress". The rooms would be small, the meetings would be more interactive and frequent, and discussions would be focused on particular subjects in an effort to achieve "more movement", he said.

De Mistura told played down last week's dismissive comments by Syria's president, who said the Geneva talks were "merely a meeting for the media" and praised the parallel process taking place in Kazakhstan's capital that has been organised by the government's allies Russia and Iran, along with key opposition backer Turkey.

As the civilian death toll has mounted over the past six years, President Bashar Assad has rejected all allegations of atrocities as “devoid of logic” because “the Syrian Army is made up of Syrian people.” When confronted with overwhelming evidence of systematic violations of the laws of war, he has stuck to this line, insisting: “We don’t kill civilians, because we don’t have the moral incentive, we don’t have the interest to kill civilians.” Why don’t the Pentagon forces bomb the Assad palace and end the bloodshed? Apparently, without permission of Moscow, Washington simply cannot even think of doing that. Also, the great internationalization of Syria’s conflict and the fact that its rebels seek to topple the government work in Assad’s favor.

Syria is a strong state with well-organized military fighting territory-holding rebels who have significant popular support. The scale of civilian death and the pattern of violations constitute human horrors of rights: custodial torture and extrajudicial killings of suspected regime opponents, attacks on civilian targets including hospitals and aid conveys, and the use of prohibited weapons. And in both cases international audiences raised the alarm about mass atrocities. Assad has said "nothing substantial" will come out of the talks. But UN envoy Staffan de Mistura insists that the government's 18-strong delegation is in Switzerland "to work". Five previous rounds of negotiations have made little progress towards a political solution to the six-year civil war, which has left more than 300,000 people dead. The Astana process resulted in the three powers signing a memorandum on 4 May establishing four "de-escalation" zones in the north-western province of Idlib, north of the central city of Homs, the Eastern Ghouta area outside Damascus, and in the southern provinces of Deraa and Quneitra. "We are working in tandem, in a way,” de Mistura said. "Everybody's been telling us and we agree that any type of reduction of violence, in this case de-escalation, cannot be sustained unless there is a political horizon in one direction or the other. That is exactly what we are pushing for," he added.

The government and opposition have agreed to discuss four "baskets" - a political transition, new constitution, elections and combating terrorism. Meanwhile, officials from the Syrian government denied accusations that a prison crematorium was being used to hide mass killings of political prisoners. The Syrian foreign ministry said the accusations - made by the US state department - were "a new Hollywood story" and "totally baseless". An anonymous source quoted in the statement accused the US government of making the allegations up to justify US aggression in Syria. Residents of a Damascus suburb are working to bring a sense of normality back to their lives after six years of war. When the rebel groups seized Eastern Ghouta in 2012, the Assad government responded by cutting basic services like power and water and also laying a military siege to the area, making life of people miserable. .UN has not made any speedy arrangements to mitigate the sufferings of such stranded populations.

Over time, residents have worked to provide the kind of basic functions that many urban communities take for granted. But their efforts are often hampered by the brutal and prolonged conflict that touches every aspect of life. "Our reality is being intentionally isolated from the rest of the world," Abou Ramez, one of the pioneers of civil projects there told the BBC. An elected "municipal council" for all opposition-held areas in the Damascus countryside was also formed, as well as an umbrella organisation representing over a hundred medical, relief, educational and other civil institutions. Local councils were initially formed to provide relief work and basic municipal services, such as water and waste management. "We used cow manure to generate energy for generators to irrigate land," Ramez says. Power is also generated from waste products, and heating oil extracted by melting plastic. Over time the councils' role expanded to providing education and counseling centres. Projects are funded by external donors. Ramez, says that councils try to remain neutral towards militant groups, but they also recognize the opposition "interim government", formed in 2013 and based in Turkey.

Today, Syria tops the list of deadliest countries for journalists, in large part due to regime attacks on the domestic press. Humanitarian aid delivery has been restricted since the conflict began. In Syria, these measures cut off nearly all sources of independent information.

In 2016, Assad disputed the existence of the Aleppo siege, arguing that if it were true, “people would have been dead by now.” (One estimate suggests that more than 30,000 people died in Aleppo between 2012 and 2016.) The regime has disputed the authenticity of photo and video evidence of chemical weapons attacks, barrel bombs, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Assad’s farcical suggestion last month that the dead children in the videos from Idlib were mere acting children could be a joke. Syria disputed the attribution of all war crimes it can’t deny, and portrayed its opponent as the only blameworthy actor. Early in the conflict, Assad told international media that “Most of the people that have been killed are supporters of the government.” In 2013, he rejected responsibility for the sarin gas attack in Ghouta, insisting “We’re not there.” Finally, the Syrian government has accused the rebels of using civilians as human shields, and excused its targeting of hospitals and schools on the grounds that “terrorists” are using them as bases and weapons storage.

Obfuscation and denial can be enough to exploit this inertia and prevent intervention, especially when big powers like USA and Russia shield them. Syrian reality shows that even an international pariah can get away with mass murder.

The Syrian government does not recognize the councils and characterizes organised activity within rebel areas as the work of armed militia or "terrorist" groups. "It is exactly this kind of civil body that constitutes the biggest threat for the regime," says Majd al-Dik, whose team works on opening support centres for children. It has also worked to put Eastern Ghouta's large agricultural areas to use, by supporting local farmers to provide food for residents. However, Syrian forces seized the farmland just one week before the harvest in 2016. "Turning people from service providers into dependents - this is the goal behind targeting civilians," al-Dik told the BBC. Over 42 councils have been formed in the area since 2013, and members have been elected through democratic means since 2015.

Recurring internal fighting between rebel groups has also added to the obstacles facing civil work in Eastern Ghouta. When infighting first broke out in 2016, residents, activists and notable civil society figures staged demonstrations and sit-ins against the violence. Civil society figures also mediated between the disputing sides.

And in late April 2017 - exactly a year later - clashes broke out once again and several civilians were injured as they protested. Al-Dik says that movement around the area is severely restricted due to rebel snipers and checkpoints.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army and its allies have been advancing in the nearby strategic suburb of Qaboun, further tightening the siege and increasing the possibility of bombardment on the area.

Around two million people lived in Eastern Ghouta before the war began in 2011. Today there are just around 400,000. As well as the threat of violence, residents also face the fear of forced evacuation as the conflict turns in the government's favour.

In recent months, thousands of people in rebel-held towns have left their homes as part of deals between the government and armed groups. "To evacuate the area is to destroy the civil body that has been established," Majd al-Dik says. "It's a catastrophe".

The Syrian government maintains that evacuations are not being forced on civilians. Looking ahead to post-war Syria, Majd al-Dik says: "People ask about alternatives. But no-one talks about the local councils or civil institutions. Who is providing services in such areas now in the worst possible conditions?" Ramez says that many in Eastern Ghouta will never leave their homes. "Over 200,000 of our residents are capable of carrying weapons. Their united choice is to die and be martyred on this land rather than move to other areas only to be annihilated later on."

Peace talks between Israel and Palestine have never been successful because Israel

doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to give up the occupation posts and return the lands stolen from Palestinians. As talks have become bogus tools to gain legitimacy for illegal occupation and genocides.

In Syria, none is sincere about peace or stability, including the President Assad who just wants to be the permanent president without facing any elections. Maybe he thinks he has no death.

UN must step in to end hostilities in Syria and genocides and bring back normalcy. Peace task are necessary but without sincerity nothing is going to work. Both USA and Russia are fighting their old cold war in Syria. The Assad regimeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s close relationship with Russia means that it is well-protected. For six years, victimsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; advocates, international human rights activists, and horrified onlookers have been asking themselves how high the death toll in Syria has to get before someone will step in. But international action on mass atrocities is the exception rather than the rule. Like Bush and Obama, Assad also should be tried for crimes against humanity.

Chapter-29: Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia signs massive arms deal with Arab ally! -Dr. Abdul Ruff

_______ Apparently US-Saudi relations have been revised by the trip of US President Donald Trump in his maiden presidential trip to the land of Arabs as his first preferred choice to make his first foreign visit. President Trump in Saudi Arabia on Saturday signed a nearly $110 billion arms deal to help the Persian Gulf ally with its military-defense system. "That was a tremendous day," Trump, a highly successful US businessman said after signing the deal with Saudi leader King Salman.

"Tremendous investments in the United States. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments into the United States and jobs, jobs, jobs," declared a beaming US President who seemed determined to be very diplomatic. The White House says the package includes defense equipment and other support to help the Arab nation and the rest of the Gulf region fight again terrorism and the threat of a nucleararmed Iran, according to the White House.

US president hopes to rekindle a strategic relationship grown frosty under Obama as US officials pledging deals of around $350bn as the two allies rekindle a relationship that had grown frosty under the Obama government.

The multi-billion dollar defense deal “in the clearest terms possible” shows the United States’ commitment to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf partners and expands economic opportunities, the White House said. The deal will also supporting tens-of-thousands of new jobs in the US defense industrial base, the White House also said. The package includes tanks, combat ships, missile defense systems, radar and communications and cyber security technology. The agreements included a $110bn arms package that the White House said would help Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states face Iranian threats and contribute to counter terrorism operations, “reducing the burden on the US military,” a White House official said. The value of the deals signal a revived partnership that promises Saudi investment into US infrastructure in return for US arms deals for the kingdom. Saudi Arabia is also looking for US support as Riyadh tries to transform its oil-reliant economy after the sustained drop in crude prices triggered a budgetary crisis and rapid deceleration. The kingdom hopes to cement this renewed commercial partnership with a common vision to check Iranian ambitions in the Arab world. Trump on Saturday began a number of political and economic meetings with the Saudi leadership. Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia early Saturday as the start to his nine-day, overseas tour that will also take him to Israel and Europe. The international trip is Trump’s first since taking office in January. “Great to be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,” Trump (or his aide) tweeted upon landing in Air Force One. “Looking forward to the afternoon and evening ahead.” Trump greeted at the Saudi airport with an elaborate ceremony, punctuated by a military flyover and a handshake from the 81-year-old Saudi King Salman. The two leaders exchanged pleasantries and Trump said it was "a great honor" to be there. Several jets then flew overhead leaving a red, white and blue trail. The king, walking with the aid of a stick, accompanied Trump up a red carpet at the royal terminal of Riyadh’s airport, with the president’s wife Melania following at the back of the small welcoming committee. First lady Melania Trump wore

a black pantsuit with a golden belt and did not cover her head for the arrival, consistent with custom for foreign dignitaries visiting Saudi Arabia. In 2015, her husband had, in a tweet, criticized former first lady Michelle Obama for not wearing a headscarf during a visit to the kingdom. After two days of meetings in Riyadh, Trump will travel to Israel, have an audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican, then meet with allies at a NATO summit in Brussels and the Group of 7 wealthy nations in Sicily. As the US president landed, dozens of chief executives from Saudi Arabia and the US were convening at a forum where they discussed Saudi financial flows into America, and how the US could help diversify the kingdom’s oil-reliant economy. Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, signed more than $50bn worth of deals on Saturday, around $22bn of which were new memorandums of understanding, including: ● Investing $7bn with Rowan over 10 years to own and operate drilling rigs, creating 2,800 jobs in Saudi Arabia. ● Extending a joint venture with Nabors for oil well services, seeing $9bn of investment over 10 years, creating up to 5,000 jobs in the kingdom. ● A new joint venture with National Oilwell Varco in Saudi Arabia to manufacture driving rigs and equipment, seeing $6bn of investment over 10 years. Aramco also said it would boost operations at its US refinery unit Motiva, with a planned $12bn investment with a likely additional $18bn by 2023. The deal aims to create 12,000 jobs by 2023. Six firms — including Honeywell, McDermott and Weatherford — signed MOUs to expand Aramco’s use of locally produced goods and services, bringing $19bn of investment to the kingdom. Aramco also signed a deal with GE to deliver $4bn worth of savings via digitization of the oil firm’s operations. This was part of a GE package of valued at $15bn. When deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman visited Washington earlier this year, the White House estimated that Saudi investment pledges could rise to around $200bn. In the defence sector, Lockheed Martin signed a $6bn deal to assemble 150 Blackhawk helicopters in the kingdom, supporting 450 jobs. Raytheon and General Dynamics also signed agreements to support the localization of defence contracts. The deals support Prince Mohammed’s plans for the world’s third-largest spender on arms to create a domestic industry led by the newly formed company Saudi Arabia Military Industries. The kingdom wants to source half of defence spending locally by 2030 from 2 per cent now. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign Public Investment Fund pledged $20bn for a $40bn Blackstone US infrastructure fund, with $20bn to be raised from other parties. Blackstone said it expects, with debt financing, to invest $100bn in infrastructure projects, mainly in the USA.

Saudi Arabia offered Trump the elaborate welcome ahead of his two-day stay. Billboards featuring images of Trump and the king dotted the highways of Riyadh, emblazoned with the motto "Together we prevail." Trump's luxury hotel was bathed in red, white and blue lights and, at times, an image of the president's face.

Trump and the king met briefly in the airport terminal for a coffee ceremony before the president headed to his hotel before the day's other meetings. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told reporters on Air Force One that Trump spent the flight meeting with staff, working on his upcoming speech to the Muslim world and getting a little sleep. After spending much of Saturday meeting with King Salman and other members of the royal family, Trump was to end the day at a banquet dinner at the Murabba Palace. On Sunday, he'll hold meetings with more than 50 Arab and Muslim leaders converging on Riyadh for a regional summit focused largely on combating the Islamic State and other extremist groups. The centerpiece of Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia will be a speech Sunday at the Arab-IslamicAmerican summit. White House aides view the address as a counter to Obama's 2009 speech to the Muslim world, which Trump criticized as too apologetic for US actions in the region. Trump will call for unity in the fight against radicalism in the Muslim world, casting the challenge as a "battle between good and evil" and urging Arab leaders to "drive out the terrorists from your places of worship," according to a draft of the speech obtained by The Associated Press. The draft notably refrains from mentioning democracy and human rights — topics Arab leaders often view as U.S. moralizing — in favor of the more limited goals of peace and stability. It also abandons some of the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric that defined Trump's presidential campaign and does not contain the words "radical Islamic terror," a phrase Trump repeatedly criticized Hillary Clinton for not using during last year's campaign. White House officials hope the trip gives Trump the opportunity to recalibrate after one of the most difficult stretches of his young presidency. The White House badly bungled the president's stunning firing of FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing the federal investigation into possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. On Wednesday, the Justice Department relented to calls from Democrats to name a special counsel, tapping former FBI chief Robert Mueller to lead the probe.

At the close of the Saturday morning forum, about 70 senior Saudi executives and US chief executives boarded buses outside the Four Seasons hotel, bound for lunch with King Salman and Mr Trump at the royal court. The elite business delegation is set to hold postprandial talks with Prince Mohammed, architect of the kingdom’s reform plans. Around 30 US executives were approved to attend the lunch, including names such as Larry Fink of BlackRock, Michael Corbat of Citigroup, Roy Harvey of Alcoa, Adena Friedman of Nasdaq and financial adviser Michael Klein.

Trump dodged one potential land mine when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted on war crime and genocide charges, announced that he would not attend the summit for personal reasons. Trump during his winning presidential campaign and in the first several months of his presidency has argued the United States can no longer be the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s police officer and that other nations must become more self-sufficient in efforts to combat terrorism and in protecting themselves against rogue nations like Iran and North Korea.

The US president is expected to pledge his respect and support to Saudi leaders and to the region, after months of harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Arab-US oil-terror goods business is back to fore to cement the ailing ties between allies. The $110-billion (around 100 billion Euros) deal for Saudi purchases of US defense equipment and services was one of several deals announced during Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia. The military sales deal is effective immediately, with another $350 billion set of deals to kick in over the next 10 years. "This package of defense equipment and services support the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats," a White House official said when announcing the deal. "We now stand together to thwart our common enemies, to strengthen the bonds between us and to chart a path towards peace and prosperity for all," the leaders said in a joint declaration. Russia and Iran - allies with Syria against the US-Saudi Arabia axis in the region - this year signed a large arms deal. The US-Saudi deal comes amid talk of a possible reconfiguration of Middle East alliances, and possibly global ties. For Riyadh, the visit is an opportunity to rebuild ties with a key ally, strained under Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, who Sunni Arab Gulf states suspected of a tilt towards their Shiite regional rival Iran.

Chapter-30: Iran: Hassan Rouhani reelected President! -Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has been re-elected in a landslide victory, endorsing his efforts to re-engage with the west and offer greater freedoms at home. With a huge turnout, polling stations stayed open until midnight in parts of the country, defying concerns that moderates disillusioned by the weak economy or slow pace of change would not vote. The president received close to 23 million votes, Interior Minister Abdul Reza Rahmani Fazli said on state television, in an election that had an unexpectedly high turnout of about 70%.

Iran's reformist President Rouhani has decisively won the country's presidential election, fending off a challenge by principlist rival, Ebrahim Raisi a conservative cleric. With all of votes in Friday's poll counted, Rouhani was re-elected with 57 percent, Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmanifazli said. "Of some 41.2 million total votes cast, Rouhani got 23.5 and won the election," Rahmanifazli said in remarks carried live by state TV. Raisi, Rouhani's closest rival, main challenger, former prosecutor Ebrahim Raisi received 38.5%, or 15.7 million votes, not enough to take the election to a second round. A big turnout on Friday led to the vote being extended by several hours to deal with long queues.

Rouhani, a moderate who agreed a deal with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear program, pledged to "remain true" to his promises. The decisive victory gives him a strong mandate to seek reforms and revive Iran's ailing economy, analysts say. In his first remarks after winning the poll, Rouhani said: "Great people of Iran, you're the winners of the election."

Giving full details, Iran’s interior minister, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, announced live on state television that Rouhani received 23,549,616 votes (57%), compared with his conservative rival Ebrahim Raisi, who won 15,786,449 votes (38.5%). More than 41.2 million people voted out of 56 million who were eligible to do so. The two other lesser known candidates, Mostafa Aqa-Mirsalim and Mostafa Hashemi-Taba, got 478,215 and 215,450 votes respectively.

The incumbent saw off a strong challenge from Raisi, a fellow cleric with radically different politics who stirred up populist concerns about the sluggish economy, lambasted Rouhani for seeking foreign investment and appealed to religious conservatives. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, issued a statement addressed to the Iranian people in which he praised the “massive and epic” turnout. Presidency

In Iran’s unique and uneasy hybrid of democracy and theocracy, the president has significant power to shape government, although he is ultimately constrained by the

supreme leader. Khamenei, a hardliner thought to have favored Raisi in the election and as a possible successor for his own job, generally steers clear of daily politics but controls powerful bodies from the judiciary to the Revolutionary Guards. Despite losing the overall race, Raisi appeared to have won enough votes to allow him to campaign for office again or justify his promotion in unelected bodies.

Rouhani’s campaign headquarters said there was no plan to hold a celebratory rally. Iranians are usually quick to celebrate such victories, mainly by honking car horns or dancing in streets or distributing sweets. The scale of voter turnout was the highest for many years. The governor of the northern province of Gilan was quoted as saying the turnout there was 80%. In Yazd, the home city of former reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, there was 91% participation.

Fear of a Raisi presidency prompted many in Iran to vote. In Tehran, even political prisoners such as the prominent human rights lawyer Narges Mohammadi, cast their votes inside the notorious Evin prison. And the double Oscar-winning film director Asghar Farhadi voted in Cannes while participating at the festival. Significance Rouhani’s victory will be welcomed by Iranian reformists as well as the country’s opposition green movement.

Opposition leaders under house arrest, Mir Hossein Mousavi, his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi, had urged people to vote for Rouhani. The president changed his tone on the campaign trail in order to appeal to the opposition. “Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein” was a ubiquitous slogan chanted by Rouhani fans in almost every place he campaigned in the three weeks before the vote. The election was seen by many as a verdict on Rouhani's policy of opening up Iran to the world and his efforts to rebuild its stagnant economy. Rouhani swept into office four years ago on a promise to reduce Iran's international isolation. Friday poll was the first since he negotiated a historic deal with world powers in 2015 to curb the country's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. In the campaign trail, Rouhani sought to frame the vote as a choice between greater civil liberties and "extremism", criticising the continued arrest of reformist leaders and activists. Raisi, for his part, accused Rouhani of mismanaging the economy and positioned himself as a defender of the poor and calling for a much tougher line with the West.

Political commentator Mostafa Khoshcheshm said that in contrast to the 2013

election campaign, when Rouhani spoke about the removal of sanctions and the improvement of the economy, this time his message was different. "He resorted to other campaign slogans, like [calling for] social and political freedom, and he pushed the boundaries in order to gather public support, especially in large cities," Khoshcheshm told Al Jazeera. "If he has secured this result, it's because of the large cities and the middle class society living there - they have voted for him and made him a president and they expect him to do his promises."

Trita Parsi, of the National Iranian American council, said the results showed Iranians had chosen “a path of gradual transformation through peaceful participation”. “President Rouhani’s convincing win is a sharp rebuke to Iran’s unelected institutions that were a significant brake on progress during his first term,” he said. “It is also a rebuke of Washington hawks who openly called for either a boycott of the vote, or for the hardline candidate Ebrahim Raisi to win in order to hasten a confrontation.” He said it was now time for Rouhani to deliver on the promises that inspired people to vote him back in. Hardliners

Iran's hardliners had pulled all the stops and mobilized all their resources to bring out as many people as possible to grab the last centre of power in Iran that was not under their control, namely the executive branch. Sensing an effort by the hardliners, supporters of President Rouhani who back his promises to steer the country toward moderation came out in big numbers too. Turnout has been unprecedented. In Tehran, five million people turned out to vote - twice as many as in 2013.

This was a revenge of the people against the hardliners who intimidated them, jailed them, executed them, drove them to exile, pushed them out of their jobs, and discriminated against women.

Campaign

President Rouhani will now have a bigger mandate to push through his reforms, to put an end to extremism, to build bridges with the outside world, to put the economy back on track. Iranians have said a resounding Yes to President Rouhani who, in recent years and particularly during the last several weeks of campaigning, promised to expand

individual and political freedoms and make all those centres of power, like the Revolutionary Guard, accountable. He also promised a moderate vision and an outward-looking Iran and, at rallies, openly attacked the conservative-dominated judiciary and security services. Another challenge, experts say, will come from abroad, and the relations with the new US government. President Donald Trump opposes the nuclear deal which eased sanctions on the Middle Eastern country, but his White House renewed it earlier this week.

As polling day draws closer in Iran, the state of the economy had become the key battleground for the six candidates running for president. With rampant unemployment, some are promising jobs and others cash hand-outs as they appeal for votes. Given his record, winning this election ought to be easy for incumbent Hassan Rouhani - but his re-election was by no means a certainty.

Rouhani managed to strike an historic deal in 2015 with world powers over Iran's controversial nuclear programme, resolving a long-standing crisis with the West.

International sanctions were lifted as a result, but average Iranians say they do not feel the economic benefits in their daily lives. "For the past two years, many have stayed away from the property market, first with the hope prices would fall postsanctions and now for the fear of what happens in the elections," says Ali Saeedi, a real estate agent. "Many of my colleagues left their jobs because the market is dead," Saeedi, 33, says.

Iran's housing sector shrank 13% in the year to March 2017, while the country's overall economy grew by almost 6.6%, estimates International Monetary Fund.

But when it comes to young people, one in every three of those aged 15-24 is jobless. In that age group, every other woman is unemployed. For those without a job, Qalibaf is also offering a 2.5m rial ($66) monthly unemployment benefit, a first in the 38 years since the Islamic Revolution. The price tag for this election promise alone is a staggering $2.6bn. Qalibaf does not say where he will find the money, nor how he will manage to double Iran's job creation record.

But when Ahmadinejad left office the economy was shrinking by 7% a year and inflation reached 40%. He blamed international sanctions. Economists blamed Ahmadinejadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s populist policies and his mismanagement of the economy.

Challenge

The economy remains the number one challenge. Rouhani, 68, signed a nuclear deal between Iran, the US and other countries in 2015. International sanctions were lifted as a result, but average Iranians say they do not feel the economic benefits in their daily lives. While oil exports have rebounded and inflation is back at single-digits, unemployment remains high, especially among the young people.

Most members of Iran's fledgling private sector say they would give Rouhani another chance. "We want him to improve the business environment and free the economy from rent-seeking, corruption and monopoly," says Hamid Hosseini, chief executive of Soroosh oil refinery in Iran.

Hosseini is a board member of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines and the founder of the country's oil products export union. He says a large group of private sector executives have come together to support Rouhani. "His government has given the society hope with lifting sanctions, increasing growth and tourism, attracting foreign investment and should be confident in this race," Hosseini says. But the choice for some young Iranians like Ali Saeedi is not crystal-clear. Rouhani's re-election is likely to safeguard the 2015 agreement, under which most international sanctions have been lifted in return for Iran curbing its nuclear program. Rouhani has vowed to work towards removing the remaining non-nuclear sanctions, but critics argue that will be hard with Donald Trump as US president Trump has repeatedly described it as "one of the worst deals ever signed", although his administration re-authorised waivers from sanctions this week.

Rouhani is also expected to face the same restrictions that prevented him from delivering substantial social change in his first term.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has veto power over all policies and ultimate control of the security forces, While Rouhani has been unable to secure the release of reformist leaders from house arrest.

Rouhani, during an "increasingly acrimonious election campaign, alienated a lot of Iran's significant state institutions who may be in no mood to cooperate with him going forward".

While the nuclear deal was at the forefront of the election, the campaign was dominated by the issues of poverty and unemployment. ------------------

Chapter-31: Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New Silk Road project: Focus on South Asia! (3 parts) -Dr. Abdul Ruff ____________

Part -1: Rising Chinese power China, the only veto power of Asia and major global power, is seen trying to take a larger role in global affairs by promoting its economic ventures across continents of Asia, Africa and Europe by joint efforts. Obviously, besides

making joint ventures with wiling partners, China may be trying to put an end to US monopoly in world affairs, Beijing would like to share domination with USA. China has come out with a fast forward idea of working together for greater benefits for all nations involved. The Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21stcentury Maritime Silk Road or One Belt, One Road (OBOR) is a development strategy, proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping that focuses on connectivity and cooperation among countries primarily between the People's Republic of China and the rest of Eurasia, which consists of two main components, the land-based "Silk Road Economic Belt" (SREB) and oceangoing "Maritime Silk Road" (MSR). The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Bangladesh-ChinaIndia-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor are officially classified as "closely related to the Belt and Road Initiative". The strategy underlines China's push to take a bigger role in global affairs, and its need for priority capacity cooperation in collective economic affairs in areas such as steel manufacturing. The One Belt One Road initiative is geographically structured along 6 corridors, and the maritime Silk Road. New Eurasian Land Bridge, running from Western China to Western Russia; China - Mongolia - Russia Corridor, running from Northern China to Eastern Russia; China - Central Asia - West Asia Corridor, running from Western China to Turkey; China - Indochina Peninsula Corridor, running from Southern China to Singapore; China Pakistan Corridor, running from South-Western China to Pakistan; Bangladesh - China - India - Myanmar Corridor, running from Southern China to India; Maritime Silk Road, running from the Chinese Coast over Singapore and India to the Mediterranean. Essentially, the 'Belt' includes countries situated on the original Silk Road through Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. It goes through Central Asia, Russia to Europe. One Belt, One Road has been contrasted with the two US-centric trading arrangements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative offers enormous opportunities for all the countries involved and Greek business community warmly

supports all the efforts to deepen the two countries' cooperation under this context, President of the Greek-Chinese Economic Council Fotis Provatas said recently.

OBOR Summit 2017 Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomed UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres before the Leaders' Roundtable Summit at the Belt and Road Forum (BRF) for International Cooperation at Yanqi Lake International Convention Center in Beijing, capital of China, May 14-15, 2017. Around 30 state and government heads as well as delegates from more than 100 countries – including the USA and North Korea – discussed the Belt and Road initiative, one of the world’s biggest economic diplomacy programs led by China. In a keynote speech delivered at the opening ceremony of the two day Initiative called Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation held in Beijing on May 14 President Xi Jinping said that China would launch Belt and Road cooperation initiative on trade connectivity together with some 60 countries and international organizations. Xi said that the Belt and Road Initiative embodies the aspiration for inter-civilization exchanges, the yearning for peace and stability, the pursuit of common development and the shared dream for a better life. President Jinping called for renewing the Silk Road spirit. Noting that "we are at a fresh starting point, ready to embark on a new journey together," Xi said, "so long as we press ahead with a common vision without backpedaling or standing still, we will achieve greater connectivity and benefit from each other's development." Before the banquet, Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan greeted the guests at the Great Hall of the People. Apart from this zone, which is largely analogous to the historical Silk Road, another area that is said to be included in the extension of this 'belt' is South Asia and Southeast Asia. Many of the countries that are part of this belt are also members of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). North, central and south belts are proposed. The Central belt goes through Central Asia, West Asia to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. The South belt starts from China to Southeast Asia, South Asia, to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan. The Chinese One Belt strategy will integrate with Central Asia through Kazakhstan's Nurly Zhol infrastructure program. The coverage area of the initiative, however, is primarily Asia and Europe,

encompassing around 60 countries. Oceania and East Africa are also included.

The summit was aimed to map out China’s ambitious new Silk Road project, of which the OBOR is an integral part. The scheme was proposed in 2013 by Xi to promote a vision of expanding links between Asia, Africa and Europe. China has earmarked US$40 billion for a special fund for the scheme, on top of the US$100 billion capitalization for the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, many of whose projects will likely be part of the initiative. The OBOR’s wingspan is expected to include 68 nations from China through Southeast and South Asia to Africa and Europe. The conspicuous absence of the heads of state from the major Western economic powers and Japan at the belt and road summit this month in Beijing is a big mistake and a missed opportunity for enhancing dynamic and cooperative globalization. India, also seeking wide stage to promote its own interests, chose to ignore the China initiate. Cost and Benefits The initiative, unveiled in September 2013 by President Xi Jinping, aims to connect China by a network of overland corridors and sea routes to the rest of Asia, Africa and beyond, linking the dozens of countries through infrastructure and financial and trade ties. The economies along the routes account for about 63 per cent of the world’s population and 29 per cent of global GDP. Anticipated cumulative investment over an indefinite timescale is variously put at US$4 trillion or US$8 trillion. President Xi said in his speech at the opening of the forum that China will contribute an additional 100 billion yuan (about 14.5 billion US dollars) to the Silk Road Fund. Xi certainly looked keen

to begin exercising a leadership role, offering to help tackle the economic and security problems faced by Greece and Turkey, issues the EU has struggled to deal with. The Belt and Road Initiative is expected to bridge the 'infrastructure gap' and thus accelerate economic growth across the Asia Pacific area and Central and Eastern Europe: World Pensions Council (WPC) experts estimate that "Asia alone (excluding China) will need up to $900 billion in infrastructure investments annually in the next 10 years, mostly in debt instruments. This means there’s a 50 percent shortfall in infra spending on the continent." The gaping need for long term capital explains why many Asian and Eastern European heads of state "gladly expressed their interest

to join this new Chinese-led initiative focusing solely on ‘real assets’ and infrastructure-driven economic growth. Xi told his audience that he had proposed an additional RMB780 billion (approximately US$113 billion) to be disbursed through multiple sources. These include the Silk Road Fund; the China Development Bank; the Export and Import Bank of China and also overseas capital provided by Chinese banks. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is not part – at least not yet – of this proposed package. Out of this amount, RMB250 billion will be provided in loans from China Development Bank, and RMB130 billion from Export-Import Bank of China. This funding is not direct investment but loans, as in the case of China-PakistanEconomic Corridor, which the Chinese sources will provide to the participant countries. That would put Beijing in a position to steer the course of each country’s development to a direction it deems fit for its own interests. China, as the primary financer of loans, therefore stands to gain the most and it stands atop the list of potential beneficiaries.

The whopping trade imbalance that China has vis-à-vis almost all the OBOR countries and the way the OBOR initiative is solidifying, through various agreements, worries New Delhi. Less-developed countries along the new Silk Road stand are among the big winners of investment as China revives ancient land and maritime trade routes, according to estimates by a top bank. The potential benefits of the belt and road, if the dream were even only partly realized, could be enormous. The inclusion of the Middle East and Central Asia could contribute to peace and prosperity in these currently dramatically turbulent regions. Credit Suisse forecasts that China’s massive inflow of investment over the next five years as part of Beijing’s “Belt and Road Initiative” could amount to as much as US$502 billion or equivalent to 4 per cent of the total gross domestic product of the 62 countries along the routes in 2015. Credit Suisse estimates that China’s overseas investment in the initiative over the next five years will range between US$313 billion to US$502 billion, depending on how much investment the countries need and how much China is willing to put in. According to an HSBC estimate, the “Belt and Road Initiative” will generate roughly 300 billion yuan to 500 billion yuan in railway investment, financing more than 15,000km in high-speed rail links along the route. The Credit Suisse report said the initiative could become even more promising as a more “isolationist” administration in the United States created windows of opportunity. “With the new US government pulling out of the Trans-Pacific

Partnership, it is unavoidably sending a message to the world that US government policy is turning more ‘isolationist’,” the report said. At the same, China was striving for greater global influence, it said. Chinese investment could also help make up for any capital outflows in the region. If the dollar strengthens, especially as the US moves along the path of rate normalization, emerging market countries also have to face the risks of capital outflow. The biggest recipients of the investment dollars were expected to be India, Russia, Indonesia, Iran and Egypt, the bank said in a report released earlier this month. India stands to be the biggest gainer overall, according to the report, with China putting in ¬between US$84 billion and US$126 billion. Russia is next with US$53 billion to US$80 billion; ¬Indonesia third on US$35 billion-US$52 billion; Iran fourth attracting US$17 billion-US$26 billion; and Egypt fifth with US$13 billion to US$20 billion. The report also says China could invest between US$52 billion and US$79 billion in 13 African countries. “Africa is rich in resources, and an important destination for Chinese investment over the past decade,” it said. A successful, inclusive, globally collective effort to make the belt and road a reality could be a harbinger of peace and prosperity. It is a pity that myopia and prejudice prevent Western and Japanese leaders from being present at this potentially seminal event.

Part-2: South India’s take

President Xi’s project was intended to present the world with a view of statecraft different from what the West espoused. But so far Beijing had failed to find a rhetoric that would appeal to Westerners. China invites the world to join its “project of the century. The president’s vision, however, is winning supporters from across the globe. Xi told the conference: “Swan geese are able to fly far and safely through winds and storms because they move in flocks and help each other as a team,” The message is: the best way to meet challenges and achieve better development is through cooperation.”

Pakistan Pakistan where the Sino-Pakistani joint projects succeeded is the corner stone of China’s economic project. India is opposed to it. The project OBOR was first unveiled in September and October when Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Central Asia and Southeast Asia in September and October 2013 he raised the initiative of jointly building the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road and announced two major projects revealing the SREB and MSR, respectively. It was also promoted by Premier Li Keqiang during the State visit in Asia and Europe. The initiative calls for the integration of the region into a cohesive economic area through building infrastructure, increasing cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (also known by the acronym CPEC) is a collection of infrastructure projects currently under construction throughout CPEC is intended to rapidly modernize Pakistani infrastructure and strengthen its economy by the construction. On 13 November 2016, CPEC became partly operational when Chinese cargo was transported overland to Gwadar Port for onward maritime shipment to Africa and West Asia. The CPEC in particular is often regarded as the link between China's maritime and overland Silk Road, with the port of Gwadar forming the crux of the CPEC project. The Belt and Road Initiative proposed by China provides opportunities for the whole world to promote peace and prosperity, experts in Bangladesh said China's peaceful development is a blessing and opportunity for countries which face extreme difficulties given the rising protectionism in some countries. Bangladeshi experts highly lauded China's contribution to socioeconomic development of the world and said the initiative of reviving the ancient Silk Road through a network of roads and maritime waterways will surely be a boon for cooperation between China and the rest of the world. According to the experts, countries on the Belt and Road, especially those with underdeveloped infrastructure, low investment rates and per-capita income, could experience a boost in trade flow and benefit from infrastructure development. Pakistan foreign affairs expert Muhammad Mehdi says that the trade plan is not solely a Chinese enterprise. “China sees annual trade volume with Silk

Road countries from US$1 trillion to US$2.5 trillion within a decade. It reflects 9.6 per cent of annual growth. If South Asia taps this opportunity, it can change the fate of its poor people,” he says. An example of convergence of interests is clearly visible in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a multilateral development bank which India joined as the second largest shareholder after China. Similarly, the New Development Bank, where Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS) are equal partners, is headquartered in Shanghai, and is not envisaged as a Belt and Road initiative by them. South Asia

The OBOR project, designed to span 65 countries covering 65 percent of the world population, would enable China to not only champion as the primary engine of one third of global economic output, but also accumulate vast amounts of capital as repayments, and through its own direct trade from Central Asia to Europe. The project would obviously impact on the South Asian region. Plagued by territorial conflicts, poor governance and limping economies, the SA region has drawn inspiration from China’s plan and unleashed an effort to join a shared destiny. South Asia is marred by corruption that is undermining its growth trajectory. The World Economic Forum, in its 2015 Global Competitiveness Index, pointed to corruption as the primary reason for the region’s poor global competitiveness. As China puts conditions on every beneficiary of the trade plan to get rid of corruption, Pakistan and other South Asian countries must gear up to liberate themselves from vicious chains of corruption. Unemployment is a daunting challenge for South Asia. In order to increase socio-economic viability, it has to create one million jobs every month till 2020. According to the International Labour Organisation, global unemployment will go up by 3.4 million in 2017. With the belt plan a catalyst for transformational change in the economic profile of South Asia, CPEC has started showing its productivity by opening up thousands of jobs for local people. China’s ambassador to Islamabad, Sun Weidong, told reporters that so far the initiative has generated 13,000 local jobs. Experts claim that CPEC projects are likely to create more than one million jobs in various sectors of Pakistan by 2030. South Asia’s emergence as a leading economic power is in the making, and credit goes to China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”. The grand plan has set into motion game-changing strategies that will lead to free trade agreements,

economic integration, physical infrastructure plans, shared growth and structural reforms, all in tune with future demands. Since this epic plan was announced, South Asia – weighed down by a reputation for regional conflicts, security threats, bad governance, impaired transparency, an energy crisis, poor infrastructure, fragile institutions and limping economies - has unleashed its effort to be part of a shared destiny. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), a critical regional alliance in South Asia accounting for 21 per cent of the world’s population and 7 per cent of its economy, will receive a new lease of life after staying dysfunctional due to a long decade of differences among member countries, especially Pakistan and India. To help SAARC benefit from regional connectivity, China has already stepped up its endeavor to become a full member of the association. India and China are part of the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC), a sub-regional economic cooperation initiative involving the four countries which are engaged in talks for developing cooperation through a joint study group. This group had its latest meeting in Kolkata, India in late April. The BCIM-EC is now being projected as a component of the BRI by China. However, this initiative was conceived well before the Belt and Road Initiative was formulated, and it should not be subsumed within that strategy but instead pursued as a separate grouping for sub-regional cooperation. It involves full and equal ownership of all four countries involved, rather than a subsidiary position as a loop of the Belt and Road. Like China, India has its own agenda of connectivity and cooperation within Asia and beyond. For instance, India’s “Act East” strategy is aimed at developing close economic synergies with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and East Asia. Two great nations and civilizations such as India and China need not endorse or sign on to each other’s strategies. A more pragmatic approach will be to explore synergies and look at projects they can work on together, without insisting on artificial labeling. In the view of MP Lohani, former Nepalese ambassador to Bangladesh, China’s ambitious plan for regional connectivity will revitalize SAARC. So China’s induction into the regional body on the basis of its geographical, historical, cultural and economic features will be a breath of fresh air. The trade plan’s impacts will make China’s free trade agreements with Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and India more lucrative, triggering an economic boost. Though Pakistan and China are yet to finalize the second

phase of a free trade deal, trade between the countries was valued at US$4 billion in 2006-07 and reached US$13.77 billion in 2015-16.

The potential benefits of the belt and road, if the dream were even only partly realized, could be enormous. The inclusion of the Middle East and Central Asia could contribute to peace and prosperity in these currently dramatically turbulent regions. The trade plan undoubtedly will have a deep impact in alleviating poverty plaguing South Asia, home to 1.7 billion people. As per the World Bank’s latest poverty calculation, about 570 million people in South Asia still survive on less than US$1.25 a day. Peace is another dividend that will come to fruition with the new Silk Road initiative. India, with a fast-growing economy, has many disputes with China and Pakistan. It opposes the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a pilot project of the trade initiative, due to its route passing through Gilgit Baltistan, which India considers a disputed area between Pakistan and India. However, Indian lobbyists in collaboration with their Chinese counterparts have been brainstorming to build a peaceful neighborhood for relishing joint economic benefits.

India’s worry Nukes, Pakistan, Kashmir and cricket are the major concerns of India as it wants to control them at accost, including bribing big powers. All these domains, effectively managed by Indian lobbyist and agents, gave its economy strong footing.

Sandwiched between China and Pakistan and facing a strong freedom movement in occupied Jammu Kashmir, India took an uncharacteristically bold foreign policy stance by turning down China’s invite. India’s objections are rooted on the fundamental issue of its own sovereignty and territorial integrity, which it says have been violated due to the project. India feels the OBOR will basically further interests of Chinese banks and Chinese companies while ignoring Indian sensitivities. It appears to be a rapacious penetration of Pakistan’s economy and territory, including that of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan to which India lays claim, by Chinese enterprises and agencies. Whenever India, ignoring the freedom struggle being waged by Kashmiris who have been fighting for their lost sovereignty, has lobbied at international forums for entry

to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, permanent membership of the UN Security Council and push for UN sanctions against Pakistan, Beijing has always opposed i. Beijing thus offers New Delhi little incentive to be ebullient about bolstering its own causes and crusades especially at the international level India is keen not to lose out Jammu Kashmir under any new project in South Asia. India opposes and ignores the OBOR. China’s relations with India are not as smooth as its Pakistani ties, although all these nations occupy parts of Jammu Kashmir. India is suspicious of Chinese moves. Plans are being hammered out for a free trade agreement between India and China. That effort comes amid India-China trade volume hitting US$70 billion in 2016 as India sought to increase exports to US$30 billion. Meanwhile, joint feasibility studies for a FTA linking Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are on the fast track. There is room for closer consultations between China and India on the objectives, contours and future directions of the Belt and Road. However, India has considered synergy-based cooperation on a case-by-case basis, where its interests for regional development converge with that of other countries, including China. This pragmatic approach is formulated on India’s stance that as the two major powers in Asia, there is bound to be common understanding on many global and regional issues between India and China. They have cooperated on international platforms with similar positions on climate change and global trade, for instance.

Linked to this is the compulsion of protecting Chinese maritime commerce, particularly oil, in the IOR. India risks being systematically frozen out of business opportunities in an enlarging area that is integrating with the Chinese economy around the world. Chinese scholars have been issuing dire warnings on how India would be isolated as most Asian nations as well as the USA and Russia are on board. India’s noncooperation is also being linked to Sino-Indian ties, which have hit a new low lately. The unresolved decades-old border dispute, Chinese support for India’s arch-rival Pakistan and New Delhi’s backing of the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama which rankles China, have affected bilateral relations. Critics also feel that India’s underwhelming response to China’s grand scheme stems in part from the latter consistently squashing its neighbor’s ambitions to augment its influence at the global high table.

It is difficult to say whether India hated more China or Pakistan. India has repeatedly conveyed its strong objections regarding the CPEC to China. A flagship program and the most advanced component of the initiative, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a region that is under the control of Pakistan and India now claims to be its own as a ploy to force Pakistan to stop fighting for India occupied Kashmir. As a country acutely conscious of its own sovereignty-related claims, it wants China to appreciate India’s “sensitivities” in this regard. Besides Indian objections, a document acquired by leading Pakistani daily Dawn lays out Beijing’s plans for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which includes installing 24-hour surveillance in major cities and the dissemination of Chinese culture. Such designs could give fuel to those who frame OBOR as 21st-century Chinese colonialism.

Part-3: Problems and Prospects

The Belt and Road plan, according to Beijing, is a practical economic strategy for China’s objectives to connect the region, seek new growth engines for its slowing economy, utilize its surplus capacity, and develop and stabilize its western regions. It would also bring benefits to partner countries. The Belt and Road plan is a Chinese initiative rather than a multilateral enterprise undertaken after prior consultation with potential partner countries, and India has not endorsed it. It is one of the most imaginative and ambitious programs ever to be rolled out by a government. It represents a broad strategy for China’s economic cooperation and expanded presence in Asia, Africa and Europe, and has been presented as a win-win initiative for all participating nations. But for India seeking not to lose out Kashmir by any developmental projects in the region, the connotations of China’s Belt and Road Initiative” for New Delhi are somewhat different. By joining, India could benefit from Chinese investment in infrastructure projects, and fast-track its economic development through trade connectivity.

The origin of the belt and road idea is to open up China’s landlocked western provinces towards Central Asia in a sense it is exporting China’s internal needs to find external solutions.

It is however wrong today to presume that the One Belt-One Road in Beijing is fundamentally the elaboration of a Chinese dream wherein participant countries appear only as facilitators and fade away China would make maximum out of it. India opposes China to be on top of the hierarchy of the states participating in it and it does not approve Chinese leadership and seeks USA to contain China. .

Enthusiasm for Chinese money, however, does not equate to enthusiasm for Chinese leadership. OBOR revealed eye-catching figures including the Chinese government’s pledge to invest $124 billion into the scheme and provide $78 billion of financing for OBOR projects. Both the Belt and Road are clearly intended to enhance connectivity not just across Eurasia but between China and Europe. However, the EU, which holds reservations over OBOR, can put the brakes on China’s plans, demonstrated by its ongoing investigation into the Belgrade-Budapest highspeed rail funded by Beijing.

China is by no means an angel. Nor, however, as Western and Japanese rhetoric tends to proclaim, is it a devil; or certainly no more so than previous rising great powers. Furthermore, while for much of modern history China was subjugated and marginalized, it’s quite staggering re-emergence will continue to mark the first decades of the 21st century. Skeptics are, however, questioning the lack of details and multilateral stewardship of the initiative. The strategy spearheaded by President Xi Jinping seemed to be incompatible with China’s preference for “one-way” globalization and assertive policies in Southeast Asia, particularly on maritime routes in the South China Sea, experts said at the Oxford China Forum held in the University of Oxford.

It is a plan that is going to allow a Chinese penetration in the “host” countries on an unprecedented scale which India opposes. Again, at least this is what the CPEC master plan tells us in terms of the presence that China will come to establish through its “flagship” project in Pakistan, putting it yet again on top of the vertical order China is building. The pledges China has so far made have been far from sufficient to complete the projects its leadership claims to have already put in motion, or meet Asia’s growing infrastructural requirements, which will be needing, according to ADB, a whopping US$26 trillion up to 2030. China seems to have a strategic and political agenda which remains opaque. Apart from the CPEC that directly connects China and Pakistan, India also has misgivings about the manner in which the Belt and Road Initiative is

being pursued in its neighborhood. For instance, the development of ports under Chinese operational control as part of the Maritime Silk Road strategy has raised concerns in India. While investment in the Gwadar port, roads and energy projects is reported to have increased from US$46 billion to US$55 billion, CPEC lacks economic justification.

While Xi could not call a spade a spade, the OBOR is far from a gateway to “win-win co-operation,” it is a project saddled with loans, allowing China to invest and reinvest its surplus capital, money that it will use to further boost its international standing to potentially alter the global order to its own advantage in the coming decades, if not years. Apart from general resistance to China’s efforts to make its economy stronger, some have expressed concerns that OBOR projects will be overly tailored to China’s needs, favoring projects designed to export Chinese overcapacity in industries such as steel and make use of surplus savings. If these projects do not generate the expected returns for the host countries, it could leave them burdened with debt. China clearly wants a horizontal, non-vertical integration and it always clarifies that there is no hegemonic plan inherent in the Two Silk Roads. Indeed, the issue lies in putting an end to the US "hegemony", not in creating others. Some observers argue, there is no reason why OBOR cannot be as mutually beneficial as President Xi claims. Building infrastructure in other countries with Beijing’s financial support “should benefit trade and economic development in those places, while of course bringing new business opportunities to Chinese companies Of course, at this stage, the belt and road represents a vision, a dream, that will face innumerable obstacles – financial, environmental, technological, logistical, social and geopolitical – to translate into reality. It is also without doubt motivated primarily by Chinese interests. But what country ever undertook a major international initiative that wasn’t primarily motivated by its own interests? The post-war Marshall Plan was not an act of pure American altruism, but rather one of enlightened self-interest. China’s push to create new trade and infrastructure links through its “One Belt, One Road” initiative will be hampered by Beijing’s reluctance to open up investment for foreign companies, according to experts. A successful, inclusive, globally collective effort to make the Belt and Road a reality could be a harbinger of peace and prosperity. It is a pity that myopia and prejudice prevent Western and Japanese leaders from being present at this potentially seminal event.

What OBOR is therefore doing is not simply a Chinese push towards development, it is equally raising a multitude of problems for the host countries. A clear absence of enough resources to repay loans perhaps tops the list.

It is especially important that China be engaged in the institutional framework of global governance, and that initiatives for enhancing trade and investment be welcomed rather than rebuffed. Yet the opposite has been happening, while the EU must engage with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), “the decision to launch the AIIB came as a direct result of China’s growing frustration over only playing a marginal role within the existing international financial system”. This is true of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. China plan can boost one aspect. Asia is fast getting old and the harsh reality is that it could do so before it gets rich. Although Asia remains the growth champion of the world, the highly populated continent is ‘shifting from being the biggest contributor to the global working-age population to subtracting hundreds of millions of people from it, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) East Asia, in particular, is projected to be the world’s fastest-ageing region in the coming decades, with its old-age dependency ratio roughly tripling by 2050.

Chapter-32: Cricketism: How Bowler Aamir led Pakistan to final of Champions Trophy 2017?Can Russia and China over take USA? -Dr. Abdul Ruff ____________

participation in the Indian economy is growing as India’s markets expand and new opportunities arise. The two countries must continue to jointly explore points of convergence in their respective connectivity and developmental agendas and utilize openings for collaboration. The simultaneous re-emergence of China and India generates new challenges and opportunities which can be addressed through better strategic communication and mutual accommodation in respect of specific theatres, situations and issues to the maximum extent feasible. This will involve understanding each other’s vital interests while avoiding any expansive definition of those interests. Regional economic growth was gaining traction, as opposed to global growth under the new US new government under Trump. For instance, exports to China from countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations recovered faster and better in recent months than those of other trading partners. In March 2017, the growth of Asean’s exports to China was higher than those to the EU, the USA, Japan and South Korea. But China’s actual investment in the belt and road countries might fall short of expectations, given the drop in its foreign exchange ¬reserves over the last few years. China’s forex reserves stood at US$3.030 trillion in April, well ¬below the peak of US$4 trillion -recorded in June 2014. Experts say that Chinese companies might be less aware of the legal and financial risks in dealing with countries along the routes, especially those with complex political situations. Uncertainties brought by China’s rapid drop in foreign-exchange reserves and volatile energy prices in the international market could crate problem so for Beijing. While China had signed up for rule-based global systems such as the World Trade Organisation, the country remained fundamentally sceptical of such liberal international orders. There was little all 65 countries had in common – whether it be rule of law, culture or language. Although China billed the summit in Beijing as its diplomatic event of the year, many, especially in the West, remain resistant to Xi Jinping’s charm offensive as they do not want China to lead the world. Some see OBOR as Xi’s effort to place himself at the head of the flock. Some leaders are lining up behind him, but while many are keen for an injection of Chinese money, fewer are ready to accept Chinese leadership because of the ongoing USChina clash.

Aging populations and economies Japan is the world’s most aged country with an old-age dependency ratio of 43.3 per cent at the end of 2015, forecast to rise to 70.9 per cent by 2050. That ratio is defined as a measure of the size of the population 65 years of age and older as a share of the working-age population, itself defined as comprising those aged 15 to 64. For Hong Kong the figure for the end of 2015 was 20.6 per cent but is forecast by the IMF to rise to 64.6 per cent in 2050, while for China the equivalent figures are 13.1 per cent and 46.7 per cent respectively. Both economies are going grey. In its favour, Hong Kong does benefit from material working-age immigration. For China, where the IMF calculates net migration is relatively small, and where it expects a decline in absolute terms of 170 million in China’s working-age population over the next 35 years, the estimate for the impact of the demographic trend on real GDP growth in the period 2020-50 is minus 0.6 per cent. That means both that “countries in Asia will have less time to adapt policies to a more aged society than many advanced economies had”, according to the IMF and that “some countries in Asia are getting old before becoming rich or, to put it differently, they are likely to face the challenges of high fiscal costs of ageing and demographic headwinds to growth at relatively low per capita income levels”. Asia’s policymakers will have to address these issues. The IMF points out the need for Asia to strengthen its pension systems to accommodate the consequences of rapid ageing and the attendant fiscal costs. China’s demand for energy has led the country to scour the region for suppliers. Turkmenistan has been a major beneficiary of this initiative due to its vast energy reserves. China plans to increase its gas imports from Turkmenistan over the next decade to 65 billion cubic metres per year. Launched in 2013, Xi’s program calls for billions of dollars to be ploughed into new railways, ports, and energy projects in 65 countries. China has invited leaders from more than 20 countries to a summit on the plan it is hosting in May and hopes will be larger than the G20 meeting held in Hangzhou last year. John Farnell, a former director at the European Commission, said China would need to clearly spell out the investment opportunities for companies if it wanted other nations to participate. Fair, open bidding on contracts is a

must. “If China’s vision of ‘One Belt, One Road’ is an extension of what happened in its domestic market, then there probably will not be a lot of space for European participation,” said Farnell, who managed the EU’s policy dialogue with China before retiring in 2012. Beijing’s reluctance to open up its government procurement of goods and services to outsiders had worsened trade imbalances with Europe. There is a fear the same trend will occur with investment. Over the past decade, China basically shut out European capital to protect state-owned companies, particularly in telecoms and finance, stalling investment growth from the European bloc. Farnell said “Clearly we want big construction projects, legal and financial services in ‘One Belt, One Road’ to be opened up to international competition, and the most effective way is to have as much competition as possible. Life of common men better Weak nations in Asia and African could benefit from Chinese idea as they could emulate the Chinese experience in minimizing poverty. Many illustrations of China’s most awesome achievement over recent decades are visible all over China and most importantly the state lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty and the creation of a vast new urban middle class. In 1981, 88 per cent of Chinese (and 96 per cent of rural Chinese) lived below the poverty line; in 2013, only 2 per cent of Chinese were extremely poor.” That is worthy of respect and Indian politicians and officals loot the resources for personal use rather than let the resources shared by all citizens. China’s achievement is all the more impressive in that it was not only unprecedented, but also unexpected. The often proclaimed “era of humiliation” – from the first opium war in 1839 to Liberation in 1949 – was no myth, but very much a reality. Though China was not colonized by any single power, as, say, India was by Britain, it was what Sun Yat-sen termed a “poly-colony” – i.e., gang-raped. In 1950, the newly liberated People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet, which was reprehensible, but Britain also invaded Tibet (in 1903/04), not to mention the roughly half of the planet that was conquered and subjected by the empire. In its wars against China, Japan is estimated to have caused some 30 million deaths, along with multiple mutilations, tortures and rapes. I am not aware of single Japanese killed by Chinese troops in the course of China’s recent rise.

Thousands and thousands of Chinese come to visit the Louvre in Paris these days, to gape at the Mona Lisa and other masterpieces of art, not to pillage and burn it down as French troops did to the Summer Palace in Beijing. While the USA presents itself as the great global moralizer, it seems to forget that its rise to great power status included the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of millions of Africans, wars against its Latin American neighbours and the conquest of the Philippines. While China went to war against Vietnam in 1979 (and lost), in terms of crimes against humanity, it was nothing compared to the war against Vietnam (and Laos) waged (and lost) by the USA. Seemingly addicted to belligerence, this century has seen America’s illegal war against several Muslim nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, etc., with all the carnage that ensued. All this, needless to say, is not to suggest that it is now China’s turn to invade, conquer and pillage.

Though China’s 2005 pledge of a “peaceful rise” seems more illusory with each passing year, it would be in the world’s best interests if it could be achieved. Indeed, the implications of the alternatives are cataclysmic. However, in the process, the West and Japan should be conscious of the inevitable scars China bears from past exploitation and humiliation and thus refrain from taking the hypocritical high ground, which seems to be common China policy currency.

As to the World Trade Organisation, the death of the Doha Round is in great part due to the inability of the erstwhile established leaders of the global trading system – the so-called “Quad”, consisting of Canada, the EU, Japan and the US – to integrate China. Instead, the US and Japan proceeded to create their own initiative, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from which China was visibly excluded; this way, as they claimed, “we will write the rules, rather than let the Chinese do so”. Surely, the appropriate, constructive and dynamic approach would have been to write the new rules ¬together.

Not only did the Japanese-American alliance seek to exclude China by setting up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but when the Chinese launched the AIIB, aimed at financing much needed infrastructure investments across the Eurasian continent, they refused to join and sought to browbeat other nations to follow suit. Fortunately, on this occasion, good sense prevailed in Europe and Asia, as most countries from both joined. However, it does not

make it less disappointing that the major Western powers and Japan should be no-shows at the forthcoming summit.

In 2012, Iran accepted the yuan as means of payment for its oil. In 2013 the Chinese Central Bank stated it no longer needed to accumulate reserves in foreign currencies. In 2014 gold could be bought on the Shanghai Stock Exchange with the yuan and in 2015 Russia accepted the yuan as means of payment for its oil supplies to China. The Chinese Central Bank’s gold reserves have increased by almost 56% over the last three years. The US public debt amounts to 20 trillion dollars, the Federal Reserve tends to raise interest rates in a world of zero or even negative interest rates and public spending is expected to rise under Trump's Presidency, the 1971 old wisecrack by John Connally, the former Head of the Federal Reserve, is still topical: "The dollar is our currency, but it is your problem". World is watching US isolationism with opportunistic eyes. As some Western countries move backwards by erecting 'walls', China is contriving to build bridges, both literal and metaphorical,” proclaimed the state-run Xinhua news agency In recent times, the dollar value in word trade has increased by about 25%. It is currently 40% higher than in 2011. The SCO region (Russia, China, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan) 3.92 billion people live (according to 2014-2015 data), namely 54,4% of world's population, that generates an aggregate GDP accounting for 32.2% of the global gross domestic product.

Chapter-33: Mideast: How quickly will Netanyahu be able to control Trump?

-Dr. Abdul Ruff _______

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged that AlAqsa Mosque – which he called the Temple Mount – will remain in Jewish control forever, local media have reported. He made this pledge just one day after the visit of US President Donald Trump to the region. In a bizarre twist of the Zionist myth that Palestine was "a land without a people for a people without a land", Netanyahu claimed that there was "nearly nothing" before the Israeli occupation.

Netanyahu told the Knesset (parliament) today in a session attended by President Reuven Rivlin and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Miriam Naor. The special session was held to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Israel’s occupation of the eastern part of the city. In a bizarre twist of the Zionist myth that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”, Netanyahu claimed that there was “nearly nothing” before the Israeli occupation. “It was forsaken and in constant crisis,” the Times of Israel reported. He pledged that Israel would never return to the situation where Jerusalem is divided Both are in the Old City of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in June 1967 and annexed subsequently, illegally according to the rest of the world. The fact that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem is not recognised by the international community means that almost all embassies are located in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu described this as “absurd” and stressed that moving the embassies to what Israel believes is its “undivided capital” – Jerusalem – especially the US Embassy, is “not a trivial matter”. Meanwhile, an Israeli official told the Hebrew-language Maariv that the Palestinians were “distressed and put back 100 years” by Trump’s visit to the region. “It is the first time in years that there is no American pledge to reach results for [Israeli-Palestinian] talks. The level of expectations of the Palestinians was reduced.”

Palestinians Commemorate “the Catastrophe” called Israel. Thousands of Palestinians poured into the streets of West Bank cities on Monday to mark the 69th year of the “Naqba” – the “catastrophe” of Israeli statehood and what Palestinians claim is a cumulative dislocation of as many as 66 percent of the estimated 13 million Palestinians worldwide originating with the expulsion of 750,000 in 1948. Separate from the Palestinian quest for statehood is the socalled “right of return” of those displaced – including extended families since that time – to return to what today is the state of Israel. Just prior to President Trump’s visit to the Middle East and his opening gambit to jumpstart the dormant peace process, Palestine Liberation Organization SecretaryGeneral Sa’ib Erakat apparently added to the list of conditions for resuming peace talks Israeli recognition of and apology for the Naqba. The Palestinian leadership recently initiated a campaign to obtain an apology from the British government for the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a seminal document in the quest for a Jewish state that expressed support for the idea. Palestinian leaders have also expressed anger and disappointment at what they see as a lack of response by the international community to its mass hunger strike by more than 1,500 Palestinians being held in Israeli jails for security offenses. The post Palestinians Commemorate “the Catastrophe” called Israel Even before Trump assumed office at White House, Israeli regime, its lobbyists in Washington, the financially powerful Jewish community leaders in USA, etc are working together to streamline the Trump policy for Israel and Mideast. They are making all out efforts to make Trump an agent of Israel and Jews. Former US secretary of state Mrs. Clinton, among many others, worked for Israeli interests. And since she could not win, they want Trump do exactly what Mrs. Clinton would have done had she won presidency as widely expected. They are already winning as Trump has already fallen in to the Zionist trap. . Apparently, by May Trump and team would be in the pocket of Israeli PM Netanyahu and Israeli agents. The Zionist regime is sure about that, going by their past experience in dealing with USA and Europe. If anyone calls every shrewd politician as being a scoundrel, then, US president Donald Trump surely is entitled to have that honor. He just pretended he is different from all other presidents who ruled the world before him.

Presidents before Trump made a ritual visit to Israel as one of their first foreign tours to eat

sumptuous Jewish meals, and Trump also has in his itinerary in his hit list Israel as one of his the first ever choices. His Jewish son in law is now busy with White house stalwarts and foreign ministry officals as well as Israeli government to arrange his Christian father in law’s first trip to the Jewish state. That is the intense nature of ties between USA and Israel- the leaders of anti-Islamic nations. So, one can imagine what could be the nature of Israeli-Palestine relations and how many more Palestinian children would Israeli military and police would kill in the next one year, to start with. Every President before Trump has visited Israel to declare their strong ties and the continued Pentagon’s unending support for Israel with terror goods and technology. This attitude of US presidents emboldened Zionist regime to be a terrorist-criminal state as part of global colonialist system. A senior Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs official in the know on Israeli-US relations told AlMonitor that in recent days Israel has been approached by senior officials in the Trump administration about a possible US policy initiative related to the region and to IsraeliPalestinian peacemaking. Trump’s staff is currently preparing his first official visit to Israel (apparently on May 22), yet these preliminary contacts were exploratory in nature. The US officials emphasized to their Israeli counterparts that no decision has been made yet by Trump’s Middle Eastern team and his associates, including secretaries of the State and Defense departments, head of the National Security Council, and advisers Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. Summary⎙ Print US President Donald Trump’s Middle East team is exploring the possibility of a double-track initiative for Israeli-Palestinian and Middle East regional talks. Author Uri Savir Posted April 30, 2017 According to the Israeli source who spoke on condition of anonymity, the US officials did say expressively that in any case Israeli security interests will be taken care of “as never before.” What concerned the senior Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs official was a request to know Israel’s position on a possible qualified acceptance of parts of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. In the Israeli source’s view, this request indicates that the Trump administration has been influenced by Arab interlocutors such as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who all expressed in similar terms that the Arab Peace Initiative is the only possible basis for regional progress on the Palestinian issue. A seasoned Middle Eastern expert, who advises Trump’s Middle East team, told Al-Monitor that the Trump administration has three priorities in the Middle East region: the defeat of the Islamic State (IS), a cease-fire arrangement in Syria that sidelines Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and a regional agreement on Israeli-Palestinian peace. According to this adviser, the administration wants to work with the pragmatic Arab coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on all three efforts. He emphasized that linking President

Donald Trump’s interest for a deal on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to other regional issues, such as fighting IS, would be a mistake. These are three distinct goals. Trump has genuine ambitions to outshine all previous US presidents on a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, regardless of his ambitions on the other regional problems. The adviser argued that Trump is concerned about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s willingness/unwillingness and political ability to make reasonable progress on the issue and about Abbas’ political weakness. Yet he intends to move forward on the matter with the leaders of the pragmatic Arab coalition and plans to dispatch Greenblatt to the region again in the near future. The Arab Peace Initiative is, in Trump’s eyes, a vehicle for progress. He does not endorse it verbatim, but believes its value lies in the possible normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab countries. A senior PLO official close to Abbas told Al-Monitor that Abbas, in his talks in the weeks to come with Trump, will lay out his interpretation of the Arab Peace Initiative, emphasizing three main aspects. For Abbas it is absolutely necessary to define a border on the 1967 lines with only minor and parallel land swaps, that East Jerusalem serves as the Palestinian capital and that the issue of refugees be resolved in a just and agreed manner. Abbas is willing to push toward the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab countries. The adviser to the Trump team in Washington told Al-Monitor how the administration may use parts of the Arab Peace Initiative in a future regional process. The idea is to have two parallel tracks to be guided and monitored by the administration: bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without any US impositions on a joint peace settlement between the parties, and a regional track with Israel, the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco on gradual progress toward normalization with Israel beginning immediately. According to the adviser, it will take several weeks for this plan to be finalized. As for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs official, he is confident that Netanyahu will have the last word with Trump, and that the talks about the Arab Peace Initiative are only background noise

for the Arab anti-IS coalition.

Chapter-34: Trump’s 100 days as US president! 100 days of Trump's foreign policy

In cricket terms, 100 is very important for the batboys who, if the bowlers are kind can easily hit this number for special state awards elevated military posts that generally the solders have to work for years with perfect training and hard work, and very huge endorsement money from corporate lords. This 100 day achievement has now being extended to governments and rulers who are at the helm of affairs while the media try to offer marks for their performance or otherwise during the first slot of mandated

period. And generally, for this reason, the rulers and government try to earn good name from the media even by bribing them for erasing .acts of misperformance from the real records to give maximum marks for their "performance" Billionaire President Trump has made amply clear his displeasure with the media lords and attacked them ruthlessly.

Put it simply, after one hundred days, the Trump White House is still an experiment in progress.

Background

The president had a rough first hundred days. His party controlled both houses of Congress, but he couldn’t pass major legislation. Immigration and health care proved to be tripwires. Many government posts went unfilled, and key appointees who did take office were controversial. The president’s family took on a policymaking role that struck critics as equal parts preposterous and outrageous—as if the White House had been turned into a family business. All of that describes Donald Trump’s first hundred days as president—but it also describes the first hundred days of President Bill Clinton. By this point in his administration, Clinton had seen his stimulus bill shot down in the Senate by a Republican filibuster. He’d had two nominees for attorney general, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, withdraw after it was discovered they had each employed illegal immigrants as nannies. Clinton, unlike Trump, had launched no missiles at Syria by this point, but his third and finally successful attorneygeneral nominee, Janet Reno, oversaw an FBI assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, that resulted in the deaths of more than seventy people. Terrorism and war in the Middle East were already challenges for the new president in 1993 in any event, with the United States enforcing no-fly zones in Iraq and Islamist radicals bombing the World Trade Center in February. Meanwhile, Clinton appointed his wife to lead a task force to redesign America’s health-care system. Donald Trump may be the most unconventional leader in the country’s history, but he is hardly the first president whose first hundred days have been

characterized by more trouble than triumph. The comparisons with Clinton are particularly noteworthy, however. Clinton, like Trump, campaigned as a populist of sorts, and by doing so successfully beat a Bush. And though Democrats today might like to forget, Clinton campaigned as a tough-oncrime candidate, one who was not above playing the race card. But the most important parallel between Clinton and Trump is that they both took office at the end of one era and the beginning of another. Clinton was the first truly post–Cold War president. And Trump is the first president of this nameless era that is post–“post–Cold War.” Clinton, like Trump, tried to bring a new way of doing things to Washington. Clinton’s first moves were radical, and while few of his most daring initiatives came before Congress or the public in his first hundred days, they were already taking shape behind the scenes. He wanted to end the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. His wife’s health-care task force would call for universal coverage. He moved aggressively to get gun control and abortion rights onto Congress’s agenda, ultimately leading to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law and the 1994 assault-weapons ban. He pushed hard to the left on social issues while pulling his party away from its old, pro-labor economic orthodoxies: one result of that, at the end of his first year in office, was NAFTA. In foreign policy, Clinton stumbled at the outset—his first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, lasted little more than a year before resigning (in part over the loss of American lives in the Battle of Mogadishu, nine months into Clinton’s first term). Although his achievements were meager by the end of his first hundred days, Clinton had signaled grand ambitions for transforming both his party and Washington. Yet the biggest change was one he didn’t anticipate: the Democrats’ loss of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years in November 1994. Clinton appointed only progressives to the Supreme Court, but after the Republican takeover of Congress, his administration became more notable for its neoliberalism—as it’s now called—than for its social agenda. Globalization and the “new economy” were the watchwords of the Clinton years.

Trump at one hundred days still often sounds like the populist he was on the campaign trail. Within the White House there are strategists and advisers committed to economic nationalism and restricting immigration, as well as to a conservative social agenda. Trump campaigned, in more ways than one, as the anti-Clinton, the man who would stand against the tide of globalization and beat back the waves. But in one respect, as these first hundred days have also made clear, the Trump administration is not so much an inverted image of the Clinton administration as its twin: Trump, like Clinton, is dependent on financial brains borrowed from Wall Street, and from Goldman Sachs in particular. After the Democrats’ wipeout in the 1994 midterms, Clinton became known for ideological “triangulation,” although the seeds of that tactic had been there all along. Many Trump supporters already fear that their candidate has begun warming to the ways of Washington after only three months. How will he respond if, as seems probable, Republicans suffer heavy losses in Congress a year from November? Trump has always had some centrist DNA, as well as a penchant for changing positions rapidly and guiltlessly. Come 2019, will Steve Bannon’s shoes be filled by a David Gergen? Trump was more right than even he may have known during last year’s campaign. The Clinton years were disastrous, undercutting the American middle class in the long run and squandering the strategic advantages the country acquired at the end of the Cold War. George W. Bush perpetuated and exacerbated his predecessor’s folly, and Barack Obama proved too timid to bring about the “change” he had promised. That’s why Trump is president now, and why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America. .

Winning an election, or a popularity contest in a poll, is very different from governing, however. The challenge for anyone who comes to Washington to change the way this town works is to persevere through all that setbacks that necessarily come with inexperience—and to absorb the old elite’s policy expertise without coming to think like them in the process. Trump himself is

unlikely to be tamed by anyone, but the same can’t be said for his administration. It can move to the center and still be true to its mission—the populist mission that Trump’s voters entrusted to him and his team. But that would require devising a centrist populism, or even incorporating elements of left-wing populism. The more likely path for this administration to follow is the one that Clinton trod—the one that took him from progressivism and populism to globalism, and which may take the Trump administration from right-wing populism to the same destination. After one hundred days, the Trump White House is still an experiment in progress, as many a White House is at this point. No meaningful deadline has passed: the one that matters is not the hundred-day mark, it’s the midterm election. Between now and then, the administration should give careful thought to whether it wants to repeal the Clinton program—or repeat it.

After President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, a “Trump doctrine” has yet to emerge fully, but one important lesson is already clear: making radical changes in American foreign policy is very difficult. Trump’s surprising victory in the 2016 election portended a dramatic break with the traditional approach to American foreign policy. Since World War II, no other presidential candidate from either party had ever challenged the liberal internationalist strategy of the United States so explicitly, or so successfully. His populist campaign slogan, “America First,” was never a precise guide to his thinking, but the outlines of a doctrine were always visible. In addition to disavowing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, forswearing nation-building, and criticizing the uneven costs of alliances and the liberal world order, Trump staked out a nationalist agenda that included protectionist trade policies, stricter immigration policies, and a more hawkish approach to combating the self-proclaimed Islamic State. But after all the talk on the campaign trail, it’s hard to find many clear signs of Trump’s “America First” strategy or radical shifts in U.S. foreign policy. Even Trump’s own team is having trouble. At a planning session to discuss messaging about Trump’s first 100

days, in fact, communications advisor Mike Dubke told staffers that foreign affairs was going to be a challenge because “[t]here is no Trump doctrine.” At least on paper, he was correct. The list of “America First” successes is short. Trump did sign an executive order officially withdrawing the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. But since that deal was already dead in Congress, the move was mostly symbolic. Meanwhile, the list of unfulfilled promises remains long. There is no border wall. There is no ban on Muslims entering the country. The Iran deal remains intact. Trump has not yet renegotiated NAFTA, nor has he gotten tough with China on trade. The United States remains embroiled in nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, Trump bombed the Syrian regime, and we continue to reassure treaty allies with reliable security guarantees. In essence, Trump has discovered what all new presidents learn: It’s easy to call for change, but hard to make it. It is much easier to tweak a policy than to overhaul it completely. In fact, on issue after issue, the Trump administration appears to be settling into an approach to foreign policy that exhibits more continuity with past administration than divergence. The reasons for this are important, but also can shed light on how the next few years of the Trump presidency are likely to shake out. Political Reality In part, the lack of follow-through is what happens to every president’s campaign rhetoric when it meets political reality. Though “America First” worked well for Trump on the campaign trail, he quickly discovered that his slogans weren’t much of a guide once he was in charge. After calling NATO obsolete, for example, Trump changed his mind after he learned more about it, acknowledging that, “People don’t go around asking about NATO if I’m building a building in Manhattan, right?” Rather than pulling out of the alliance or calling for major changes to the American role in NATO, Trump has limited himself to nagging allies to increase defense spending, just as every president before him has done. Similarly, after promising to rip up NAFTA, a trade deal he repeatedly called a “disaster,” the administration has recalculated after hearing from a chorus of potential opponents to the move. As a result, Trump now plans to seek more modest amendments to the agreement.

In other cases, Trump appears to have changed his mind about the political costs of radical change once in power. When Trump confronted Chinese President Xi Jinping about North Korea, for example, he got a crash course on the issue and changed his mind. “After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Trump admitted. “I felt pretty strongly that [China] had tremendous power” over North Korea, “but it’s not what you would think.” Trump also discovered that a lot of what he thought he knew just wasn’t so, including the fact that, contrary to his own repeated claims, China was no longer engaged in currency manipulation. Institutional Roadblocks Trump has also run into the institutional roadblocks that stand ready to frustrate all presidents. As much power as presidents wield in the national security realm, many policies require the help or approval of other branches of government. Trump’s executive order to restrict travel from seven, later six, Muslim-majority nations, for example, has twice been blocked by the federal courts and will have to overcome constitutional challenges before it comes into effect. Nor has Congress been any more helpful with Trump’s signature issue, the Mexican border wall. Trump issued an executive order calling for the immediate construction of the wall, but the follow through will depend on Trump getting funding from Congress. However, now that Mexico’s leaders have said they won’t pay for it, Congressional Republicans have made it clear that they are not willing to pony up either. The Rest of the World Another challenge to Trump’s efforts is that the rest of the world is not making it easy to change gears. Thanks to long-standing expectations of American leadership, the pressure to act in response to events abroad can be overwhelming. The best example of this is the Assad regime’s use of sarin gas against civilians in Idlib. After seeing graphic images of the tragedy, Trump felt compelled to respond with military force. He did so despite having opposed a similar attack in Syria when Obama was in office. The inconsistency between Trump’s “America First” campaign rhetoric, and his behavior as president, reveals how difficult it is to resist the pressure to play global policeman.

In other cases, change is difficult because the facts on the ground simply leave little room for strategic innovation. North Korea’s development of long-range missiles and nuclear weapons continues to provoke U.S. concerns, but despite tough talk the Trump administration has few real options other than to work with China and others in pursuit of a diplomatic solution. Likewise, Trump’s desire to pursue a more aggressive campaign against the Islamic State is stunted by the fact that there is simply no way to speed up the battle short of sending tens of thousands of American troops back into harm’s way. As a result, Trump’s Islamic State strategy looks a lot like an amped-up version of Obama’s strategy. Where Art Thou, America Firsters? Another factor in Trump’s gradual bend towards foreign policy convention comes down to personnel. So far, Trump has only managed to confirm 22 of the more than 500 federal appointments that require Senate confirmation, many of them in the national security realm. This makes implementing policy, never mind tectonic shifts in strategic posture, much harder. The personnel shortage influences even the highest reaches of Trump’s own cabinet. Early on, the prominence of volatile hawks like retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and brash ideologues like Steve Bannon produced an approach that tended to amplify Trump’s policy illiteracy and spurn the experts within the national security bureaucracy. Now, with Flynn ousted and Bannon possibly marginalized, mainstream Republican foreign policy views held by people like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley have gained greater purchase in the White House’s approach to the world. The ascendance of more traditional Republican foreign policy officials has coincided with Trump’s decision to give greater leeway to military leaders. President Obama was sometimes criticized for micro-managing military actions in Afghanistan, the fight against the Islamic State, and the drone war. Trump has gone the other way and authorized the military to engage in airstrikes, special operations raids, and troop deployments with wide latitude. This has necessarily meant an approach more in line with traditional U.S. foreign policy and less consistent with “America First” ideas.

A more fundamental challenge underlying the personnel issue is the fact that, for more than 70 years, Washington has been dominated by a particular set of ideas about the need for a grand strategy of deep engagement, an activist foreign policy, and American leadership of the international system. Staffing the executive branch with “America Firsters” is hard to do — mainly because they don’t exist anywhere in the Washington foreign policy community. As a result, when Trump gets advice from mainstream military leaders and other veteran policy advisors about Syria, North Korea, or Russia, their advice comes steeped in the assumptions of liberal internationalism. Process Trumps Doctrine But perhaps most detrimental to Trump’s “America First” vision is the fact that the Trump doctrine has taken a backseat to the Trump process. For starters, Trump does not seem entirely wedded to his own “America First” doctrine. Despite the manifestly ideological nature of the Trump campaign, to most observers it looks like Trump — for good or ill — simply does not yet have well-formed opinions about how to confront the many foreign policy challenges the United States faces. As president, Trump thus appears to be ideologically unmoored, priding himself on “flexibility,” and eager to abandon ideas that helped get him elected if they seem to hamper effective governance. The result has been a series of flip-flops on matters of policy without a hint of hesitation or shame. The lack of ideological principle translates to a lack of strategic deliberation. Trump’s missile strikes on Syria and his saber rattling on North Korea both smack of a desire to look tough, but neither are part of a serious broader strategy. The Syria strikes will not mitigate the humanitarian suffering there and were not even intended to affect the balance of power in the civil war. And the threats of preventive war on North Korea won’t compel Pyongyang to denuclearize. In the absence of an overarching ideological or strategic approach, short-term tactical considerations tailored to achieve quick but small wins rule the day. The “America First” program remains at the mercy of Trump’s personality and governing style. On this score, a review of his first 100 days in office makes clear that Trump

injects an element of unpredictability to the entire foreign policy enterprise. Trump’s tendency to comment on breaking news and to create foreign policy on the fly via Twitter, often without warning his senior advisors first, not only worries old foreign policy hands but raises the chances that Trump will call an audible rather than stick to the “America First” playbook. Perhaps the only consistent theme in Trump’s approach is the desire to bolster his domestic legitimacy and shore up American prestige abroad. Those motivations, we note, have so far pushed Trump toward greater foreign policy activism, not “America First” isolationism. What Does the Next Hundred Days Hold? At just 100 days in it is impossible to know what form a Trump doctrine will finally take. Given how much momentum the status quo has, and how lightly Trump appears to hold his vision of America First, the most likely outcome is something that looks a great deal like the strategy of liberal hegemony pursued by the past two presidencies. Trump will fight terrorism, support America’s global alliance system, and continue to field the world’s largest and most capable military, occasionally using it to intervene abroad out of humanitarian and security concerns. Nonetheless it is certainly possible that the rest of Trump’s term will look more “America First” than the first 100 days have. Though overhauling NATO or significantly reducing America’s role in the world will be difficult, with time, Trump might overcome some of the institutional roadblocks on immigration reform and economic protectionism. Domestic political pressures may also encourage Trump to seek a deeper embrace of America First. In the short term, Trump may get away with experiments in foreign policy that depart from his rhetoric. But Trump eventually faces the prospect of a second presidential campaign. And though foreign policy typically plays a muted role in elections, the genius of Trump’s vision of “America First” was the way it connected foreign affairs with domestic outcomes. Trump criticized intervention and nation-building because they hurt working Americans. For Trump, unlike for other presidents, pursuing an interventionist and internationalist foreign policy risks abandoning his political base. Thus, as his term proceeds, Trump may feel the need to take a more visibly nationalist approach to foreign policy to boost his chances for reelection.

US President Donald Trump hit the road to celebrate his first 100 days in the White House with cheering supporters at a campaign-style rally, touting his initial achievements and lashing out at critics. Trump told a Pennsylvania crowd he was just getting started on meeting his campaign promises. He repeatedly attacked an "incompetent, dishonest" media, saying they were not telling the truth about his accomplishments thus far. "My administration has been delivering every single day for the great citizens of our country," Trump said in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. "We are keeping one promise after another, and frankly the people are really happy about it." The rally occurred on the same day as a climate march at which thousands of protesters surrounded the White House, and it also coincided with the annual black-tie White House press dinner in Washington. Trump and his staff chose to skip the press dinner because of what he said was unfair treatment by the press. Trump said he was thrilled to be away from the "Washington swamp". "A large group of Hollywood actors and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom in our nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capital right now," Trump said to loud boos from the crowd. "If the media's job is to be honest and to tell the truth, the media deserves a very, very big fat failing grade." Reveling in the cheers in Harrisburg, Trump made reference again to his upset victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, which he said "carried us to a big, beautiful win on Nov. 8."

Trump listed what he said were some of his key early accomplishments, including the successful confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court of Justice Neil Gorsuch and clearing away many regulations on the environment and business. "The world is getting the message: if you try to illegally enter the United States, you will be caught, detained, deported or put in prison," Trump said. Access pipelines, killing a pending Asian trade pact and enhanced security measures have led to a sharp decline in illegal border crossings at the southern border. "We'll build the wall, people, don't even worry about it," he said. He shrugged off his failure to score major legislative victories on his core campaign promises, such as repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act and construction of a Mexican border wall. Trump's ban on visitors from some Muslim nations was blocked in court. He blamed Democrats for the legislative failures so far and said all of his promises would be kept eventually. Some supporters in the crowd said they were willing to give Trump more time. "I voted for him and I'll give him a year. That's enough time to whip Congress into shape and get some deals done," said Michael Casciaro, 54, a civilian contractor for the military.

In an excerpt of an interview with "Face the Nation" of CBS, and conducted during the trip to Pennsylvania, Trump said he would "not be happy" if North Korea conducted a nuclear test. Asked if that would mean military action, Trump said "I don't know, I mean we'll see." Trump said he reversed course on promises to name China a currency manipulator because he wanted its help in trying to rein in North Korea's nuclear and missile development. Trump has said all options are on the table if Pyongyang persists in its nuclear development. Trump left Washington as another in a series of protests against his administration was winding up. Thousands of marchers made their way through Washington's streets during the People's Climate March, a protest against Trump's moves to roll back environmental regulations. Asked by reporters accompanying him to Pennsylvania what he had to say to the climate change protesters, Trump said: "Enjoy the day, enjoy the weather." After the rally, the White House said the president had signed two trade-related executive orders, one for top U.S. officials to review all U.S. trade pacts for potential abuses and another setting up an office in the White House to advise him on trade-related issues.

Donald Trump attracted a reputation over the years as a ruthless and unscrupulous businessman. He said on the campaign trail that having been “greedy all my life,” he now wanted to be greedy on behalf of the American people — but nobody seriously believed him. Marco Rubio warned that Trump was a “con artist,” and Ted Cruz labeled him “completely amoral.” Liberals, needless to say, were not kinder in their judgments. From the day Trump announced his candidacy until the day he took the Oval Office, the smart take on him was that he was running on a lark, as a publicity stunt, or to lay the groundwork for some business endeavor.

Since his ascension to the White House, conventional wisdom has developed an odd tendency to describe his inability to make major legislative changes as an indication that his presidency is failing. It's certainly true that Paul Ryan’s speakership of the House is failing, arguable that Mitch McConnell’s tenure as majority leader of the Senate is failing, and indisputably true that the Koch brothers’ drive to infuse hardcore libertarian ideological zeal into the GOP is failing. But Trump isn’t failing. He and his family appear to be making money hand over fist. It's a spectacle the likes of which we've never seen in the United States, and while it may end in disaster for the Trumps someday, for now it shows no real sign of failure.

The Trumps have unprecedented conflicts of interest. During the campaign and for much of the

transition, Trump liked to at least vaguely allude to the idea that as president, he would separate himself from his business empire and do something to provide the public with transparency on his taxes. Since winning, he’s made clear that’s not going to happen. Multiple reports have found that no meaningful separation exists. The day-to-day management of the companies is in the hands of his two oldest sons, while his oldest daughter and her Jewish husband (both of whom run substantial businesses in their own right) now serve as highranking officials in the White House. Al Shaw reporting for ProPublica has confirmed that the terms of the trust in which the Trump Organization is held allow the president to pull money out of the company at any time. Eric Trump says he is giving his father regular updates on the state of the Trump Organization, on a “probably quarterly” timeline but with no specific commitments. Donald Trump Jr. is not only a top executive at the Trump Organization but also does surrogate interviews on behalf of the president.

Beyond that, of course, there’s the fundamental reality that everyone knows Trump owns properties like the Trump National Golf Club or Trump Tower because they have his name slapped on them.

Trump is even profiting from his golfing weekend. To an extent, this allows Trump to simply funnel money directly into his own pockets. Like many previous presidents, he golfs. And like all presidents who golf, when he hits the green, he is accompanied by Secret Service agents. The agents use golf carts to get around the courses. And to get their hands on the golf carts, they need to rent them from the golf courses at which the president plays. All of this is fundamentally normal — except for the fact that Trump golfs at courses he owns. So when the Secret Service spends $35,000 on Mar-a-Lago golf cart rentals, Trump is personally profiting from his own protection.

The Secret Service has, similarly, paid $64,000 for “elevator services” in Trump Tower. This is a fairly normal kind of expense for the agency, paying building money to defray the inconvenience of taking elevators offline so they can be inspected for security purposes. But, again, there is nothing normal about the president personally profiting from the security procedure.

When Trump’s sons fly around the world doing business deals, they too are protected by Secret Service agents whose bills the federal government covers — even if they are staying at Trump properties.

There is something grating about this, especially from a president who is making a big show of donating his salary to charity. Trump is directly pocketing what could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in direct payments from the Treasury, while simultaneously claiming to be serving for free. What’s more troubling, however, is indirect financial entanglements into which we have little real visibility.

It’s now easy to funnel money into the first family’s pockets Ivanka Trump, for example, was granted five trademarks by the Chinese government on the very same day she had dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Also on that day, Ivanka’s father decided to break his campaign pledge to officially designate China as a currency manipulator. That decision, by all accounts, reflected the growing clout inside the White House of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and his key ally Jared Kushner, who happens to be Ivanka’s husband and in a position to directly gain or lose from China’s decisions regarding his wife’s trademark applications.

There’s of course no way to demonstrate a quid pro quo there, but the basic dynamics are clear. Kushner emerged as a “shadow diplomat” smoothing over US-Mexico relations, according to a February 10 Washington Post article, and by April 10, the same journalists were reporting that he has “the freedom to act as a shadow secretary of state, setting up his own channels of communication with world leaders.”

Back in February, Bloomberg reported that “[a]s countries around the world figure out how to influence the new U.S. administration, China is going straight to the top: Trump’s immediate family.” Kushner and Ivanka Trump were guests of honor at a Chinese New Year celebration organized by the Chinese Embassy in Washington, and the trademark applications are just part of the overall package. China is on good terms with Trump’s family, and Trump’s family has helped keep China on good terms with the United States. Similarly, Ivanka was closing business deals in Japan while simultaneously joining her father in meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Corruption changes policy, not always for the better. This same trend can easily point in darker directions. The Trump family has business interests in the Persian Gulf, and Trump’s foreign policy is moving the United States into much closer alignment with the Gulf monarchies, including deeper involvement in a disastrous war in Yemen and abandonment of any pretense of caring about human rights in Egypt.

Further from the center of media attention, an eye-opening report by Allan Nairn for the Intercept says that “[a]ssociates of Donald Trump in Indonesia have joined army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS in a campaign that ultimately aims to oust the country’s president.” The movement includes current and former army officers looking to evade accountability for past crimes during Indonesia’s period as a military dictatorship, but also “Hary Tanoe, Trump’s primary Indonesian business partner, who is building two Trump resorts, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta.”

In a normal administration, it would go without saying that American attitudes toward civil strife in Indonesia — no matter how misguided — were driven primarily by policy considerations and not by the president’s personal financial interests. With Trump, we have no such assurance. Trump could get away with it

Donald Trump is currently a moderately unpopular president, and it's entirely typical for the president’s party to lose ground in the midterms. Under the circumstances, it wouldn't be all that surprising if Democrats swept to a narrow majority in the US House of Representatives in 2018, which would put them in a position to launch the kind of oversight and investigations that could bring the Trump clan to heel.

Then again, the basic outline of the 2018 Senate map is so favorable to Republicans that for Democrats to net as much as one seat would be a remarkable achievement. And district boundaries in the House are so favorable to the GOP that Democrats could win the national House popular vote by a bit over 5 percent and the GOP would retain their majority. After that, who knows. Most presidents are reelected. Congressional Republicans have made it clear that there will be no investigations into any potential scandals as long as they run the show. Perhaps there will be a recession in 2020 or Trump will get us embroiled in a war that causes a large number of American casualties. But one hopes he won’t.

And certainly the basic task of avoiding recession or ruinous war is compatible with both inabilities to obtain major legislative achievements and ample ability to milk the presidency for all it’s worth. If it happens, it will look like failure to a lot of people who do care a great deal about politics and public policy. But Trump won’t be one of them.

The comments vary in their subject matter. Some were about jobs, such as when he took credit

for the January jobs report even though the data for it was taken a week before he became president. Some were about the media, like when he said the New York Times apologized for its supposedly dishonest coverage of him (which it did not do). And some are just petty, such as his bragging that he’s accomplished more than any other president in his first 100 days. It all adds up to a massive total of misleading and false claims.

For the fact-checkers at the Post, the volume of these statements has created a weird challenge: They just can’t keep up with them all in their day-to-day news coverage. As Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee wrote, “The president’s speeches and interviews are so chock full of false and misleading claims that The Fact Checker often must resort to roundups that offer a brief summary of the facts that the president has gotten wrong.” For a deeper dive into Trump’s false and misleading comments, check out the Washington Post’s full breakdown. .------

Chapter-35: Overcoming Isolationism: Foreign policy of Trump -Dr. Abdul Ruff ______

When Donald Trump declared his America first policy abroad, implementing an “America First” foreign policy, many world leaders beyond in Beijing, found it difficult to comprehend the emerging new US policy format under President Trump. His rhetoric against immigrants complicated the process of comprehending his ideology.

What exactly Trump is aiming at is isolationist America. Donald Trump, president of the United States, appears to be finding that the world is not ready for a withdrawn and isolationist America. For many world leaders, US leadership is important not just for stability and order, but for the defense of shared, cherished values. So many of the world’s higher aspirations since the end of World War II – democratic governance, universally recognized human rights, more equitable prosperity and development – have their roots in an international system devised by the West and led by the US, says David Milliband, the former British foreign secretary. But it’s a system of values that would be gravely weakened by the retreat of its primary backer, he says.

“These universal values need to be defended because they are under constant threat,” says Milliband, now president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee in New York. “And clearly America needs to be at the forefront of that defense.” Barack Obama dabbled in the notion of pulling America back – he used the West’s Libya intervention in 2011 to test-fly the idea of America “leading from behind,” for instance. Trump’s America, on the other hand, wasn’t even going to lead, but would worry about itself first and retreat from a global role it could no longer afford. Yet like the adolescent boy who protests but then adjusts to his first suit – maybe even secretly liking the way he feels in it – Trump is backing off his signature claims that the world is taking advantage of the US through costly security alliances and skewed trade deals.

Indeed the rapid evolution of a maverick and topsy-turvy presidency to its current awkward embrace of a more traditional internationalist role suggests the world still craves the kind of stabilizing and order-producing – if certainly imperfect – leadership the US has provided since World War II. “Trump came in promising that America would stick to its own knitting, but he’s realizing the US has a unique role to play in the world that in many ways neither the US nor the world can do without,” says Robert Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington. “It’s happening by fits and starts, and it’s still early to call it decisive,” he adds, “but the signs are pointing to a shift away” from retreat and isolationism.

Mounting evidence Evidence of Trump’s adaptation and conforming to the role the world expects of America has piled up in recent weeks. Hosting NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House Wednesday, the American president who as a candidate dismissed the Alliance as “obsolete” declared that NATO is “no longer obsolete” because it has adapted to take on the challenge of terrorism. Hardly trashing the NATO alliance, Trump lauded it instead as “a bulwark of international peace and security.” No longer is Trump alarming Japan and South Korea by suggesting they may have to get their own nuclear weapons instead of relying on the American nuclear umbrella. Now he's telling them America’s defense of the two countries in the face of a belligerent North Korea is rock solid.

And whereas Trump once promised steps to up-end the international trading system for which the US served as general contractor, his actions are much less unilateral. He did not declare China a currency manipulator as one of his first acts, just as talk of a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods has vanished. He did not rip up NAFTA, as promised, but instead is quietly negotiating to update the 1994 trade deal regulating the North American market.

'I now have responsibility' But it is on Syria that Trump has most abruptly boomeranged from isolationist to interventionist and practitioner of America’s traditional role defending international security and norms. The man who once bellowed his opposition to US involvement in Syria sounded transformed as he announced his decision to launch air strikes on the Syrian air base that the Pentagon says was used by the Syrian regime to carry out a chemical weapons attack in the rebel-held Idlib region of the country. “I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria,” Trump said, concluding with, “As long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will prevail.” A day earlier at a White House press conference where he took up the chemical attack, Trump said, “I now have responsibility” for Syria. It was the kind of discourse the world is accustomed to hearing from postwar American presidents – although less so from Barack Obama. Indeed, most Western leaders were quick to offer staunch support for Trump’s airstrikes – and, by extension, his donning of America’s mantle of responsibility. For many world leaders, America’s leadership is indispensable, if not always appreciated – thus the alarm that echoed globally when an isolationist candidate won the White House. “America is the pillar of the global international order, and that is not a pillar the world can easily do without at a moment of unprecedented challenges,” says Milliband. Milliband has been critical of the signs from Trump of a turning away from the world. This week he took to Twitter, for example, to note that the president’s proposed cuts in foreign assistance are incompatible with his post-airstrikes call to the world to join the US in addressing Syria’s humanitarian tragedy. But he says the criticisms of aspects of how America has carried out its global role do not mean the world is ready to carry on without it.

Protecting US interests

What Trump is learning, Georgetown’s Dr. Lieber says, is that while the worldview he espoused in the campaign would be welcomed by some and viewed with dismay by others, it would in either case undermine the US interests Trump wanted to focus on first. “This is not the post-cold war world where US leadership was unopposed, we have rising powers like China and Russia and Iran that have very different ideas of how the world should be,” Lieber says. “If the US pulls back, it disheartens our allies and emboldens our adversaries.” Lieber says Trump’s nascent embrace of the world’s need for American leadership is reflective of a “struggle” in the White House between what he sees as the ascendant internationalists on the president’s foreign–policy team and the fading “nationalists.” Indeed, Steve Bannon, the president’s chief strategist and the architect of Trump’s America-First worldview, reportedly is on the outs at the White House – pulled from the National Security Council’s team of permanent members and losing battles right and left on Trump’s foreign-policy direction. At the same time, Lieber says a half-dozen “adults” with more traditional views of the exercise of US power – including Defense Secretary James Mattis and national security adviser H. R. McMaster – are expanding their influence with the president. And as that influence grows, the America-First impulses seem to have ebbed – with more focus on international engagement.

A need for world leadership From his seat at the helm of an international humanitarian organization, Milliband says he sees unprecedented crises – more refugees than at any time since World War II, extended conflicts sending millions of displaced people into Europe – that demand attention from the world power with the strongest hand in building the international order. “We are in a situation where there is not just room for leadership but a real need for it,” he says, “and much of the world look to America for that.” In his statement given after the Syria airstrikes, Trump cited the regional destabilization resulting from Syria’s war and the wave of refugees it has sent into Western Europe as challenges to US national interest that could not be left unattended. Trump’s shift away from the isolationist lure and his turn to a more traditional exercise of American leadership won’t be applauded by all, including those who see mostly war and human misery in the wake of US interventionism. And from the opposite perspective, Lieber says that “although robust involvement and leadership by the US cannot be a sufficient condition for security and world order, the evidence suggests it is a necessary one.” That’s the perspective he believes the would-be bullin-a-china-shop president is starting to grasp. “The early signs are that Trump is understanding,

if in a rather tumultuous manner,” he says, “that the kind of world we want to see can’t happen with an American retreat.”

Chapter-37: Future of AAP: BJP sweeps Delhi MCD polls

After his defeat in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) polls, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday congratulated the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and expressed his willingness to work with the winning party for the betterment of Delhi. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) members have blamed the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) malpractice for its defeat. Following the BJP's victory in the MCD polls, Congress leaders like Ajay Maken, Gurudas Kamat and P.C. Chacko announced their resignations from their posts. The BJP is set to sweep civic polls with trends for all 270 seats indicating the saffron party leading in 187, Congress 40 and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on 37 seats. In a major setback to the Aam Admi Party, the BJP swept the municipal corporation polls in Delhi. The results showed that AAP had lost almost half of its vote share while the BJP increased theirs by almost 4% to 37% as compared to the 2015 assembly polls. JP sweeps MCD Polls with 181 wards; AAP finishes a distant second with 48 wards, Congress gets 30 the part faced losses in wards of constituencies held by senior leaders ad MLAs Satyendra Jain and Somnath Bharti and others like Alka Lamba, Gopal Rai and Kapil Mishra. Given this rude shock, some in the party have, instead of accepting defeat, continued to blame tampering of electronic voting machines (EVMs). According to The Wire, AAP – continued to remain in denial and insisted that it was not a victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi but for the electronic voting machines (EVMs). “This is an EVM wave, not a Modi wave,” said Delhi minister Gopal Rai. The party has been insisting since the Punjab assembly election results in March that the EVMs can be manipulated and that they are the major cause for BJP’s victory in the recent elections. According to some, making Manoj Tiwari the President of the BJP state unit worked in their favour, given the changing demographics of the city. Tiwari, an actor and Bhojpuri singer, made started his political career in Samajwadi Party and moved to the BJP after 2011. Shivani Singh of the Hindustan Times opines that he infused some new energy into the party as

some of the old school RSS leaders were becoming unappealing. The Jats, Yadavs and Gujjars — the original residents of the rural pockets — are now outnumbered by Poorvanchali migrants from UP and Bihar in many of the villages of Delhi. In the unauthorised colonies, where a third of Delhi’s population lives, Poorvanchalis are the dominant group. The induction of Tiwari, a Bhojpuri celebrity who had already won for BJP the Northeast Delhi Lok Sabha seat, a Poorvanchali hub, in 2014, to wean these voters away from the AAP and the Congress seemed to have paid off well. BJP ended up winning most of the wards in this region as they used their resounding victory in Uttar Pradesh to their advantage. Tiwari of course gave full credit to the Prime Minister. Pre-2014 BJP was different from the one we have now. We have raised the bar,” Tiwari told Hindustan Times in a pre-poll interview. Admitting that governance standards in local bodies were wanting before Modi took over as the PM, he claimed that having “Modi as BJP’s policy” would change that. While the BJP rides the UP wave to success, there is also a feeling that AAP’s conduct off late gave its rival a push. Arvind Kejriwal must be willing to be a student and use this opportunity to learn, writes Bikran Vohra in The First Post - stop with the chest thumping self-sell, and stop with the constant barrage of complaints against the incumbent in Raj Niwas. And above all, learn to hold the hot little buck and accept responsibility. Any political analyst will accept that AAP has done better than expected and risen higher than the groundswell of public opinion had indicated. It was projected that he would almost be laughed off this stage. But he has had a speaking part. While nowhere near the BJP juggernaut's sweep of the MCD polls, AAP has shown that even in its mangled state, it is more viable than Congress, There is a consensus among most political observers that the constant blame game with the Centre has not worked in their favour. Amitabh Tiwari in The Quint writes The vote is clearly against the theatrics and agitation politics of the AAP. AAP government has done fairly well – mohalla clinics, free water supply, reduction in electricity rates, construction of 8,000 new classrooms in schools and many more. However, all this good work is dwarfed by its constant tu-tu main-main with the central government. Congratulate dBJP on their victory in all 3 MCDs. My govt looks forward to working wid MCDs for the betterment of Delhi — Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) April 26, 2017 Within the party too, there are signs of discontent. Bhagwant Mann criticised the leadership for their immaturity. He was quoted as saying that they were behaving like a mohalla cricket team. This video of an angry supporter also surfaced online.

India Today listed the rifts within the party as one of the reasons for their defeat. With several MLAs expressing their displeasure and some even jumping ship, there was a negative perception among voters. As soon as its MLA from Bawana Ved Prakash quit the party to join BJP, every day the speculation of more following the suit hurt the party's credibility.Another MLA Rajesh Rishi cautioned party chief against 'sycophants' and used twitter as his platform. The biggest blow was a video by senior leader Kumar Vishwas who not only kept away from the Party's campaign for crucial MCD polls but also released a video slamming his own party on the issue of corruption Facing a barrage of criticism for continuing to blame EVMs for their loss, report suggest that a meeting was held at the Chief Ministerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residence where the election was discussed. India Today reported that almost half of the MLAs present said that they did not believe that EVMs were the issue. Following the party meet, Aam Aadmi Party MLA Jagdeep Singh said, "If we find anything concrete on EVMs, we will talk about it". Similarly, Avtar Singh, who is the AAP legislator from Kalkaji, did not comment on EVMs. On Wednesday, Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal refrained from speaking on electronic voting machines (EVMs) after the MCD election result. Only time will tell if AAP learns its lessons and re-invents itself while at the same time managing to govern the state with BJP heading local bodies. It will surely be an uphill task. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh on Thursday said organisational improvement was needed and the party would work towards it. The AAP leader's remarks came after a long meeting of the party's Political Affairs Committee (PAC) at Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's residence on late Thursday night. The PAC meeting was organised to "introspect" and analyse the AAP's humiliating defeat in Delhi municipal elections, results of which were announced on Wednesday. After the meeting Singh told reporters that the party "introspected" on what went wrong and where "we fell short". He said the party will work on all levels including structural and booth level and "make necessary changes". He said the PAC also discussed the tampering of EVMs. He said nearly 18 political parties of the country have raised doubts over EVMs then why is it that the AAP is being made fun of. He said the party has legitimate concerns and the AAP would continue doubting this. He also announced that the PAC has approved the appointment of Delhi Labour Minister Gopal Rai as new convenor of the AAP's Delhi unit. Singh also took on the political opponents who had raised questions about party's progress and its future. He said one cannot write off the AAP as in the past four years, all that the party has achieved was not less. The Bharatiya Janata Party won the civic polls bagging 181 municipal wards out of 270 and pushed the AAP to a distant

second spot with 48 wins. The Congress could emerge victorious only at 30 wards. l Poll debacle suggests AAP is in throes of an existential emergency The so-called "pep talk" Arvind Kejriwal gave to newly elected municipal corporators of the Aam Aadmi Party on Thursday was hardly the way to enthuse people who have lost the fervour of people. Though these brave hearts had just battled an electoral tornado and kept the party flag afloat, the meeting began with the Delhi chief minister chastising them severely for being late and keeping him waiting.

Instead of beginning the interaction â&#x20AC;&#x201D; with many of them for the first time â&#x20AC;&#x201D; by enhancing their self-esteem by dwelling on the significance of their victories when others fell by the wayside, Kejriwal's address was loaded with moral sermonising. Instead of celebrating their success, the repeated emphasis was on recalling past glory. Instead of talking about the crisis that the party faces after the rout in Delhi and sub-par performances in Punjab and Goa, the AAP supremo romanticised about the halcyon days of the party.

Kejriwal did not, even once, applaud the achievements of these winners, instead verbalising the party's emergence from the anti-corruption agitation, and crediting every electoral accomplishment to that movement. "Countless people made sacrifices and your victories are due to these sacrifices," he told the gathered members.

In contrast to the Assembly election in 2015 when only the most unfortunate AAP members suffered defeats, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) polls saw only the pluckiest candidates overcame public sentiment against the party. For a party whose voteshare was eroded by almost half, the leadership's failure to shower victors with wholesome praise indicated scant respect.

Instead of recognising their special abilities and displaying trust in them, they were lectured that their victory was due to past contributions of others. They were also warned against succumbing to temptations â&#x20AC;&#x201D; almost making

it out that the newly-elected AAP corporators would be more than willing to barter the party tag for a Bharatiya Janata Party label. It was unfortunate that in his first meeting with them, the party chief displayed doubts over their loyalty. By casting such aspersions and suggesting that he feared that many among them could be lured into the BJP fold, Kejriwal showed AAP's process of candidate selection was anything but flawless.

Kejriwal has been stricken with the victimhood syndrome ever since he became chief minister, and during this talk, he tried to spread the infection. Instead of telling party officials that displaying incorruptible scruples was the best way to ward off BJP attempts to lure them, he advised them to record every phone conversation. "Once you have recorded the conversation, we will call a press conference and play it," he declared.

It is time that such ambush-style politics was replaced with issue-based opposition to the BJP. Before stinging others, the AAP leader must remember that over the past two years, there have been several exposures over AAP legislators' brushes with the law. Instead of accepting that the blame lay within, Kejriwal is attempting to brazen it out.

The logic why AAP members should refuse inducements is also warped. "You don't need money, you didn't have to buy party tickets and spend lakhs of rupees on the campaign," was Kejriwal's logic. He forgot that people accept bribes for other reasons too, mostly because they are low on principles.

AAP corporators, contended the leader, should always remember that "betraying the movement would mean that you have betrayed God". Even if one accepts money and crosses over to the BJP, one must "remember that you will never be happy. The money shall not bear fruit and God will extract twice or even three times the amount â&#x20AC;&#x201D; it will cause you great pain and anguish", he told them.

AAP is confronted not with a moral crisis, but an existential emergency. Because it is a new party, it will have to face the bitter truth that the problem begins at the top. Unlike old and traditional parties, AAP cannot wait for BJP to make mistakes. It has to be prepared of the eventuality that 20 of its MLAs will be disqualified on the parliamentary secretary issue.

Given the current political scenario in the capital, chances are barring an odd candidate, all AAP nominees in the bypolls would forfeit their security deposit. That would possibly trigger mass desertions and Kejriwal will then be fighting to stay in office till 2020. There is no denying that BJP will make every attempt to further weaken AAP and paralyse the state government.

When he was sworn in as chief minister in February 2015 on the back of a sweeping victory, when AAP got support from all sections of people, Kejriwal had warned party colleagues to guard against hubris setting in. At his post swearing-in speech, he declared, "When one gets such a victory, arrogance can creep in. And if one gets arrogant, everything is lost. That is why all of us â&#x20AC;&#x201D; me, the ministers, MLAs, families, volunteers must be on guard. We'll have to introspect constantly and question ourselves to ensure we don't turn arrogant. If we turn arrogant we will never complete our mission." But now he has turned against his own words.

The jury may still be out on whether AAP will ever accomplish its objective or not. It would also be unwise to write the party's obituary right away. But unless the party leadership, Kejriwal downward begin the promised introspection sooner than later, it will be tough to keep obit writers at bay.

Chapter-36: Japan dispatches warship to protect US vessel -Dr. Abdul Ruff _______ Putting at rest all speculations about the waning of relations between USA and Japan and a discreet declaration for supporting NATO at all cost, Japan has dispatched its biggest warship to shield US supply vessel, in the first such operation since it passed controversial laws expanding the role of its military. The helicopter carrier Izumo is spotted escorting a US supply vessel within Japanese waters. Japan has walked an extra mile in order to be seen as a strong US partner. Japan also carried out a failed missile test on Sunday, despite repeated warnings from the US and others to stop its nuclear and missile activity. The US ship is heading to refuel the naval fleet in the region, including the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier group. The 249m-long Izumo can carry up to nine helicopters, and resembles US amphibious assault carriers. The Japanese action as a leading member of NATO military terror alliance was in response to North Korea threat to sink the Carl Vinson and a US submarine, amid rising tensions in the

region. The Izumo's deployment follows recent joint exercises conducted by Japan and the USA, and other naval developments. China last week launched its second aircraft carrier. Kyodo news agency said it was leaving its base in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, to join the US supply ship and accompany it to waters off Shikoku in western Japan. Japan's post-World War Two constitution bars its military from using force to resolve conflicts except in cases of self-defense. Pacifist Japan has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, with a navy bigger and more modern than the British Royal Navy. Japan can protect the weapons and equipment of its allies' armed forces who are defending Japan. It can provide logistical support to allies involved in situations with "important influence" on Japan's security - for example it could support South Korea if the North invaded, but may stop short of sending troops as this may be unconstitutional. Japan can shoot down a North Korean missile heading for the US. Military action such as minesweeping to keep shipping lanes secure, even in an active conflict zone, may be allowed if the restriction on shipping threatened Japan's survival. Tokyo could have sent a much smaller destroyer to escort the US Navy's Richard E Byrd. But sending the 27,000-tonne Izumo was perhaps too good an opportunity for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Defence Minister Tomomi Inada to waste. Both Abe and Ms Inada are rightwing nationalists who want to scrap Japan's pacifist constitution. That is all but impossible. So instead, last year, Abe succeeded in pushing a new security law through parliament. In effect the new law ignores the constitution, and says Japan's forces can come to the defense of its allies. Abe knows there is widespread public opposition to "remilitarizing" Japan. So in that context, the growing threat from North Korea is useful to him. One view is that North Korea's threats are over exhausted and are just posturing and it is unlikely to follow through with an actual attack. Observers say that while North Korea is working towards achieving full nuclear missile capability, it is highly doubtful that it has a working long-range missile that could hit the USA. Several of its recent missile tests, including one earlier this month, have failed. But if North Korea were to actually launch a strike, neighbouring South Korea and Japan could be top targets. Pyongyang appears to have working missiles that could hit those countries. Both countries have anti-missile defence systems - some supplied by the US - that could thwart incoming rockets. Japan's system employs Aegis destroyer ships and land-based Patriot PAC-3 units, according to its defence ministry. In South Korea, the US is in the midst of deploying its controversial Thaad anti-missile defence system. Both countries are also currently conducting pre-planned joint military exercises with the USA Japanese authorities also issued guidelines last Friday to the public on how to survive a missile attack. They say it would only take minutes for a missile to reach Japan and urged citizens to seek shelter in buildings or underground. Citizens have been told that if a missile lands nearby, they should cover their mouths and noses and run away - if indoors they should stay away from windows to avoid injuries from shattering glass. They would be alerted about an incoming

attack on TV, mobile phones, radio and outdoor loudspeaker systems via a system called JAlert. One prefecture government conducted an evacuation drill last month and several local officials are now calling for nationwide drills. Meanwhile in South Korea, which is more used to the North's threats, the mood appears to be less tense with little sign of ramped-up civil defence preparations. Authorities regularly conduct evacuation drills and also have an emergency alert system. Due to its location just 56km (35 miles) from the North Korean border, the South Korean capital Seoul is also vulnerable to artillery fire. Last week, North Korea conducted a large-scale firing drill to mark its army's 85th founding anniversary. Analysts say the country has more than 20,000 artillery pieces and the BBC's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban says its capability would be hard to neutralise. South Korea meanwhile has a long history of border skirmishes with the North. One of the most serious incidents in recent years took place in 2010, when North Korea shelled the island of Yeonpyeong at the two countries' maritime border, killing several soldiers and civilians. That same year saw the sinking of a South Korean navy ship in the same area, killing 46 sailors. The incident was attributed to a North Korean torpedo launched from a submarine. In 2015 Pyongyang also fired a rocket towards the South Korean town of Yeoncheon on the western border, prompting an evacuation. Last month Pyongyang launched several missiles into the Sea of Japan, with three landing in Japanese waters. PM Shinzo Abe called it a "new stage of threat". Japanese authorities have also said that a North Korean long-range rocket launched in February 2016 passed over islands in Okinawa prefecture, travelling 1,600km (994 miles) within 10 minutes. A French amphibious assault ship arrived in south-west Japan on Saturday for an exercise also involving Japanese, USA and British naval forces. South Korea has been conducting joint exercises with the USA as well. Both the USA and North Korea have been trading heated rhetoric since the USA announced it would deploy a group of warships to the region. Pyongyang has reacted furiously and threatened a pre-emptive strike. With tensions rising on the Korean peninsula, the possibility of a missile or nuclear weapon landing in South Korea and Japan, according to western propaganda mills, has now become more real. Speculations are ripe to point that there is likely to be a nuclear or missile strike in region. However, such fears are manufactured by western media lords to terrorize the humanity and blame China and North Korea for all tensions in the region. But no war can bring solution to the regional problems.

Chapter-37: India: AIADMK unification ruled out: Pannerselvam and Palanisamy factions to mobilize party people in support of their claims! -Dr. Abdul Ruff _______

Clearly, Sasikala-Dinakaran-Palanisamy trio having shabbily failed to woo the popular AIADMK faction led by former CM and the most trusted lieutenant O. Panneer Selvam have decided to fight that faction in the forth coming local polls to showcase it popularity, if any.

This explains the readiness of the opposition party DMK to gear up the party for the local polls. Clearly, the Palanisamy faction still worships their ‘goddess” chinnamma, the jailed Sasikala undergoing a jail term for her involvement in looting the resources of Tamil people by staying at Poe’s garden bungalow of former CM Jayalalithaa. She still occupies the Popes garden Bungalow and Jayalithaa’s all assets, including bank balance. Meanwhile, OPS has launched a state tour to ascertain the mindset of people and AIADMK party workers towards the ruling party’s problems, while CM EPS has begun celebration of Jayalalithaa birth day in Madurai. Though the ruling Amma AIADMK claims huge crowds attending the function s of CM Palanisamy critics say AIADMK government, ruling party mobilizes their own people and spend huge resources from the government, party and Sasikala’s illegally obtained wealth and Jayalithaa’s money. That is show of ruling party’s wealth. Sasikala remote controls AIADMK and government

Sasikala still control the party and government through remote means. Sasikala now controls the AAIDMK party, TN government, assets of Jayalalithaa, etc, - all by being inside the prison cell in Bangalore. She is also hatching plans to somehow fool the judiciary and escape from jail legally. The dramatic twists and turns that began soon after Jayalalithaa’s death in December last year have continued four months on. Sasikala and her nephew TTV Dinakaran seemed to effortlessly take over the party by installing themselves as General Secretary and Deputy General Secretary even as few of the leaders led by O. Paneerselvam revolted. A floor test ensued in the Assembly and the Sasikala faction retained power even as she was lodged in jail following her conviction in the disproportionate assets case. Edappadi Palanisamy took reign as Chief Minister and the battle shifted to R.K Nagar. The high stakes meant more corruption that usual and the election commission cancelled the polls

reprimanding parties for the large-scale bribing of voters. On 7th April, The IT department raided Health Minister Vijaya Bhaskar’s residence to uncover the large-scale bribery being plotted. The Times of India reported that several ministers had been roped in to influence 2.24 lakh voters in the constituency to ensure TTV Dinakaran’s victory.

Has Sasikala, self proclaimed Chinnamma, really wanted to make the party rule go on smoothly, she would not have done what she did by sacking Jayalalithaa’s most trusted OPS. She would have encouraged him to rule better so that Jayalalithaa rule and legacy live forever. But no, she wanted to take revenge on Jayalalithaa and OPS.

Tamils are fooled and betrayed by the Chinnamma & Co by their anti-party, anti-MGRJayalalithaa actions soon after the sudden demise of CM Jayalalithaa under mysterious circumstances. Now the ruling party refuses any investigation into the death of former AIADNMK supremo, as they even argue she did die normally and “as per rules” and as such there is no need for any CBI inquiry.

Demands and state tour

The OPS camp has put forth two demands which it says must be fulfilled for talks to commence. The first is the ouster of AIADMK chief Sasikala Natarajan and her nephew TTV Dhinakaran from the party. The second is a CBI enquiry into late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s death. A Panneerselvam camp leader also claimed that some members from the Palanisamy faction would join them soon. The EPS faction agreed to oblige OPS demands but they are not sincere... Their aim to get OPS faction into the Sasikala faction by offering ministerial berths to a couple of the OPS MLAs. The Panneerselvam faction of AIADMK on Sunday set Tuesday as the deadline for talks with the ruling E Palanisamy camp of the party. It also announced that the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister would undertake a statewide tour soon. Mettur MLA S Semmalai, who had organised a meeting of party cadre last week, was quoted in a report as saying that, "He (Panneerselvam) will commence the tour from Kancheepuram." A senior member from the committee formed by the Panneerselvam camp for talks reportedly added that, "whichever way the talks go, we expect to arrive at a clear picture. In fact, our deadline is Tuesday". He also claimed that there is a possibility of some members of the Palanisamy camp coming over to the Panneerselvam side in the next few days. At Semmalai’s meeting last week, some party cadre reportedly expressed disapproval of talks with the Palanisamy camp. Panneerselvam will embark on the tour from May 5 to increase his support, and also to prepare the faction for local body polls, said a report.

Former chief minister of Tamil Nadu O Panneerselvam kickstarted his statewide campaign on Friday, the May 05. With AIADMK merger talks in limbo, both factions are fast losing interest. Panneerselvam has launched his month-long statewide tour ahead of the local body polls. Massive crowds gathered at Kanchipuram where O Panneerselvam was set to address his first public meet. The AIADMK PTA faction promoted his statewide tour as a movement to gather support. The tour is a show of strength by the Panneerslvam camp. It is aimed at proving a point to the Edappadi Palanisamy camp which has been claiming to have the support of the cadres. Massive crowds gathered at Kanchipuram where O Panneerselvam was set to address his first public meet. The AIADMK PTA faction promoted his statewide tour as a movement to gather support. The tour is a show of strength by the Panneerslvam camp. It is aimed at proving a point to the Edappadi Palanisamy camp which has been claiming to have the support of the cadres. O Panneerselvam is on Tamil Nadu tour to hear out cadres Is it end of the road for AIADMK merger. Sources reveal that team Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) have lost interest in merger. Some leaders in EPS camp think that O Panneerselvam (OPS) camp was given enough time to mull merger and EPS camp may continue with government. With rival AIADMK faction showing no signs of relenting to his factionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demands on commencing the reunion talks. Former Tamil Nadu chief minister O Panneerselvam is all set to embark on a state-wide tour from today in Kanchipuram district Sasikala and supporters have achieved what DMK and BJP could not for years- forcing the people to take the ruling AIADMK a non-serious political party that believes in whims and fancies. Tamils are fooled and betrayed. Sasikala drama

The Palanisamy dispensation enacted a drama of ousting their leader Sasikala and Dinakaran from AIADMK. But shockingly, Sasikala did not say anything about their ouster from the party. Nor did she oust the Palanisamy government and remove them from the party. That is the usual practice in party politics in India. This gives rise to suspicion that entire ouster story was stage managed to get Pannerselvam on board to get the party symbol from the Election Commission. And make him irrelevant to the party and state. Party leader Sengottaiyan initially said that a committee had been formed to negotiate with OPS faction but remained non-committal on the Sasikala familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in the party. Finance Minister Jayakumar said that they had to take into consideration the views of thousands

of party members and functionaries who wanted the family out, in effect meeting OPS’s demands, signaling that they were ready for talks. EPS even ordered to remove the banners of Sasikala from the party HQ in Chennai, giving the impression that they hate Sasikala. That was just a trick to trap OPS faction. Now it is clear the leaders who ousted Sasikala from AIADMK are not sincere to their decision and they still work for jailed Sasikala to end political life of Pannerselvam. While the finance minister Jayakumar says he iis wiling to give up his ministry in favor of Pannerselvam, CM Palanisamy is silent about all the possibilities of government change in the state.

Apparently, the Sasikala plan is to accommodate Pannerselvam and a couple of his supporting MLAs in the Palanisamy government and gradually side him after ensuring the support of his supporting MLAs for Sasikala.

Obviously, neither Sasikala nor CM EPS faction does not want OPS to be the CM of Tamil Nadu again. Their argument perhaps is that after Jayalalithaa’s death, Panneerselvam has no role in the government. This OPS faction calls a dirty drama to fool them and people at large. Votes and party symbol for dirty money Graphic details of the money trail were printed on a special letter pad with 'R K Nagar assembly constituency by-election 2017: Candidate T T V Dhinakaran' printed on top. In the first column on the letter pad, the key election managers' names are printed. The second column shows the number of areas the constituency has been divided into, for electioneering. The third column has the total voters in each region and the fourth one shows the targeted electorate for bribing. The amount disbursed is mentioned in the last column, but curiously enough, there is no mention that the figures refer to money. Divide the total amount by the targeted electorate, and you get the per voter amount of Rs4,000. Following this came the news that TTV Dinakaran had engaged a well-known con man Sukash Chandrasekaran to bribe EC officials to get his faction the two leaves symbol which was frozen just before the RK Nagar polls. The Delhi Police arrested Chandrasekaran after a tip off by an informer. The 27 year old has several cases against him in the Enforcement Directorate, CBI and Chennai and Bangalore police. He has duped more than 100 people of crores of rupees by posing as important figures in government, and has 15 FIRs lodged against him. Quoting the Delhi Police, the Indian Express reported – It has been learnt that the conman had struck a deal for Rs 50 crore for helping the AIADMK (Amma) faction to keep the ‘two leaves’ symbol, said an officer privy to the probe. Till now, he had got Rs 10 crore of the deal amount and the remaining was to be given to him in a time-bound manner. Yesterday, police recovered Rs 1.30

crore in cash and two luxury cars–a BMW and a Mercedes–from him. Dinakaran, who said he did know of such a person, was served with summons on Wednesday and was grilled for several hours over the weekend. As the public perception of TTV Dinakaran worsened, a few ministers in his faction have virtually side-lined him and are attempting to unite with the rival OPS faction to regain the two leaves symbol. In response to these developments, TTV Dinakaran, in the midst of various court hearings, said that these ministers within their faction are in fear of something due to which they want to keep him and his family away from party affairs. He said that he will stay away from the affairs of the party without being clear on whether he and his aunt would resign their posts. However, several days of negotiation have not yielded results as power sharing between the two factions is becoming tricky. OPS camp wants posts of the general secretary, chief minister and the party presidium for members of their faction. The EPS faction is unwilling to let go of the Chief Ministerial post and is instead offering OPS the post of the party general secretary. However, this is not easy. The Times of India reported that the bylaws framed by MGR a senior amma AIADMK leader said in case of a compromise between the warring factions, the CM post is more certain. But the party general secretary (GS) post, going by the AIADMK bylaw, is a long shot. The person has to be elected by the 1.5 crore cadres; and not by the functionaries. If there is more than one contestant, we will have to go through a process akin to the general election. No one can select a GS. Even if TTV will not form a third faction in AIADMK, the state Govt will fall if OPS-EPS factions fight for Chief Minister’s post. As this fight for power plays out, there is much being said about BJP’s role in the conflict. While neither of the factions has directly named them, it is believed that the OPS faction has the support of the BJP and it is in fact the BJP that is orchestrating the reunification through Deputy Speaker Thambidurai. Coomi Kapoor writes in the Indian Express - There was very real apprehension that the Central government may impose President’s rule in the state, something every MLA wanted to avoid at all cost. The Paneerselvam camp, with far fewer MLAs, was requested to rejoin the Sasikala group, on the understanding that Sasikala and her family members would be shown the door. The BJP which won a few seats in the assembly and parliament thanks to DMK and AIADMK, has always viewed the troubled AIADMK as a possible ally to make its presence stronger in Tamil Nadu. BJP cannot get DMK as it has a strong alliance with Congress party. BJP is eager to reap all benefits out of the rift. The death of Jayalalithaa has left a void which they are seeking to leverage on. OPS and EPS are not in any hurry to unite. The BJP is still waiting for a clear picture to choose the faction. From the BJP’s point of view, a united AIADMK without the Sasikala

family would be an ideal ally because it can set its own terms to them. Besides getting the much-needed votes in the upcoming presidential elections, the BJP would still look forward to contesting upwards of ten seats as part of seat-sharing in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and winning most of them and improving its 2014 tally of just one seat. Observation With the split in the party and As the Mannargudi mafia has dramatically been shunned out of the AIADMK without any serious intent people are confused and so the future of the party and the fate of politics in Tamil Nadu remains uncertain. The ruling faction refuses to undertake and complete the “ouster” operation of keeping the party free from Sasikala and her control mechanism.

Sasikala knows without OPS the party cannot survive and the government would disappear sooner than later. Many Sasikala supporters say they would welcome the OPS supporter to rejoin to strengthen the party. Because of her foolish actions, now the Jayalalithaa’s government party is under serious threat of extinction.

The Pannerselvam faction is suspicious about the move of Sasikala faction. In order ally suspicion form the minds of them the Palanisamy team must allay all fears with an action that officially keeps Sasikala and family and their clan out of AIADMK and government. CM Palanisamy Those MLAs who are badly spoiled by Sasikala change their anger and hatred towards former CM OPS and think seriously about genuine unity of the party. Political commentators see OPS and EPS factional rivalry being a repetition of Jayalithaa-Janaki factions after the demise of the AIADMK founder MGR. and say OPS would win the fight just like Jayalithaa had emerged victorious forcing Janaki quit politics. Panneerselvam is not the popular leader as people see him the true follower of MGRJayalalithaa. But apparently Sasikala-EPS faction would prefer the DMK to come power rather than letting OPS become CM of Tamil Nadu Only time will reveal what people want.

Investment Bank (AIIB), “the decision to launch the AIIB came as a direct result of China’s growing frustration over only playing a marginal role within the existing international financial system”. This is true of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. China plan can boost one aspect. Asia is fast getting old and the harsh reality is that it could do so before it gets rich. Although Asia remains the growth champion of the world, the highly populated continent is ‘shifting from being the biggest contributor to the global working-age population to subtracting hundreds of millions of people from it, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) East Asia, in particular, is projected to be the world’s fastest-ageing region in the coming decades, with its old-age dependency ratio roughly tripling by 2050.

Chapter-38: Can Russia and China over take USA? -Dr. Abdul Ruff ____________

The decision by US President Donald Trump to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership would create opportunities for China’s belt initiative, but its success would depend on a stable security environment in east and Central Asia. It remains to be seen how Beijing would reconcile its increasingly assertive policies in Southeast Asia with the need for such stability. By 2030, the USA, China and India will be the three largest economies in the world. How India and China utilize each other’s growth stories will be of great significance for both them and the global economy. China’s participation in the Indian economy is growing as India’s markets expand and new opportunities arise. The two countries must continue to jointly explore points of convergence in their respective connectivity and developmental agendas and utilize openings for collaboration. The simultaneous re-emergence of China and India generates new challenges and opportunities which can be addressed through better strategic communication and mutual accommodation in respect of specific theatres, situations and issues to the maximum extent feasible. This will involve understanding each other’s vital interests while avoiding any expansive definition of those interests.

Regional economic growth was gaining traction, as opposed to global growth under the new US new government under Trump. For instance, exports to China from countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations recovered faster and better in recent months than those of other trading partners. In March 2017, the growth of Asean’s exports to China was higher than those to the EU, the USA, Japan and South Korea. But China’s actual investment in the belt and road countries might fall short of expectations, given the drop in its foreign exchange ¬reserves over the last few years. China’s forex reserves stood at US$3.030 trillion in April, well ¬below the peak of US$4 trillion -recorded in June 2014.

Experts say that Chinese companies might be less aware of the legal and financial risks in dealing with countries along the routes, especially those with complex political situations. Uncertainties brought by China’s rapid drop in foreign-exchange reserves and volatile energy prices in the international market could crate problem so for Beijing. While China had signed up for rule-based global systems such as the World Trade Organisation, the country remained fundamentally sceptical of such liberal international orders. There was little all 65 countries had in common – whether it be rule of law, culture or language. Although China billed the summit in Beijing as its diplomatic event of the year, many, especially in the West, remain resistant to Xi Jinping’s charm offensive as they do not want China to lead the world. Some see OBOR as Xi’s effort to place himself at the head of the flock. Some leaders are lining up behind him, but while many are keen for an injection of Chinese money, fewer are ready to accept Chinese leadership because of the ongoing USChina clash.

2050, while for China the equivalent figures are 13.1 per cent and 46.7 per cent respectively. Both economies are going grey. In its favour, Hong Kong does benefit from material working-age immigration. For China, where the IMF calculates net migration is relatively small, and where it expects a decline in absolute terms of 170 million in China’s working-age population over the next 35 years, the estimate for the impact of the demographic trend on real GDP growth in the period 2020-50 is minus 0.6 per cent. That means both that “countries in Asia will have less time to adapt policies to a more aged society than many advanced economies had”, according to the IMF and that “some countries in Asia are getting old before becoming rich or, to put it differently, they are likely to face the challenges of high fiscal costs of ageing and demographic headwinds to growth at relatively low per capita income levels”. Asia’s policymakers will have to address these issues. The IMF points out the need for Asia to strengthen its pension systems to accommodate the consequences of rapid ageing and the attendant fiscal costs. China’s demand for energy has led the country to scour the region for suppliers. Turkmenistan has been a major beneficiary of this initiative due to its vast energy reserves. China plans to increase its gas imports from Turkmenistan over the next decade to 65 billion cubic metres per year. Launched in 2013, Xi’s program calls for billions of dollars to be ploughed into new railways, ports, and energy projects in 65 countries. China has invited leaders from more than 20 countries to a summit on the plan it is hosting in May and hopes will be larger than the G20 meeting held in Hangzhou last year. John Farnell, a former director at the European Commission, said China would need to clearly spell out the investment opportunities for companies if it wanted other nations to participate. Fair, open bidding on contracts is a must. “If China’s vision of ‘One Belt, One Road’ is an extension of what happened in its domestic market, then there probably will not be a lot of space for European participation,” said Farnell, who managed the EU’s policy dialogue with China before retiring in 2012. Beijing’s reluctance to open up its government procurement of goods and services to outsiders had worsened trade imbalances with Europe. There is a fear the same trend will occur with investment. Over the past decade, China

basically shut out European capital to protect state-owned companies, particularly in telecoms and finance, stalling investment growth from the European bloc. Farnell said “Clearly we want big construction projects, legal and financial services in ‘One Belt, One Road’ to be opened up to international competition, and the most effective way is to have as much competition as possible. Life of common men better Weak nations in Asia and African could benefit from Chinese idea as they could emulate the Chinese experience in minimizing poverty. Many illustrations of China’s most awesome achievement over recent decades are visible all over China and most importantly the state lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty and the creation of a vast new urban middle class. In 1981, 88 per cent of Chinese (and 96 per cent of rural Chinese) lived below the poverty line; in 2013, only 2 per cent of Chinese were extremely poor.” That is worthy of respect and Indian politicians and officals loot the resources for personal use rather than let the resources shared by all citizens. China’s achievement is all the more impressive in that it was not only unprecedented, but also unexpected. The often proclaimed “era of humiliation” – from the first opium war in 1839 to Liberation in 1949 – was no myth, but very much a reality. Though China was not colonized by any single power, as, say, India was by Britain, it was what Sun Yat-sen termed a “poly-colony” – i.e., gang-raped. In 1950, the newly liberated People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet, which was reprehensible, but Britain also invaded Tibet (in 1903/04), not to mention the roughly half of the planet that was conquered and subjected by the empire. In its wars against China, Japan is estimated to have caused some 30 million deaths, along with multiple mutilations, tortures and rapes. I am not aware of single Japanese killed by Chinese troops in the course of China’s recent rise. Thousands and thousands of Chinese come to visit the Louvre in Paris these days, to gape at the Mona Lisa and other masterpieces of art, not to pillage and burn it down as French troops did to the Summer Palace in Beijing. While the USA presents itself as the great global moralizer, it seems to forget that its rise to great power status included the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of millions of Africans, wars against its Latin American neighbours and the conquest of the Philippines.

While China went to war against Vietnam in 1979 (and lost), in terms of crimes against humanity, it was nothing compared to the war against Vietnam (and Laos) waged (and lost) by the USA. Seemingly addicted to belligerence, this century has seen America’s illegal war against several Muslim nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, etc., with all the carnage that ensued. All this, needless to say, is not to suggest that it is now China’s turn to invade, conquer and pillage. Though China’s 2005 pledge of a “peaceful rise” seems more illusory with each passing year, it would be in the world’s best interests if it could be achieved. Indeed, the implications of the alternatives are cataclysmic. However, in the process, the West and Japan should be conscious of the inevitable scars China bears from past exploitation and humiliation and thus refrain from taking the hypocritical high ground, which seems to be common China policy currency.

The US public debt amounts to 20 trillion dollars, the Federal Reserve tends to raise interest rates in a world of zero or even negative interest rates and public spending is expected to rise under Trump's Presidency, the 1971 old wisecrack by John Connally, the former Head of the Federal Reserve, is still topical: "The dollar is our currency, but it is your problem". World is watching US isolationism with opportunistic eyes. As some Western countries move backwards by erecting 'walls', China is contriving to build bridges, both literal and metaphorical,” proclaimed the state-run Xinhua news agency In recent times, the dollar value in word trade has increased by about 25%. It is currently 40% higher than in 2011. The SCO region (Russia, China, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan) 3.92 billion people live (according to 2014-2015 data), namely 54,4% of world's population, that generates an aggregate GDP accounting for 32.2% of the global gross domestic product.

Impact of Arab crisis on Syria Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Maldives and Mauritania announced on Monday an extraordinary step of cutting off diplomatic ties with the State of Qatar. In this regard, the command of Saudiled coalition has already decided to exclude Qatar from the members of the alliance, which is fighting the Hussites now in Yemen. Formed after Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the antiQatar coalition intends to act decisively. It is to block land, sea and air links with Doha. The upcoming blockade stimulates the growth of energy prices and jeopardizes the Qatar World Cup in 2022. Accusations Officially, the countries have substantiated their decision by the serious violations of the authorities in Qatar. Most of them include:    

the destabilization of the situation within the countries of the new antiQatar coalition; the undermining of the national security of the Arab countries; the interference in the internal affairs; the division of the society and the spread of chaos;

  

the encroachment on the sovereignty and the unity of Arab nation; the promotion of the extremist ideology through the media; the supporting terrorism and providing financial assistance to Islamic State, Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood; However, despite all the charges against Qatar, you should try to find out the true reasons of the diplomatic demarche. Real reasons Financial Times was the first who started talking about the real reasons. It claims that Qatar paid Al Qaeda about $1 billion to release members of the Gulf state’s royal family who were kidnapped in southern Iraq while on a falconry. It became one of the main reasons to rupture diplomatic relations between the countries. On the one hand, it seems that you can’t argue with that logic. Qatar took the most direct part in financing and supporting various radical jihadist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa. A lot of evidence repeatedly appeared proving close links between Qatar and representatives of international terrorist organizations. But this is only part of the truth which the major media considered it necessary to focus attention on. This accusation may be completely correct, if only we forget the role of the United States and other countries of the Persian Gulf in supporting the same organizations. The thing is that the United States and Saudi Arabia decided to radically change their policy towards ISIS and focus on its elimination. So, the dirty hands of ‘terrorism fighters’ must be laundered before the future triumph over jihadists. In accordance with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. urgently was seeking someone to be accused of what IS had done in the Middle East. It’s a package deal for Saudi Arabia not to be the main accomplice of terrorism because of its status. Moreover, the Saudis apparently agreed with Trump that the former claims would be forgotten in exchange of huge flows of Saudi money into the U.S. military industrial complex (Defense contracts worth $110 billion were signed). Thus, Qatar suddenly turned into an official sponsor of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Perhaps the real reasons are related to the exacerbation of conflict in Yemen. In favor of this version the U.S. postpones Raqqa’s assault together with the Syrian Kurds. It can even be assumed that Trump in Riyadh challenged Tehran by providing the coalition with an unprecedented amount of weapons. And now the situation in the region can only aggravate the tension, which could have an impact on further developments and first of all in Syria and Yemen. The crisis in relations may well shift the confrontation. It would not be surprising if the terrorists in Syria and Iraq also begin an open battle between themselves.

Effect A knockon effect has come into force. A number of states decided to take advantage of the situation. Egypt, for example, has blamed Qatar for the support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The shooting of the bus with children in Egypt, apparently, provided the tipping point to blame Qatar for everything. Bahrain accused Qatar of supporting the Shiites and of close ties with Iran. I wish I couldn’t forget the role of other master minders of the Arab Spring. It’s ridiculous, but Saudi Arabia and Qatar supplied militants in Syria and threatened by joint intervention in Syria side by side just a year ago. The founder and the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, did come from the family of the Saudi nobility. It turns out that Riyadh threatened Assad to invade his country together with the main sponsor of IS! Moreover, Qatar, as the ‘main sponsor of terrorists’ formally even participated in the operations against ISIS. How is it possible I would like to ask? Probably, this state of affairs is a consequence of the serious strategic changes in the Middle East that occurred after the active accession of Assad’s allies to the Syrian war. The old strategies for the region have collapsed; the plans of Washington, Ankara and Riyadh have gone to pieces, so now new strategies are needed that are adapted to the new reality. Qatar, apparently, does not fit into these plans yet, and they decided to make the country at least a regional outcast. However, it is not worth much regretting this state, given its role in the destruction of Libya and Syria. It remains only to find out whether Qatar will get off with ‘public reprimand’ or he will face a more severe punishment for the sins of everyone else. Major historical disagreements Qatar – Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has long wanted to implement the annexation of Qatar and supported the protesting Arabs in Qatar during the Arab Spring. Riyadh forbade the broadcasting of AlJazeera, which is disintegrative TV channel. Officials in the Doha in response decided to develop relations with such states as Yemen, Iran and Iraq and provide active support to the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2003, the military base of the US Air Force Central Command AlAdid was deployed in Qatar and the American air operations’ preparation center in the Middle East was transferred from Saudi Arabia. Both states finance, arm and train various political, radical and terrorist movements in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria. In 2014, a political expert, Nabil Ennasri, stated that the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar is also because of the different views on the political crisis in Egypt and Syria, not to mention some economic reasons. Qatar even began to develop a scheme of laying pipelines bypassing Saudi Arabia.

Qatar – Bahrain. Since the 19th century there have been unsolved territorial disputes between the two countries. In the 20th century, countries began to challenge sovereignty over the Hawar islands, the nearest of which is less than 2 km from the western coast of Qatar. There were border incidents connected with this territorial dispute in 1978, 1982 and 1986 (the most serious crisis) between the countries. In 1986, Qatari armed forces crossed the border of Bahrain and captured foreign workers who had been building fortifications on the disputed islands. Qatar – the United Arab Emirates. In 1995 Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani overthrew his father in order to become emir of Qatar. Within a few months the overthrown emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani went into hiding in Abu Dhabi. Official Qatar accused the UAE, along with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain of a conspiracy against the new emir In September 2014, the government of the Emirates invested $3 billion in a media campaign against Qatar. The campaign was aimed at influencing the point of view of American journalists so that they published critical articles about official Doha. Qatar also financed custommade articles against the government of the Emirates. Qatar – Egypt. The relationship between Cairo and Doha has deteriorated sharply after the removal of President Mohammed Morsi from power in Egypt. Egypt accuses Qatar of political, financial and information support of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in the country. The parties repeatedly exchanged harsh statements and diplomatic demarches.