Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

#MeToo Is All Too Common in National Security

I signed the letter, but didn’t think I deserved to be called a “survivor.” Until I started remembering the trail of abuse.

Soldiers, officers, and civilian employees attend the commencement ceremony for the U.S. Army's annual observance of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month in the Pentagon Center Courtyard on March 31, 2015 in Arlington, Virginia. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) 

No automatic alt text available.
BY 
 | 
When I was asked to sign a “me too” letter on behalf of women in national security, I hesitated. I wasn’t sure why, but I didn’t want to sign. “We, too, are survivors of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse or know others who are,” declared the letter. Sign that? No. Not me, too.

But the letter was drafted by women I like and respect, so I pushed myself to re-examine my aversion. Partly, I suppose, I was feeling that instinctive writerly reluctance to sign onto prose someone else had drafted: The letter wasn’t phrased exactly the way I would have phrased it, if I’d had the pen. Partly, it was my equally instinctive dislike of “me too-ism”: the tendency to jump on bandwagons for the sake of being one of the cool kids.

But these were bad reasons not to sign; if I objected to the phrasing, the letter’s drafters would have happily made changes, and expressing solidarity with women who have been subjected to workplace sexual harassment and assault is hardly the same as becoming the 38th person to hit “reply all” and offer obsequious compliments to a colleague. (“Kudos to you, Bob! Well done!”)

Mostly, I realized, I just felt like I didn’t deserve to sign, because I wasn’t a “survivor” of sexual harassment, assault, or abuse in the national security workplace. I’ve had a happy and successful career, and I’ve had wonderful, generous bosses and colleagues, male and female.

True, it wasn’t easy being one of the rare women in a male-dominated profession; I often found myself the only women in rooms full of men. True, I often felt, like every woman in such settings, that I had to work harder and be smarter just to be considered an equal in those rooms full of men. True, I heard some horror stories from female colleagues, but nothing really bad had ever happened to me. So what right did I have to claim the mantle of #MeToo victimhood? I wasn’t a victim, or a “survivor,” as we now prefer to say. There was nothing to “survive.” Was there?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow with the New America/Arizona State University Future of War Project. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department. Her most recent book is How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything.

I signed the letter anyway, because people who refuse to sign group letters are jerks, and because I wanted to show solidarity with the many female friends and colleagues who really had experienced sexual harassment and assault.

Then something strange happened. A few days after I signed that letter, I started to remember some experiences I had conveniently forgotten about — experiences I had simply edited out of my own narrative.

I started to remember all the casual sexual appraisals: for instance, the two-star general at the Pentagon who looked me up and down after I introduced myself, then turned to his (all male) colleagues and announced, “The thing that’s great about [Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle] Flournoy is she’s stocking up the building with hot babes.” I don’t recall how I responded; probably, I pretended not to hear. In hindsight, there were a lot of things I pretended not to hear. Being slightly deaf was the price of admission to the boys’ club.

I remembered worse things, too. When I worked at the State Department, for example, there was the (married) senior foreign service officer — one of my closest colleagues — who grabbed me and shoved his tongue forcibly down my throat as we walked along a deserted canal in Venice, returning from an international law conference. The two of us had traveled everywhere together: Kosovo, Sierra Leone. We had seen civilians mutilated by rebel fighters and interviewed torture victims and political prisoners. I trusted him, and looked up to him. Now, I was fighting to push him away. He was drunk, and 50 pounds heavier than I was, and he wouldn’t take no for an answer. “But I love you,” he declared tearfully, as he tried to yank my bra off. It took several minutes of skirmishing and several firm threats to shove him into the canal before he stopped pawing at me.

Afterward, he didn’t mention the episode. But a week or so later, back in Washington, he showed up drunk at the 30th birthday dinner our boss had planned for me, and told everyone, loudly, that I was a great girl but needed to learn to lighten up and have more fun. I gritted my teeth and smiled. It was not a good birthday party. A few weeks after that, I quit my State Department job. My boss was disappointed, and asked why I was leaving. I just shrugged, and said something about wanting to focus more on writing. I didn’t tell him I was no longer comfortable traveling with my colleague. I’m not sure I even let myself think that.

And until signing that #MeToo letter pushed me to start excavating my own past, I had forgotten all this.

I really, truly forgot it all. Not, I think, because these experiences were so terribly traumatic; even late at night by that lonely Venetian canal, I remember feeling thoroughly annoyed, but not particularly frightened. No: I think I edited all these experiences out because they just seemed so … normal. They were so common they were forgettable. Inappropriate comments and the occasional drunken assault? They were only what every woman expects to encounter in the workplace.

 You don’t get a special “survivor” merit badge when you’ve only gone through what every woman goes through, do you?

That’s when I started feeling angry.

Because, of course, this is the point of all those #MeToo tweets and letters and articles. The point is: How the hell did it come to this, ladies and gentlemen and not-so-gentlemanly men? How did we come to treat as “normal” a world in which even outright workplace sexual assault is often viewed, by the victim no less, as “just the way it is”? How did I ever let myself think that this was okay?

So let me be the thousandth woman to say it: It’s not okay. Men, it’s not okay to treat your female colleagues like pieces of meat; it’s not okay to ogle or paw them or whistle at them or comment on how you think they’d look in a bikini; it’s not okay to grab their asses or show them your genitals or suggest they join you to watch a little porn. No. No. No.
Just don’t. Okay?

To be clear: There’s a continuum of crappy male behavior, and it runs from the merely obnoxious and offensive all the way through to the clearly criminal. It’s important to make these distinctions: What Al Franken reportedly did was crude and offensive; what Harvey Weinstein reportedly did was rape. One merits an apology and a commitment to do better; the other merits prison time.

But none of it’s okay, and at every point along that spectrum from merely offensive to actually criminal, crappy male behavior is part of what pushes women out of the national security workplace. As Dan Drezner put it in the Washington Post, it amounts to a hidden “tax” on women: an extra burden that makes it that much tougher for women to advance or even stay in the workplace at all.
Looking back, I wish I had been braver at some crucial moments. I wish I had looked up at that two-star general and said, loudly, “I’m sorry, what did you just say? Did you just tell a room full of men that the best thing about having a female undersecretary of defense is that she’s stocking the Pentagon with hot babes?” I don’t know for sure, but I bet he would have flushed and apologized, and the episode would have taught his colleagues a different kind of lesson.

I wish I had confided in my boss at the State Department about my colleague’s drunken assault, instead of pushing it under the rug. My colleague’s alcoholism and serial affairs damaged his marriage, and I have no doubt he treated other female colleagues the same way he treated me. If I had blown the whistle on him, maybe he would have been pushed into counseling; maybe, in the end, it would have saved a lot of people a lot of grief. I don’t know.

But in the end, men, this will only change if you change it.
But in the end, men, this will only change if you change it.
 Most of you aren’t sexual harassers or assaulters; the vast majority of men I have known have treated their female colleagues like human beings. But men, if you look back at your own past and find that you, like me, are starting to recall some episodes that don’t make you proud, say so. You don’t have to sign a group letter or publish an article, but you could start by apologizing to the women toward whom you behaved badly. Better still? Start the repair work. It shouldn’t be that hard: Treat women (and men) with respect and concern. Call out the men who interrupt women in meetings and the men who make inappropriate sexual comments. Make it clear to men and women alike that harassment and assault won’t be tolerated.

I’m committed to ensuring safe, respectful workplaces. Men, you’re welcome to say, “Me too.”
The Daily 202: North Korea my-button-is-bigger brinkmanship again spotlights Trump’s fixation on size

North Korea said it would reopen a border hotline with South Korea Jan. 3, hours after President Trump said he has a “bigger" nuclear button than Kim Jong Un. 
With Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve.

 

THE BIG IDEA: Following President Trump’s tweets can feel like watching a short man drive a Hummer. His fragile ego is always looking to overcompensate. The latest manifestation of that is downright Napoleonic.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said Monday that the United States is “within the range of our nuclear strike and a nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.”

Twelve minutes after Fox News highlighted that quote last night, Trump tweeted: “Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”

This isn’t the first time Trump has made a thinly veiled allusion to his manhood. During the Republicans primaries, he gave Marco Rubio the nickname “Little Marco” and the Florida senator eagerly joined him in the gutter. “He's like 6'2", which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2’,” Rubio said during a rally. “Have you seen his hands? And you know what they say about men with small hands!”

Trump brought up the insult during a debate the next night, holding up his hands for the audience to inspect: “Are they small hands? He referred to my hands: ‘If they are small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there is no problem. I guarantee you!”


Our in-house fact checkers tabulate that Trump has made 1,950 false or misleading claims over the past 347 days. Many are exaggerations about the hugeness of something he’s taking credit for. For example, Trump has repeated the falsehood that he’s passing “the biggest tax cut ever” at least 53 times, even though his own Treasury Department’s data shows it is the eighth biggest.

 “I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest C.P.A.,” Trump told the New York Times last week, one of 24 misleading or false claims he made during a 30-minute interview.

-- There are many other areas where the 71-year-old has made clear he believes size matters, such as:

His bank account: Trump has long exaggerated his net worth and business success. Rhona Graff, the president’s longtime personal assistant, told Crain’s New York Business last year that the Trump Organization had $9.5 billion in annual revenue. But financial disclosure forms indicate that the company only generates between $600 million and $700 million in annual revenue, less than one-tenth what they claim. The Trump Organization moved from third to 40th on Crain’s list of the largest privately held companies in New York this year, based on public filings.

His buildings: Trump Tower is only 58 floors, but Trump and his company continue to falsely claim that there are 68. He says that his personal penthouse there is 33,000 square feet, but Forbes checked land records and it’s only 10,996. During an interview on Sept. 11, 2001, Trump told a New York television station that the collapse of the World Trade Center meant that this property at 40 Wall Street was no longer the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan. “Now it’s the tallest,” he said.


His crowd sizes: During a phone call on the Saturday morning after he became president, Trump personally ordered the acting director of the National Park Service to produce additional photographs of the crowds on the Mall. Trump also expressed anger over a retweet sent from the agency’s account, in which side-by-side photographs showed far fewer people at his swearing-in than had shown up to see Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009. During the campaign, he drew huge crowds but still routinely inflated the numbers.

His 2016 victory: Trump has said he had “the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.” In fact, Obama won more electoral votes in both of his elections. So did Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992. And George H.W. Bush in 1988. Trump’s electoral college victory actually ranks 46th in 58 elections.

South Korea welcomed an offer of talks by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un ahead of February's Pyeongchang Olympics. 
-- The latest from the Peninsula: “South Korea announced that a long-suspended cross-border hotline with North Korea reopened on Wednesday to pave the way for official talks between the two sides about sending a delegation from the North to next month’s Winter Olympics in the South,” Simon Denyer reports. “North Korea had earlier in the day announced the channel would be reopened, marking an easing of tensions … U.S. officials said they doubt Kim’s sincerity but declared that Washington would not stand in the way, nor would it allow the North to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States.”

-- North Korean dictators have been insulting American presidents for seven decades, but Trump is the first to let their taunts get under his skin. He had scaled back his “fire and fury” rhetoric since the summer at the behest of his foreign policy advisers. Today he’s back to calling the 33-year-old “Rocket Man.” (Kim’s preferred insult for Trump is “dotard.”)

When Hillary Clinton said during the 2016 campaign that Trump could be easily baited by foreign leaders, he shot back on ABC: “I have one of the great temperaments. I have a winning temperament!”

-- Is there a method to the madness? The most charitable explanation for Trump’s taunts is that he’s embracing Richard Nixon’s “madman theory” of foreign policy. The idea here is that North Korea is more likely to make concessions if it believes that the threat of United States military action is credible because Trump is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.

To understand why it’s dangerous for Trump to tweet this way toward Kim, it’s worth revisiting op-eds from this summer by the German Marshall Fund’s Laura Rosenberger (a former director for North Korea policy on the National Security Council) and the Hoover Institution’s Kori Schake (who has worked for Republicans at State, DOD and the White House).

“I guess the president regards this as a show of strength. But as everybody who's ever been in a first-grade playground recognizes, it's usually the person who's most aggressively pounding their chest that is, in fact, the weak one on the playground,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House intelligence committee, said last night on CNN.
-- Susan Glasser has a meaty piece in Politico Magazine about Trump’s foreign policy naivete. “It’s worse than you think,” she argues. Two memorable nuggets:

1. From Trump’s September dinner in New York with leaders of four Latin American countries on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly: “‘Rex tells me you don’t want me to use the military option in Venezuela,’ the president told the gathered leaders, according to an account offered by an attendee soon after the dinner. ‘Is that right? Are you sure?’ Everyone said they were sure. But they were rattled. War with Venezuela, as absurd as that seemed, was clearly still on Trump’s mind. … By the time the dinner was over, the leaders were in shock, and not just over the idle talk of armed conflict …

A former senior U.S. official with whom I spoke was briefed by ministers from three of the four countries that attended the dinner.‘Without fail, they just had wide eyes about the entire engagement,’ the former official told me. Even if few took his martial bluster about Venezuela seriously, Trump struck them as uninformed about their issues and dangerously unpredictable, asking them to expend political capital on behalf of a U.S. that no longer seemed a reliable partner. ‘The word they all used was: ‘This guy is insane.’

2. An unnamed senior European official recounted a “frightening” conversation with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has an international portfolio that includes trying to negotiate Middle East peace: “Kushner was ‘very dismissive’ about the role of international institutions and alliances and uninterested in the European’s recounting of how closely the United States had stood together with Western Europe since World War II. ‘He told me, ‘I’m a businessman, and I don’t care about the past. Old allies can be enemies, or enemies can be friends.’ So, the past doesn’t count,’ the official recalled. ‘I was taken aback.’”

Read More

Trump Tower meeting with Russians 'treasonous', Bannon says in explosive book

  • Former White House strategist quoted in Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolff
  • Bannon: ‘They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV

Steve Bannon exits an elevator in the lobby of Trump Tower on 11 November 2016 in New York City. Other Trump campaign officials met with Russians there in June 2016. Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

 in Washington-Wed 3 Jan ‘18 

Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.

Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, reportedly based on more than 200 interviews with the president, his inner circle and players in and around the administration, is one of the most eagerly awaited political books of the year. In it, Wolff lifts the lid on a White House lurching from crisis to crisis amid internecine warfare, with even some of Trump’s closest allies expressing contempt for him.

Bannon, who was chief executive of the Trump campaign in its final three months, then White House chief strategist for seven months before returning to the rightwing Breitbart News, is a central figure in the nasty, cutthroat drama, quoted extensively, often in salty language.

He is particularly scathing about a June 2016 meeting involving Trump’s son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York. A trusted intermediary had promised documents that would “incriminate” rival Hillary Clinton but instead of alerting the FBI to a potential assault on American democracy by a foreign power, Trump Jr replied in an email: “I love it.”

The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.

“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up “in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people”. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”.

Bannon added: “You never see it, you never know it, because you don’t need to … But that’s the brain trust that they had.”

Bannon also speculated that Trump Jr had involved his father in the meeting. “The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed last May, following Trump’s dismissal of FBI director James Comey, to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. This has led to the indictments of four members of Trump’s inner circle, including Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money laundering charges; Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. In recent weeks Bannon’s Breitbart News and other conservative outlets have accused Mueller’s team of bias against the president.

Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel was “going to be fair”, though he also said the investigation “makes the country look very bad”. The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied interfering.

Bannon has criticised Trump’s decision to fire Comey. In Wolff’s book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.

“You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering.

Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”

Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”

Scorning apparent White House insouciance, Bannon reaches for a hurricane metaphor: “They’re sitting on a beach trying to stop a Category Five.”

He insists that he knows no Russians, will not be a witness, will not hire a lawyer and will not appear on national television answering questions.

Fire and Fury will be published next week. Wolff is a prominent media critic and columnist who has written for the Guardian and is a biographer of Rupert Murdoch. He previously conducted interviews for the Hollywood Reporter with Trump in June 2016 and Bannon a few months later.

He told the Guardian in November that to research the book, he showed up at the White House with no agenda but wanting to “find out what the insiders were really thinking and feeling”. He enjoyed extraordinary access to Trump and senior officials and advisers, he said, sometimes at critical moments of the fledgling presidency.

The rancour between Bannon and “Javanka” – Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump – is a recurring theme of the book. Kushner and Ivanka are Jewish. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, is quoted as saying: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”

Trump is not spared. Wolff writes that Thomas Barrack Jr, a billionaire who is one of the president’s oldest associates, allegedly told a friend: “He’s not only crazy, he’s stupid.” Barrack denied that to the New York Times.

Dalit workers disrupt life in Mumbai for second day after clash

Members of the Dalit community shout slogans as they participate in a protest rally in Mumbai, January 3, 2018. REUTERS/Danish Siddiqui

JANUARY 3, 2018 

MUMBAI (Reuters) - Protests disrupted business in India’s financial hub of Mumbai for a second day on Wednesday as lower-caste Dalits pelted buses, blocked rail lines and shut malls after a clash with right-wing Hindus.

Mumbai police advised people to avoid a number of key roads and intersections. Train services, the life line of the city, stalled throughout the day.

The Dalit call for a general strike across Maharashtra led to largely peaceful demonstrations. Police said protesters burned a few buses round the state, while dozens of buses and cars were damaged in Mumbai.

The Dalits, who rank at the bottom in India’s ancient caste hierarchy, called the strike in protest against an attack by right-wing groups in the city of Pune, 150 km (95 miles) from Mumbai, on Monday.

The attack came as the community was celebrating the 200th anniversary of a battle they won, fighting alongside British colonial forces, against an upper-caste ruler. A 28-year-old man was killed in the clashes, according to the state government.

Police stand guard as members of the Dalit community block a highway during protests in Mumbai, January 3, 2018. REUTERS/Danish Siddiqui

“The government didn’t arrest the perpetrators of violence in Pune. Hindu group members were beating Dalits and the police were just watching from afar,” said protester Sandeep Kamble. “We are demanding the arrest of the culprits.”

Thousands of Dalits hurled stones and caused traffic disruption across Mumbai on Tuesday. Dalits have been ostracized by upper-caste Hindus for centuries for doing jobs they deemed as impure, such as working in tanneries and as picking garbage.


“We’ve called for a bandh (shutdown), but we’re not forcing people. They can join us or stay away,” said Prakash Ambedkar, a leader of the Dalit community.

In parts of the Mumbai suburb of Thane, officials banned the assembly of crowds, small or large. Schools were closed in some cities, while internet access was also limited.

Fleet taxis, along with cab hailing services like Uber and Ola, were also largely off the roads in Mumbai on Wednesday, while several offices asked employees to work from home.

Can Pakistan free itself from China’s vice like grip ?

It is well known that China has huge territorial ambitions, particularly with regard to the neighbouring countries. 

by N.S.Venkataraman-
( January 4, 2018, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) On the New Year Day of 2018, China must have been highly pleased to read President Trump’s tweet, sending a warning to Pakistan that future American aid will be refused. Not only that, President Trump went to the extent of accusing Pakistan of stating lies and indulging in deceits while receiving massive aid from USA. China has immediately responded pledging it’s support to Pakistan and applauding Pakistan for it’s fight against terrorism, obviously to convince people in Pakistan that China is their reliable friend at any time.
While China should be pleased that Trump’s tweet would force Pakistan to look for Chinese support and further enable it to tighten it’s vice like grip over Pakistan, the leadership of Pakistan would certainly be concerned about the development.
Of course, to save it’s face, Pakistan is giving an impression of not being rattled by Trump’s tweet and is trying to create an image of Pakistan standing against USA. Mass protests have happened in Pakistan against USA and political parties in Pakistan have criticized and abused Trump for his early morning tweet on the New Year’s day.
However, the question is whether Pakistan can afford confrontation with USA in any manner.
Already, there is considerable concern amongst discerning observers in Pakistan and it’s well wishers that China’s massive investment in infrastructure projects and extension of huge loan to Pakistan which Pakistan would not be able to repay in the foreseeable future, would drive Pakistan into a debt trap that would enable China to browbeat Pakistan in any manner it wants in the coming years. They wonder whether Pakistan should allow itself to become more dependent on China than what it is already now, which would inevitably happen in case of continued confrontation with USA.
Of course, the immediate cancellation of over 250 million USD by aid to Pakistan by USA would not upset the Pakistan’s economy severely, since China and Saudi Arabia are now the bigger sources of funding and aid for Pakistan. But, the matter of worry for Pakistan is that it depends on USA on several counts and it can not afford a confrontation like what Iran and North Korea have now with USA.
One is not sure as to whether Trump has made his calculations properly and adequately, while making such sharp tweet critical of Pakistan. Driving Pakistan further under the control of China would not be in the interest of USA, in view of the geo political considerations.
However, Trump is known to make sharp, unguarded and extreme observations that some people even consider as unbecoming for a person holding the position of President of a mighty country like USA. In all probability, it is possible that he may make amends for his statement before long, so that the relations with Pakistan for USA do not strain beyond a level. Pakistan must be hoping that President Trump would make such amends by making conciliatory statement before long.
It is well known that China has huge territorial ambitions, particularly with regard to the neighbouring countries. It is also now increasingly becoming clear that China’s ambition is to become a dominating world power, not much different from the type of ambitious dream that Hitler had.
China’s aggressive occupation of Tibet and the world simply accepting it has clearly given more confidence to China and is working out it’s plans to combine it’s economic and military might to achieve it’s aim of achieving global dominance, for which dominating the neighbouring Asian countries is a necessary stepping stone.
Having gone so far in it’s unequal relations with China and having opened it’s territory to a disproportionate level to China for constructing it’s projects and allowing equity and management control by Chinese companies over number of them and now being pushed by President Trump, Pakistan has to think several times about it’s future relationship with China and sovereignty issues.
Possibly, such concern is there amongst the leadership of Pakistan too at the present time.
The type of base enjoyed by terrorists and religious extremists in Pakistan is another grave issue facing Pakistan , just like the increasing vice like grip of China. While Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism on it’s soil due to frequent attacks and killing of many innocent people, Pakistan is accused of encouraging the terrorists to create disturbance in Kashmir.
Pakistan should realize that it cannot have cake and eat it too. It has to necessarily defeat the terrorists and wipe them out. It cannot complain about terrorism on it’s soil and at the same time , allowing the terrorists to attack India using Pakistan soil as their base.
President Trump is demanding that Pakistan should destroy the terrorist base on it’s soil and he is right in asking for this. Pakistan has to necessarily act on Trump’s demand , as otherwise it cannot prevent a situation where Pakistan would be forced to move closer to China, however much it may not like to do so.
Asian locations dominate top spots on Unesco sites ranking


ASIA’S significant historical and cultural landmarks Angkor Wat, the Taj Mahal and the Great Wall of China dominate the list of the best Unesco world heritage sites among tourists.

They occupy the top three spots when it comes to the TripAdvisor’s list of Unesco cultural and natural heritage sites.

First overall was the Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia – one of the most important archaeological sites in Southeast Asia.


Angkor Wat’s immense intricate detail includes more than 300 individually carved Celestial nymphs, as well as carvings that depict stories and myths for by-gone times. “The best views are at dawn or dusk when the crowds have gone, and the lighting reveals its true majesty,” TripAdvisor said.

shutterstock_748656760
Source: Shutterstock
In second was the Taj Mahal in India. In 1632, the reigning Mughal Emperor of India, Shah Jahan, commissioned the majestic white marble mausoleum in Agra to commemorate his late wife after she died giving birth to their 14th child.

The Taj Mahal is the centrepiece of the 42-acre (17ha) complex, which includes a guest house and mosque. The recognized landmark is estimated to have cost approximately INR52.8 billion in today’s money, the equivalent of US$827 million.

“You can find hundreds of tours and experiences to visit this mesmerising site, from a private tour with a guide and visit at sunset or sunrise, to a visit including a home-cooked meal at a local home in Agra,” TripAdvisor said.

The Great Wall of China, constructed by Xu Da of Northern Qi Dynasty in 1368, also made it into the top three. The wall stretches for 21,196km and can be seen from space.

The wall was originally built to protect the silk road trade and ward off invasions; it is now one of the world’s leading tourist attractions with more than 80,000 visitors walking parts of the wall every day.

greatwall
Source: Yuri Yavnik / Shutterstock


Peru’s Machu Picchu was awarded the fourth spot on the list. The 15th–century Inca settlement stands 2,430m above sea level and travellers are recommended to book guided hike tours up to the summit to gain the fullest experience.

Here’s the full Top 10 list:

1. Angkor Wat, Cambodia
2. Taj Mahal, India
3. The Great Wall of China
4. Machu Picchu, Peru
5. Iguazu National Park, Brazil/Argentina
6. Sassi di Matera, Italy
7. Auschwitz Birkenau, Poland
8. Old City of Jerusalem, Israel
9. Historic areas of Istanbul, Turkey
10. Historic Krakow, Poland
This article originally appeared on our sister website Travel Wire Asia

Carbon Negative in Under a Decade or Bust: How & Why

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/16-10-31-SummaryRoadmaps.pdf
Carbon neutral targets are not enough. At the current rate, we have approximately 9 years to eliminate fossil fuels entirely and achieve carbon negative targets, or we will have the transition forced on us.

We face a crisis unlike anything in recorded history, a crisis that affects all of us, a crisis that could either unite us to the benefit of all, or could quite possibly, as recently arguedby David Wallace-Wells in New York Magazine, destroy human civilization as we know it. Does this sound like hyperbole to you? Well, read on, as it is, unfortunately, not. Thankfully there is a solution, but it requires all of us to work together.

In January, global mean atmospheric CO2 content breached 405 parts per million (“ppm”), up from 400 ppm 14 months earlier and closing even more rapidly toward the 450 ppm danger point than experts have predicted. 450 ppm is the point where scientists predict that catastrophic events due to climate change are not only highly likely, but are also likely to become irreversible. At this pace we will hit 450 ppm in ~9 years, far sooner than the initial predictions of 2100 or subsequent predictions of 2036 referenced earlier. But there is hope. Despite Donald Trump announcing he intends for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Accord, hundreds of leaders have committed to not only adhering to Paris Accord commitments, but many are also increasing their commitments, demonstrating the kind of leadership humanity needs.

Unfortunately, while carbon neutral targets and existing Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (“INDCs”) under the “Paris Accord” (aka “COP21”) are a good start and the people involved deserve praise for achieving a remarkable agreement, as correctly pointed out by Nicaragua, such commitments do not go far enough. Our best bet is to both eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix entirely and restore, or replace, carbon sinks as quickly as possible. Stated simply, the world needs to adopt carbon negative (“C-“) targets. The good news is, as demonstrated and defended by Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues, and others, going 100% renewable is not only entirely possible, but also makes sense. The transition to renewables creates potentially US$124.7trn in investment opportunities with returns typically in the range of 12-18%, creates jobs, and saves both lives and moneyRestoring or replacing carbon sinks is also possible, as is electrification and use of hydrogen for transportation.
This article will explain:
  1. the crisis humanity faces and how we got here,
  2. what will happen if we do not achieve carbon negative targets or achieve them too late,
  3. why “baseload” fossil fuel and nuclear plants are not needed and how 100% renewable energy is both technically and economically viable, and
  4. why carbon negative targets are in everyone’s best interests, and what we can each do to achieve them.
Make no mistake, the situation is indeed dire but we already have the technology we need to solve the problem. We can still change the course we’re on, and this transition must and will happen. The question is, how bad will we let things get before we take the steps necessary to make things better?

The crisis & how we got here

For the 650,000 years prior to industrialization, and for almost the entirety of the ~350,000 years marking the oldest known fossil records of humans, our habitat was in a state of equilibrium with CO2 levels fluctuating between 170ppm and 298ppm in cycles that took thousands of years. The most recent 67 years have been different. While carbon and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions naturally occur from volcanos, vegetation decay and other sources, natural carbon sinks such as forests, vegetation growth and ocean processes were sufficient to maintain a generally livable habitat for humanity. However, with industrialization and rapid population growth humanity has 1) eliminated approximately 46% of trees globally and 2) increased use of fossil fuels to supply energy for electricity, heat, industry, and transportation. Our habitat is, quite visibly, no longer in equilibrium.
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), Electricity and Heat cause approximately 25% of CO2 emissions, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (“AFOLU” AKA deforestation) accounts for approximately 24%, ahead of both Industry at 21%, and Transport at 14%. As a result of our ongoing activities global average atmospheric CO2 breached 400ppm in 2015. In January, just over a year later, CO2 rose to 405ppm with the measurements at Mauna Loa showing 410 ppm. These are CO2 levels not seen in approximately 3 million years, older than the oldest fossil records of our entire genus. Contrary to the unwillingness of former fossil-fuel industry executives, and those with ties to them, to acknowledge the facts, this 45.8% increase in CO2 (over 100ppm of which occurred since 1950) is clearly caused by human activity and endangers both our lives and our way of life.
If frequent photographs of people covered in masks, to avoid breathing smog, in places like Beijing and Delhi are insufficient to prove the point, the fact that we are destroying our habit to such an extent that many places are already unsuitable for human habitation on many days is clearly visible in the 5.5 to 7 million people that die every year due to air pollution, equivalent to having WWII every 8.5 to 15.5 years. Achieving C- targets will save millions of human lives every year and result in net gains to society. The IMF estimated global energy subsidies at $5.3 trillion in 2015, of which fossil fuels receive over 97%, and that society could have annual net gains of $1.8 trillion or more just through reform.

Read More

Woman receives bionic hand with sense of touch



Almerina Mascarello who lost her hand in an accident nearly 25 years ago said she now 'feels complete'
BBCScientists in Rome have unveiled the first bionic hand with a sense of touch that can be worn outside a laboratory.
The recipient, Almerina Mascarello, who lost her left hand in an accident nearly a quarter of a century ago, said "it's almost like it's back again".
In 2014 the same international team produced the world's first feeling bionic hand.
But the sensory and computer equipment it was linked to was too large to leave the laboratory.
Now the technology is small enough to fit in a rucksack, making it portable.
The development team included engineers, neuroscientists, surgeons, electronics and robotics specialists from Italy, Switzerland and Germany.

How it works

The prosthetic hand has sensors that detect information about whether an object is soft or hard.
These messages are linked to a computer in a rucksack that converts these signals into a language the brain will understand.
The information is relayed to Almerina's brain via tiny electrodes implanted in nerves in the upper arm.
In tests Almerina - who was blindfolded - was able to tell whether the object she was picking up was hard or soft.
She told me: "The feeling is spontaneous as if it were your real hand; you're finally able to do things that before were difficult, like getting dressed, putting on shoes - all mundane but important things - you feel complete."
This represents another advance in neuroprosthetics, the interface between machine and the human body.
Professor Silvestro Micera, a neuroengineer at EPFL in Lausanne and Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa told me: "We are going more and more in the direction of science fiction movies like Luke Skywalker's bionic hand in Star Wars - a fully controlled, fully natural, sensorised prosthesis, identical to the human hand."
A robotic prosthesis better than the human hand is still a long way off, but the team believe it might eventually be a reality.
Prof Paolo Rossini, a neurologist at University Hospital Agostino Gemelli, Rome said: "Once you can control a robotic prosthesis with your brain you can think about creating one that allows more complex movements than a hand with five fingers."
The researchers paid tribute to Almerina and the other amputees who joined the project.
Almerina was able to keep the bionic hand for six months, but it has now been removed, as it is still a prototype.
The scientific team say they hope to miniaturise the technology even further so that a sensory bionic hand can be commercialised.
Almerina told me that when the bionic hand is perfected, she would like it back for good.
Follow Fergus on Twitter.