What should the next Prime Minister do about Brexit?

Victoria Macdonald-2 Jun 2019Health and Social Care Correspondent

There are almost as many views on Brexit as there are candidates: Tory leadership hopeful Andrea Leadsom wants a ‘managed exit’. Home Secretary Sajid Javid has refused to rule out a delay – if Parliament forces his hand.

And the latest candidate to join the race – Sam Gyimah – has become the first openly to offer a further Brexit referendum – describing a no deal exit as an “abject failure”.

The Arab Alliance Is a Circular Firing Squad

Two years ago, the Trump administration started a new era in Middle Eastern cooperation. It's been a disaster ever since.

Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi inspect investment projects in Ismailia, Egypt on March 05, 2018. BANDAR ALGALOUD / SAUDI KINGDOM COUNCIL / HANDOUT/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES

BY HASSAN HASSAN

 | JUNE 3, 2019, 11:23 AM


In May 2017, Donald Trump picked Saudi Arabia as the destination for his first foreign visit as president of the United States. American allies in the Persian Gulf saw the trip as the opportunity of a lifetime to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East and North Africa after an era of popular uprisings in the region and tension with Trump’s predecessor over Iran. At the 2017 “Arab Islamic American Summit,” the attendees discussed an ambitious joint agenda for the years ahead under Saudi leadership, including a strategy to curb Iran’s overreach, roll back sectarian politics in countries like Iraq, combat extremism, revive the Arab-Israeli peace process, and contain raging conflicts.

Two years later, the cooperation of Washington’s regional allies has resulted in a shambles. Several of the region’s most pressing crises can be traced directly to the Trump summit, from the blockade of Qatar, which began two years ago this week, to the explosion of Libya’s “third civil war” in April. Far from collectively achieving its goals, the Saudi-led bloc forged two years ago has mostly just set itself back—and its members are increasingly turning against each other.

Most recently, Egypt withdrew from the proposed Middle East Strategic Alliance, widely dubbed the “Arab NATO,” after vehement disagreement with Saudi Arabia. According to an Arab diplomat familiar with high-level meetings that preceded the withdrawal, Cairo objected to Riyadh’s style of leadership: The Saudis would not define the role of each country and the specific purpose of the alliance, and “took for granted” the involvement of countries like Egypt. Saudi officials expected their Arab partners to sign off on a prepared document, without much discussion, before presenting it formally to Washington. More generally, Egyptian officials bristled at the way both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi treated Cairo as a junior partner, because of the financial aid they provided to Egypt after the coup that brought President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to power in 2013. But there are also substantive differences at issue: According to the Arab diplomat, the two sides disagree over how to deal with the wars in Yemen and Libya.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for their part, are not always on the same pagewith each other, notably over Yemen. Both Emirati and Saudi officials privately concede such differences: Abu Dhabi objected to Riyadh’s plan to work with militias affiliated with the Islamist-dominated Islah party, which has deep networks in Yemen, and instead formed a growing number of its own militias. Abu Dhabi also sought to push aside the president of the Saudi-backed government in Yemen, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who now resides in Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Saudi officials often object to the compromises they feel they are required to make to keep the Emiratis on board. According to a Saudi source with access to powerful circles in Riyadh, there was a serious debate in Saudi Arabia last year about whether the kingdom’s regional policy—including Riyadh’s backing of the coup in Egypt in 2013, the instigation of the Qatar dispute in 2017, and the continuing proxy war in Libya—was overly shaped and led by narrow Emirati interests. The current Saudi approach is the reverse of one that emerged briefly in early 2015, when Saudi Arabia sought to build a broad-based alliance that involved mending ties with Turkey, before the Yemen war pulled Riyadh closer to Abu Dhabi.

Disagreement has also been growing within the countries in the Saudi-led bloc. Dubai, for instance, believes its economy has been directly hurt by the aggressive regional approach pursued by fellow emirate Abu Dhabi. Historically, Dubai’s priority has been to encourage tourism, trade, and foreign investment, while steering clear of regional conflicts. The persistent war in Yemen, the blockade of Qatar, and the internal security restrictions imposed across the United Arab Emirates by the increasingly dominant Abu Dhabi were bad for Dubai’s business. Experts estimate that Dubai loses $5 billion a year in trade with and shipping to and from Qatar, before even accounting for tourism, other trade activities, and losses incurred by the airline Emirates as a result of having to avoid Qatari airspace. “The effects of the Gulf crisis have been felt most severely in Dubai,” said Andreas Krieg, assistant professor at King’s College London. “Dubai might be economically hurting the most from the crisis, far more than Qatar.”

Dubai never publicized its discontent about the country’s foreign policy, but such divergence between the two emirates over how to deal with conflicts is easily discernable inside the region. Take a series of tweets published this past August by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai, which were interpreted across Arabic-language media as subtweets about the country’s approach in the region. The remarks, written under the title “Life Taught Me,” laid out Dubai’s strategy as one focusing on domestic policies rather than regional conflicts. Even if they were not intended as a dig at Abu Dhabi, they clearly showed an alternative vision for the region. “The real role of a politician is to ease the life of the economist, the academic, the businessman, the journalist, and others,” one of the tweetsread. “The role of the politician is to ease the life of communities and to resolve crises, rather than start them, and build rather than dismantle achievements.”

Growing differences of this sort were evident last month in a phone call between the Bahraini prime minister and the emir of Qatar to mark the start of Ramadan. After news of the call spread, Bahrain’s state-run news agency confirmed the contact but quoted a cabinet affairs minister as saying—absurdly—that the prime minister’s call did not represent Bahrain’s official position toward Qatar and would not “affect [Bahrain’s] commitments with Saudi Arabia.”

In the case of Bahrain, many view its boycott of Qatar as mere subordination to Saudi will, rather than as reflecting grievances of its own. Bahrain is one of the countries most affected by the blockade, in terms of trade, tourism and investment, and some officials, such as the prime minister, were not on board with the move.

This dynamic speaks to a key flaw in the Arab alliance: the lack of belief in Saudi Arabia’s would-be leadership. As policy failures mount over time, the allies each increasingly want to assert their interests against the others. The only thing they tend to agree on is maintaining the nominal alliance itself, which has the perverse effect of allowing failed policies and stalemated conflicts to continue by inertia. The Arab diplomat described this dilemma as the “problem of multiple agitators,” where ending the conflict in Yemen must be agreed together between the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and the latter cannot unilaterally find a compromise with Qatar without accounting for what some view as the United Arab Emirates’s more dogmatic demands for a change inside Qatar and the wider region.

This is a recipe for the sort of spiraling disorder evident in the region today, where division and fear are triumphing over unity and stability. It is also the sad legacy of Trump’s first foreign visit two years ago.

Kushner: Palestinians not yet capable of governing themselves

Donald Trump's son-in-law also tells US television show that he's 'not here to be trusted' by the Palestinian leadership

Kushner again avoided saying explicitly whether the US plan would include a two-state solution (AFP)

By MEE and agencies-3 June 2019 

White House senior adviser Jared Kushner said in an interview broadcast in the US on Sunday that the Palestinians deserve "self-determination", but stopped short of backing Palestinian statehood and expressed uncertainty over their ability to govern themselves.

Kushner, US President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a chief architect of the administration's yet-to-be-released Middle East peace plan, told the "Axios on HBO" television programme it would be a "high bar" when asked if the Palestinians could expect freedom from Israeli military and government interference.

Asked whether he understood why the Palestinians might not trust him, Kushner said: "I'm not here to be trusted" and that he believed the Palestinian people would judge the plan based on whether "they think this will allow them to have a pathway to a better life or not".

Muslim countries back Palestinians ahead of 'deal of the century'

Read More »

The Palestinian leadership has already boycotted the diplomatic effort that Trump has touted as the "deal of the century". 

Speaking to the Reuters news agency on Friday, a senior Palestinian official said that "the plan doesn't give justice to the Palestinians".

"The Palestinian cause is being liquidated - no Jerusalem [as capital], no right of return for refugees, no sovereign state. That is why this American project is dangerous," the official said.

Kushner again avoided saying explicitly whether the plan would include a two-state solution, the bedrock of US policy for decades, which calls for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem.

But he said: "I do think they should have self-determination. I’m going to leave the details until we come out with the actual plan."

The Palestinian Authority has said it will not attend a US-sponsored investment conference in late June in Bahrain where the economic component is expected to be revealed.

'Investable'

US officials have been vague about the timing for releasing their proposals for resolving the thorny political issues at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

But experts are sceptical of the Trump administration's chances of success.

With Israel heading for new elections in September after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a government, the uncertainty is expected to further delay the plan's rollout.

The 'deal of the century': US blessing for Israel's land theft and ghettoisation of the Palestinians

Jonathan Cook

Read More »

Asked whether he believed the Palestinians were capable of governing themselves without Israeli interference, Kushner said: "That's a very good question. That's one that we’ll have to see. The hope is that they, over time, will become capable of governing."

The Palestinians, he said, "need to have a fair judicial system... freedom of press, freedom of expression, tolerance for all religions" before the Palestinian areas can become "investable".

The Palestinian leadership has refused to deal with the Trump administration since late 2017 when the president decided to move the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Pompeo doubts

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is worried the plan will be considered "unworkable," and might not gain traction, US media reported on Sunday.

Pompeo's remarks to a private meeting of Jewish leaders, first reported by the Washington Post, show that even the plan's own backers expect the latest US blueprint for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be met with deep skepticism.

The economic components of the proposal are to be unveiled at a conference in Bahrain on June 25-26.

Israeli newspaper reveals leaked document of Trump's ‘deal of the century’

Read More »

"It may be rejected. Could be in the end, folks will say, 'It's not particularly original, it doesn't particularly work for me,' that is, 'It's got two good things and nine bad things, I'm out,'" the Post reported, citing an audio recording of the meeting it had obtained.

When asked about the recording in an interview in Switzerland on Monday with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Pompeo did not deny its authenticity.

He acknowledged that, given the "important relationship" the US has with Israel, "I could see how someone might be concerned that a plan that this administration put forward might - without knowing the true facts of what is contained in the plan - they might perceive that it was going to be fundamentally one-sided."

But, he stressed, "it is just simply not true. I think there will be things in this plan that lots of people like".

UN staying away

Along with the Palestinians, another key broker in the peace process, the United Nations, says it will stay away from the Bahrain meeting.

The body has passed several resolutions affirming a two-state solution to the conflict.

In the remarks delivered on Tuesday to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations, Pompeo acknowledged the blueprint's perceived favouritism to Israel but hoped it would nonetheless be given a fair hearing.

"I get why people think this is going to be a deal that only the Israelis could love," he said, according to the Post.

"I understand the perception of that. I hope everyone will just give the space to listen and let it settle in a little bit."

“We're doing our best to help the Middle East to get a peace plan," Trump told reporters when asked about the Pompeo recording. 

"I understand why [Pompeo] said that. Most people would say it can't be done. I think it can be done."

EU rewards Israel for selling classrooms donated to Palestinians

Israeli occupation forces confiscate prefab classrooms in Ibziq, northern occupied West Bank, 23 October 2018.

 Aref DaraghmehB’Tselem

Ali Abunimah -3 June 2019

Last week, Israel announced that it would auction off two prefabricated buildings that had been donated to Palestinians by the European Union.

In October, Israeli occupation forces confiscated the structures that were part of a school for dozens of children in Ibziq, a community in the north of the occupied West Bank.

Israel’s brazenness generated consternation on social media. Even the EU’s foreign policy spokesperson Maja Kocijančič tweeted that the decision was “incredible.”

But when Kocijančič delivered the EU’s official response at a press briefing on Monday, she indicated that it would be business as usual: Israel can do as it likes and the EU will take it lying down.

“When the structures were seized last year – 23 October 2018 and 5 November 2018 – the EU missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah called on Israeli authorities ‘to return the confiscated items to their intended beneficiaries without pre-condition as soon as possible,’” Kocijančič said.

Otherwise, Israel was to “provide compensation without delay for the dismantled and confiscated assets.”

“The EU expects its investments in support of the Palestinian people to be protected from damage and destruction,” Kocijančič added.

But Israel hasn’t compensated the EU, rebuilt the schools, protected the EU’s “investments” – or the people of Ibziq who have been the targets of repeated Israeli attacks.

Israeli Civil Administration temporarily displaces 13 Palestinian families, a total of 70 people, incl. 38 children, in Khirbet Ibziq on 13 Dec. These orders require the families to vacate their homes from 12:00 noon until 6AM the next morning on 16 Dec, 23 Dec, 26 Dec, & 31 Dec. pic.twitter.com/EWWdhsoDB8

— B'Tselem בצלם بتسيلم (@btselem) 17 December 2018

View image on Twitter

B'Tselem בצלם بتسيلم

✔@btselem

Last Sunday, 2 Dec, at 10 AM, Israeli Civil Administration came to Khirbet Ibziq, NE of Tubas, & confiscated a tractor belonging to a Palestinian farmer from Bardalah, on the grounds that he/it was within a forbidden military zone. https://www.btselem.org/facing_expulsion_blog?nid=212231 …

8

12:20 PM - Dec 10, 2018

B'Tselem בצלם بتسيلم

✔@btselem

 · May 27, 2015

You are required to evacuate your homes tomorrow from 6AM to 12AM due to military training in your area of residence http://www.btselem.org/area_c/20150506_residents_from_ibziq_evacuated_again …

B'Tselem בצלם بتسيلم

✔@btselem

In 2 years, #Israeli authorities have forced residents of Ibziq #WestBank to evacuate their homes more than 20 times pic.twitter.com/L34qXYcCni

4

12:59 PM - May 27, 2015

Twitter Ads info and privacy

22 people are talking about this

Instead, Israel has continued its widespread assault on Palestinian schools across the occupied West Bank, particularly in Area C.

Area C is the approximately 60 percent of the occupied West Bank that is still fully controlled by Israel under the Oslo accords signed in the 1990s.

The EU still believes this land will make up the bulk of a future Palestinian state even as it becomes clear that Israeli leaders, backed by the Trump administration, are moving towards annexing it to Israel.

Kocijančič did reaffirm that the place where the confiscation took place is occupied territory and that under international law Israel has “the obligation to protect and facilitate development for the local population, and to grant unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance.”

But there was no inkling that the EU would do anything either to enforce international law or to make Israel pay for its theft.

So I sent a follow-up question to Kocijančič asking, “Can you confirm that the EU plans to take no action whatsoever to hold Israel accountable for what it has done?”

“I can’t confirm something that I didn’t say,” Kocijančič replied. “Our position is very clear from my answer.”

The only thing that is clear is that the European Union will continue allowing Israel to shoot children dead in cold blood, demolish schools and build even more colonies on stolen Palestinian land, and the only thing Israel need fear is a few mild words of rebuke.

In the meantime, the EU will continue to lavish money on Israel and its war industry, sending a message that is clearly understood by Israel’s government: crime pays.

Indeed, as Kocijančič was delivering her empty statement on Israel’s theft of the school buildings, EU officials were welcoming an Israeli delegation in Brussels to “learn from each other in addressing common domestic and regional threats and challenges.”

View image on Twitter

EU in Israel

✔@EUinIsrael

The 3rd EU-Israel Counter Terrorism Dialogue is taking place today in Brussels

Key to discuss and learn from each other in addressing common domestic and regional threats and challenges, in particular thru combatting terrorism financing#EU4Israel#counterterrorism

20

3:39 AM - Jun 3, 2019

• Ali Abunimah's blog

Judge rejects House suit to block transfer of billions of dollars for Trump border wall

Fact checking President Donald Trump on the border, immigration and drugs — The Associated Press

Spencer S. Hsu, The Washington Post June 3, 2019

WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Washington on Monday rejected a House lawsuit to block spending on President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall at the border with Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia denied a House request to temporarily stop spending on the wall saying the House lacked legal standing to sue the president for allegedly overstepping his power by diverting billions intended for other purposes to pay for it.

"While the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress's legislative authority," McFadden wrote in a 24-page decision, continuing, "The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House's claims and will deny its motion."

The decision is at odds with a May 24 ruling by a federal judge in California that temporarily blocked part of the plan because it was allegedly using money Congress never appropriated for that purpose.

A central issue for both courts is whether diverting the funds is an illegal act that violates the constitutional separation of powers between government branches. Both challenges were brought shortly after the president declared a national emergency along the southern border, but the plaintiffs in California included border communities and environmental groups.

The judge in Washington never reached the merits of the Democratic-led House's complaint, ruling instead that a single chamber of Congress had "several political arrows in its quiver" remaining to address disputes with a president, and could not show that it needed courts to intervene as "a last resort."

McFadden granted that the case "presents a close question," and he added that his ruling "does not imply that (the full) Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers." Still, he said the Constitution provides the House other levers to use against the executive, including specifically denying funds, passing other legislation, conducting hearings and investigations, or overriding a president's veto.

McFadden's order effectively kills the House suit, which sought to block the administration from tapping not only $1 billion already transferred from military pay and pensions accounts but also money from an emergency military construction fund that the administration said it intends to transfer but has not yet moved.

McFadden's decision ran counter to a 2015 ruling that found the then GOP-led House could sue the Obama administration for allegedly spending on an Affordable Care Act program that Congress never approved, a ruling that would have marked the first time the House was able to challenge an administration in court. The case was settled before it withstood appeal.

McFadden wrote that "Applying Burwell (the 2015 decision) to the facts here would clash with binding precedent holding that Congress may not invoke the courts' jurisdiction to attack the execution of federal laws."

He added: "The Executive and Legislative Branches have resolved their spending disputes without enlisting courts' aid," he said, finding Congress had many other levers to deploy in its conflict with a president. "The House thus 'lack(s) support from precedent,' and 'historical practice appears to cut against (it) as well," he wrote.

In a hearing last month, McFadden had said it was "problematic" whether the House had legal standing to sue as a single chamber of Congress and said that is a "significant issue in this case."

On May 24, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, of the Northern District of California, said that the parties challenging Trump's actions in that case had a good chance of prevailing on their claims that the administration is acting illegally in shifting money from other programs to pay for the wall.

Gilliam is a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama. He ruled in response to lawsuits brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.

The court in California ruled against using the already transferred funds and blocks projects slated for immediate construction. The court said it would come back with a ruling on the emergency military construction funds once the administration actually shifts them. The decision applies to wall segments around Yuma, Arizona, and El Paso, Texas.

With some contracts already awarded for construction, Gilliam said that allowing work to go forward before the legal issues have been fully resolved could cause irreparable harm. He also said plaintiffs can come back to seek injunctions if the Trump administration announces additional projects at the border.

Militancy Outfit JMB Establishes A Footprint In India

                      

By Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury –MAY 31, 2019

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

India’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) has banned militancy outfit Jamaatul Mujahedin Bangladesh (JMB) and Hizbul Mujahedin for committing acts of terrorism and for being engaged into radicalization and recruitment of youths for terrorist activities.

It may mention here that, although JMB was first established in Bangladesh jointly by notorious jihadists Shaikh Abdur Rahman and Siddiqul Islam alias Bangla Bhai, for last 10-12 years, it already has spread network inside India’s northeastern state and West Bengal with the help of Hizbul Mujahedin, United Liberation Front of Assam and several separatist groups in the northeastern states with financial and ‘logistic’ support from Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) and Jamaat-e-Islami.

In India, JMB’s franchises are Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen India or Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Hindustan.

Indian Home Affairs ministry said Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen India or Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Hindustan was also found involved in recruitment and raising funds for terrorist activities, procurement of explosives, chemicals, and assembling of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED).

It may be mentioned here that India and Bangladesh share 4,156-km-long border, that passes through five states — West Bengal (2,217 km), Tripura (856 km), Meghalaya (443 km), Assam (262 km) and Mizoram (180 km).

In January 2019, the MOHA added Al-Qaida in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP), ISIS Wilayat Khorasan, Islamic State of Iraq, Sham- Khorasan (ISIS-K) and the Khalistan Liberation Force among the list of terrorist organizations banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The action is pretty late

Although the ban was imposed just days back, the jihadist outfit has been silently expanding the network and establishing its strong foothold in India cheating the eyes of the Indian security agencies.

A vital point that misses the attention

The vital point that both Bangladeshi and Indian intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism experts are missing is, JMB does not have a leader or ‘emir’ at least for the last 12 years. Although it is wrongly perceived that JMB is operated under the command of someone from Bangladesh, the fact is totally different.

Counterterrorism experts or organizations in Bangladesh or India may find amusement in branding JMB as ‘Neo JMB’ but in reality, there is no JMB anymore, as there is no Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT), another jihadist entity. Ansarullah Bangladesh Team already had been renamed as Ansar Al Islam (AAI), being affiliated with Al Qaeda, while JMB already has been merged with Islamic State. While AAI’s command still is in Bangladesh, JMB or the merged entity with ISIS is currently operated from Pakistan.

A new jihadist nexus

Following atrocities on the Rohingyas in Myanmar and subsequent influx of over one million Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh, most of the jihadist groups in Asia are paying huge attention to this community. Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), which was considered as a ‘tiny’ entity by the counterterrorism experts even five years back is now gradually becoming one of the strongest jihadist forces. Members of ARSA is getting training in Pakistan-occupies Kashmir as well as by the Palestinian Hamas. There also are reports about ARSA men getting training in Indonesia as well as in some of the African nations.

The most alarming fact is, ARSA is the only jihadist monster-in-growing, which will have thousands of (I repeat, thousands) female members in its suicide squad. These females are being specially trained by Pakistani ISI and once they are ‘deployed’ into jihadist ‘battlefields’ – most definitely India, Myanmar and Bangladesh, South Asia will turn into the worst-ever jihadist battleground in the world. According to credible sources, some of these female suicide squad members are being given full commando training by the skilled trainers from Pakistan.

Since 2017, JMB and already formed a nexus with ARSA, ULFA and other separatist groups inside India. Some of the ex-ULFA terrorists are now working directly under JMB’s command. They also are helping in the purchase and stockpiling of explosives for jihadist actions of JMB … or let’s say ISIS.

Millions of dollars of jihadist cash-flow

For the past few years, the control of the manufacture and trafficking of Yaba (Yaba is a combination of methamphetamine (a powerful and addictive stimulant) and caffeine. Yaba, which means crazy medicine in Thai, is produced in Southeast and East Asia. The drug is popular in Asian communities in the United States and increasingly is available at raves and techno parties) have gone under to grips of the jihadist syndicate.

Yaba is being trafficked into most of the Asian nations including Bangladesh and India as well as Europe and America by the jihadist conglomerate. Demand for this disastrous drugs in on rising. To understand the alarming level of its use, let’s have a glimpse on the growing use of Yaba only in Bangladesh. According to data from the Department of Narcotics Control Bangladesh (DNC), total seizures of Yaba pills went from being 36,543 in 2008 to 812,716 in 2010, 1,951,392 in 2012, and 6,512,869 in 2014 to 29,450,178 in 2016! This “striking surge since 2009 and the distance from Bangladesh border from production centers in Shan State (NE Burma),” according to Jane’s Intelligence Review (a monthly journal on global security and stability issues), “appear to reflect a well-organized export drive rather than a gradual increase”.

For the sake of making the trafficking of Yaba ‘smoother’ Pakistani ISI has tagged Dawood Ibrahim’s D-Company into the trade, which is actively helping the jihadist outfits in making quick bucks. And of course, jihadists aren’t buying luxury with the money. They are buying weapons and explosives or spending on jihadist activities.

Read More