By Sourabh Gupta

Four years after they last met in-person in Brasilia due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa convened in Johannesburg from August 22nd to 24th for a fifteenth and landmark BRICS Leaders Summit. The summit will long be remembered as the ‘expansion summit’, joining the 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2017 summits as the notable ones in the BRICS pantheon.

In 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries met in Yekaterinburg, Russia, for their first-ever standalone summit meeting, elevating the BRIC grouping which had formally been established in September 2006 by their foreign ministers. Two years later in Sanya, China, the BRIC became the BRICS with the induction of South Africa. In Fortaleza, Brazil, three years later, the five countries established the New Development Bank (BRICS Bank) and their Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). The Brazilian president at the time, Dilma Rousseff, is today the president of the BRICS Bank. And in Xiamen, Fujian province, China – the province that had once launched a hundred ships along the ancient Maritime Silk Road to the Middle East from its great ancient port city of Quanzhou, the Chinese chair introduced the BRICS-plus format in 2017 as a first step towards expanding the BRICS membership.

Fittingly, in Johannesburg at the fifteenth summit, the Middle East countries stand at the head of the inductees into the expanded BRICS grouping. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Egypt along with Ethiopia and Argentina are to become full members of BRICS starting January 1st, 2024. The current expansion, furthermore, is not the end of the story. The five BRICS leaders have tasked their foreign ministers to develop a BRICS country partner model and report back at their summit in Kazan, Russia, next year with a list of prospective partner countries.     

The induction of important Middle East and North African countries, many of which have internecine quarrels with one another, should not be seen as a liability to the grouping’s larger coherence and operation. Much like China and India could set aside their bilateral differences, even on the topic of BRICS expansion, the induction of conflicted neighboring countries should be seen as a strength – that is, as a commitment on their part to rise above narrower differences and champion an equal partnership of countries that share a common vision of a fairer world where the right to development and modernization is jointly defended. Like-minded, small cliques of countries that package their own rules as international norms is not the only or the preferred way to proceed in this age of global multipolarity. 

Besides, many of the new BRICS entrants are not just fossil fuel-rich countries but may also be critical minerals-rich exporters that could be key to setting up end-to-end supply chains in a number of clean energy technologies. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Egypt’s inclusion will also institutionally improve the relative underrepresentation of Muslim-majority states within the hallways of multilateral governance at a time when Muslims continue to encounter prejudice and intolerance in some parts of the world.

Looking ahead, the principles, purposes and ambitions that animated the four and thereafter five original members should serve as the principal doctrine for the expanded 11-member BRICS grouping.

First, the BRICS must retain its character – and core strength – as an association without compulsory elements and where every cooperative action flows from a common and conscious interest. There must be no recourse to litmus tests on intra-group cooperation. Bilateral frictions should be kept out of larger group dynamics. Geographic or functional issues where interests do not overlap should also be set aside, with the hope that they can be addressed positively another day.

Second, the original BRICS countries individually share the rare attribute of being among a select list of non-Western states which, with variances, can more-or-less afford the luxury of a certain independent-mindedness within the international system. This basic attribute should inform the criteria at the time of drawing up a list of prospective partner countries being considered for admission. Candidate countries must not be constituents of closed-ended alliance systems or have their security formally guaranteed by an external power. Indonesia, an internationalist and secular-minded Muslim-majority state with a defined doctrinal tradition of pluralism and independent mindedness, should be an obvious front-runner. As Nigeria gets its house in order, its induction too should be fast-tracked.

Third, the expanded BRICS must remain the premier developing country platform to pilot South-South cooperation. The New Development Bank should expand its unique imprint in the global development space by implementing faster loan approvals, operate with a lean organizational structure that results in lower loan cost, broaden the range of financing instruments at its disposal, and adopt country systems whenever possible to respond to local needs. The bank should also expand its membership and capital subscription base beyond the expanded BRICS countries. A ‘Friend of BRICS’ forum that invites members of the Global North to attend BRICS summits as a dialogue partner or a special invitee of the chair should also be mooted.

Fourth, the BRICS grouping must become the most important emerging market economy and developing country forum to discuss the overhaul of the international monetary and financing system. The New Development Bank should accelerate its work on trade invoicing and settlement in local currencies, diminishing the need to use established ‘vehicle currencies’ like the dollar and the euro. To this end, the bank should also increase its local currency financing as a share of its overall portfolio. Modernizing the IMF’s concessional financing facilities to adapt to today’s capital flow realities should be an important priority too. Concurrently, the BRICS should enlarge and convert their Contingent Reserve Arrangement into an Emerging Market Crisis Prevention Fund that is large enough to lean against sharp swings and self-fulfilling market panics. Over the medium-term, the BRICS should lead the effort to broaden the existing Special Drawing Rights (SDR) arrangements within the international monetary system, making its issuance automatic and regular.

Peering beyond the mere international monetary and financing system, the BRICS must also aspire to equip itself with the collective capability, down-the-line, to deter an external power or powers the means to weaponize the chokepoints of the global economy’s infrastructural plumbing to the grouping’s disadvantage. This could concern a transaction denominated in a ‘vehicle currency’, a product commingled with U.S. or Western-origin technology that is export controlled or, for the matter, a data packet that travels through a server or digital infrastructure located in and falling under the jurisdiction of that external country.

Finally, the BRICS should ramp up their political cooperation and speak in one voice on the important global challenges of the day. The purpose should neither be to splinter the international high table into rival political blocs nor soften the ground for the ‘Rest’ to wrest global leadership from the West. Rather, it should be to return the international system to the United Nations-centered moorings envisioned by its founders. As the Johannesburg Declaration notes, the BRICS seek to overcome polarity and division – not entrench it – and play its role in creating a world without barriers between North, South, East and West. For this to be the case, the expanded BRICS countries must also constrain their actions within the ambit of international law.

The BRICS stand at the cusp of a new and complex era in global politics. They must rise to the challenge with fairness and grace and restore a sense of community and equilibrium to the United Nations-centered international economic and political order. 

About the author: Sourabh Gupta is a senior Asia-Pacific international relations policy specialist with two decades of Washington, D.C.-based experience in a think tank and political risk research and advisory capacity.

Source: This article was published by ICAS and was originally released on China-US Focus on September 18, 2023

Moscow has long declared that China’s role in the development of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is a central part of their strategic cooperation (see EDM, July 23, 2020; March 28). Despite this, the Kremlin cannot be entirely comfortable with the recent extent of Beijing’s expanding activities in the Arctic Sea. Nor can Moscow be at ease with the Chinese government’s increasing ties with Russian regional governments in the Far North and along the coast of the Arctic Sea.

If any country other than China did the same, Moscow almost certainly would denounce such actions as neo-colonialism. If any country other than Russia did so anywhere else in the world, the Russian government would make the same pronouncement. Given the international sanctions regime, Russia has little choice but to allow China to take these steps. Such actions carry the risk that the Russian-Chinese alliance may begin to collapse, with ever-more Russians concerned that Moscow is losing out to Beijing.

Russian commentators and officials have expressed concerns on this point with growing frequency over the past several years (see EDM, September 3, 2019, May 6, 2021, February 1, 2022, March 28, April 4). Since Chinese President Xi Jinping’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023, however, Russian analysts have published fewer articles on China’s actions in the Arctic. This reflects the difficult position the Russian leadership finds itself in with international sanctions and the Putin government increasingly cracking down on narratives that challenge its basic foreign and domestic policy lines. It would be a mistake to assume that the concerns Russians have expressed in the past have disappeared. Increased Chinese activities in the Arctic have likely had the opposite effect, even if there is less public evidence of that.

Beijing’s moves in the Arctic since the spring of 2022 have taken on two basic forms: increasing scientific research in the Arctic Sea itself (Ru.arctic.ru, September 21) and expanding contacts with the heads of the littoral Russian regions (The Barents Observer, September 22). The former is less immediately politically sensitive than the latter. It is possible that China’s scientific research may matter more in the long term, as it will offer Beijing the chance to chart its own course in the Arctic. This may even be the case with the possibility that China might establish an entirely different Arctic sea route to the north of the NSR. As such, China would be able function as an east-west carrier in the Arctic independent of Russia (see EDM, October 3, 2017).

China has focused on expanding its research efforts in Arctic waters. During this summer’s navigation period, Beijing sent its most advanced icebreaker, the Snow Dragon 2, to establish a temporary research base at the 84^th parallel north, far beyond where the NSR passes. The ship and station conducted research that will allow for improved weather forecasting and mapping of the region, two capacities essential to opening the Far North to shipping (Ru.arctic.ru, September 21). These developments will allow ships to pass beyond areas strongly controlled by Russia and may offer the basis for challenging Moscow’s expansive territorial claims in the Arctic before the United Nations. These claims have exacerbated relations between Russia and the other Arctic powers (Window on Eurasia, December 24, 2022, February 23).

Conversely, it is Beijing’s efforts in hosting and then visiting leaders of the Russian regions on the Arctic Sea littoral that has the potential to unsettle relations China and Russia. Since last spring, Beijing has either hosted or sent its diplomatic and commercial representatives to visit the leaders of Murmansk Oblast (T.me/andrey_chibis, September 16), Arkhangelsk Oblast (Vk.com/a.tsybulskiy, May 16), the Komi Republic (Vk.com/vladimiruiba, May 23) and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (Vk.com/juri_bezdudnyi, May 21). The governors were predictably upbeat about growing Chinese involvement, as Moscow has cut subsidies to the regions due to the costs of the war in Ukraine. Beijing is more than ready to provide additional infusions of cash.

Moscow’s reaction to this Chinese diplomatic offensive has been muted. The state-owned Russian media largely ignored these contacts between the Chinese officials and Russian regional leaders. A meeting in Moscow on September 7 between senior officials from both countries included the obligatory optimistic comments but failed to reach an agreement on any of the issues discussed. This included the future of international organizations such as the Arctic Council. The only accomplishment of note was the announcement that the two states would hold another bilateral meeting in 2024, this time in China (Mid.ru, August 9).

Moscow has a compelling reason for such caution: the influx of Chinese money into these regions is likely to be followed by an influx of Chinese workers. This is all the more significant as the Russian populations in these area are small and declining. This growing Chinese presence runs the risk of affecting the political stances of the various regional elites.

Chinese migrants are close to, or soon will be, the largest ethnic group in some regions of the Russian Far East (Kasparov.ru, September 7; Window on Eurasia, September 17), a development that will give Beijing the kind of leverage that Russians have long expressed concerns about (Reforum.io, June 28; Arctida.io, accessed September 28). Beyond these regions’ populations being quite small, Russians are leaving in massive numbers, allowing what might appear to be smaller groups of Chinese immigrants to have an outsized impact (RBC, September 13).

Such fears are undoubtedly on the minds of many in Moscow. Yet, the Kremlin might have a more immediate worry: As China has become involved in Russian regions elsewhere, it has given the leaders of these regions the political capital to parry Moscow’s demands (see EDM, March 9, September 21). If that pattern holds in the Arctic, Moscow will become increasingly wary and more fault lines will likely begin to appear in the Russian-Chinese alliance.

This article was published at The Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 20 Issue: 150

A peaceful march in support of philanthropist and former Nagorno-Karabakh State Minister Ruben Vardanyan, who was arrested and charged by Azerbaijan, was held in Yerevan.

Vardanyan was arrested when leaving Karabakh with tens of thousands of Armenians, who were forced to flee when Azerbaijan launched a fresh offensive, killing and injuring hundreds of people.

On September 19, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh, which left hundreds of Armenians killed and thousands of others displaced. On September 20, the authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh agreed to a ceasefire on Azerbaijan’s terms, including the dissolution of the Defense Army.

On September 18, President of the Republic of Artsakh Samvel Shahramanyan signed a decree, according to which the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) will cease to exist by January 1, 2024.

Be warned: If you are a human rights activist or an individual cooperating with the UN in revealing abuses, you may be under surveillance or in danger of facing physical threats.

A new report from Secretary-General António Guterres says that from 1 May last year to 30 April this year, more than 220 individuals and 25 organizations in 40 countries* across the world faced threats and retaliation from State and non-State actors for cooperating with the UN on human rights issues

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on 28 September the number is likely to be much higher, since it is increasingly difficult to document such cases.

Under surveillance

The report, he said, also shows that human rights defenders and other civil society actors were increasingly under surveillance and continued to face legal proceedings, travel bans and threats, and given prison sentences for cooperating with the UN and UN’s human rights mechanisms.

Under these circumstances, “many are choosing not to cooperate with the United Nations due to concerns for their safety or only doing so if kept anonymous,” he said.

“A global context of shrinking civic space is making it increasingly difficult to properly document, report and respond to cases of reprisals, which means that the number is likely much higher,” said Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ilze Brands Kehris in her presentation to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 28 September.

Among the growing trends is the increase in people either choosing not to cooperate with the UN due to concerns for their safety, or only doing so if kept anonymous.

Victims and witnesses in two-thirds of the States listed in the report requested anonymous reporting of reprisals, compared with one-third in last year’s report.

“And most people who reported facing reprisals for their cooperation with the Security Council and its peace operations, as well as with the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues did so on the condition of anonymity,” according to the report.

A second trend was the increasing surveillance of those who cooperate or attempt to cooperate with the UN, being reported in half of the countries named in the report. 

An increase in physical surveillance by State actors was also noted, likely linked to the return to in-person forms of engagement with the UN.

And, almost forty-five per cent singled out in the report continued to apply or enact new laws and regulations concerning civil society, counter-terrorism and national security, which punish, deter or hinder cooperation with the UN and its human rights mechanisms.

“These legislative frameworks represent severe obstacles to long-standing human rights partners of the UN worldwide, and were used to outlaw some of them, raid their offices, and question, threaten or try their staff”.

Finally, the specificity and severity of acts of reprisals against women and girls, which constitute half of the victims in this year’s report, was once again identified with concern.

“Most of them are human rights defenders and civil society representatives targeted for their cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms and peace operations, but there is also a significant number of judicial officers and lawyers subjected to reprisals for their cooperation with the UN in search of accountability and remedy”, according to the report.

UN is determined to live up to its responsibility

“We have a duty to those who put their trust in us,” said Brands Kehris. “That is why at the UN, we are determined to live up to our collective responsibility to prevent and address intimidation and reprisals against those who cooperate with the organization and its human rights mechanisms.”

* The 40 States referred to in the report are: Algeria, Afghanistan, Andorra, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, the Russian Federation, South Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, and the State of Palestine.

**The full report, entitled ‘Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights’ (A/HRC/54/61), including extensive annexes detailing cases country by country, can be accessed online.

By Luke Coffey

This has been a historic week in the South Caucasus. For Azerbaijan and Armenia, one chapter in a long and often deadly story has ended. Now both sides must look toward the future.

After intense fighting in the region in the early 1990s, Armenia ended up occupying a sizable area of Azerbaijan, including the Karabakh region, for almost three decades. During this period, Yerevan propped up a separatist government, the so-called “Republic of Artsakh,” led by ethnic Armenians and not recognized by any other country in the world.

During the 2020 Karabakh War, Azerbaijan regained control of most of its territory. The resulting ceasefire agreement left a small section of Karabakh out of the hands of Baku and under the supervision of a Russian peacekeeping force.

On Sept. 19 this year, Azerbaijan launched a military operation to retake the remaining parts of Karabakh. The Russian peacekeepers on the ground sat idly by and did nothing. In less than 24 hours, a ceasefire was agreed and the Armenian forces, and Armenian-backed separatists, laid down their weapons.

For international observers of the South Caucasus, what has happened in the past few weeks in Karabakh should not have come as a surprise. There are a few factors that led to the recent events. Firstly, there is a perception that Russia is weak in the region right now as a result of its quagmire in Ukraine. Azerbaijan was never happy with the presence of Russian troops on its territory in the aftermath of the 2020 Karabakh War, and Baku has been looking for the right time to make a move that might lead to their departure from the region.

Secondly, “presidential elections” for the so-called “Republic of Artsakh” were held by the Armenian separatists in Karabakh this month. Unsurprisingly, Azerbaijan considered these elections to be illegal and needlessly provocative. They were not alone in this. There were also strong statements of condemnation from the Council of Europe, the EU, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Organization of Turkic States.

Thirdly, there was the issue of transit links. For countries such as Azerbaijan located in the heart of Eurasia, transport connections to the outside world are key. As part of the agreement that ended the 2020 war, Azerbaijan committed itself to building a new road connecting Armenia with the section of Karabakh under the control of the Russian peacekeepers.

This was accomplished in 2022, a year earlier than was required by the 2020 ceasefire agreement. In return, Armenia pledged to “guarantee the security of transport connections” between Azerbaijan proper and its autonomous Nakhchivan exclave, through Armenia’s Syunik province. This has yet to happen. Understandably, the lack of progress on this promise has frustrated Baku.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what the world saw play out in Karabakh over the past couple of weeks was the culmination of more than three decades of diplomatic failures. Since the early 1990s, four UN Security Council resolutions were passed calling for the “cessation of all hostilities and the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces” from Azerbaijan. None were ever enforced.

The war in 2020 should have served as a wake-up call for the international community to redouble its efforts to find a long-lasting and durable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but all efforts failed.

Now that Azerbaijan has restored control over its territory, the hard part begins. Hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis who were forced out of their homes in the 1990s will want to return. Tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians, most of whom will distrust the government in Baku, will need to be integrated into Azerbaijani society.

While there have been many cavalier claims, mainly by commentators in the West, thousands of kilometers away, of genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place in Karabakh, there is so far no evidence that this is taking place. There has been a mass exodus of ethnic Armenians leaving for Armenia but the government of Azerbaijan has made it clear that they can remain if they wish.

Azerbaijan must now ensure that ethnic Armenians who do decide to stay receive all the usual protections afforded to minority groups in dozens of countries around the world, including freedom of religion and the ability to preserve their Armenian language and culture. Considering the diversity that already exists in modern-day Azerbaijan, there is no reason to assume that this would be a problem. But it will take years for trust to be restored.

As with any conflict, there are winners and losers. Azerbaijan is obviously a clear winner. Turkiye, as Azerbaijan’s top ally, is also a winner. Russia and Iran are the losers in the aftermath of the recent fighting.

For Moscow, its influence in the South Caucasus is waning as its problems in Ukraine continue to mount. Tehran, meanwhile, has maintained a cozy relationship with Armenia for years in an attempt to undermine Azerbaijan’s influence in the South Caucasus. This will now be more difficult.

The outcome of the conflict for Armenia is complicated, especially when we consider the long term. On one hand, its armed forces have been devastated and there is a feeling of betrayal by Moscow, its top military and economic ally.

However, it is quite possible that the normalization process and peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan (and someday between Armenia and Turkiye) could create new economic opportunities in the region. Now that the conflict is over, international investors might be willing to channel billions of dollars in direct investment to the region. As residents of the poorest country in the region, the Armenian people need this.

As the Armenians find peace with their neighbors, their reliance on Russia might diminish. This could create an opportunity for Yerevan to move closer to the Euro-Atlantic community. However, this will not happen quickly and will likely require a generational change in Armenian society.

On Oct. 5, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will meet in the Spanish city of Granada during a summit of the European Political Community. It is too early to speculate what the outcome of this meeting might be. However, let us hope it is the beginning of what will be a process that brings peace, stability and economic prosperity to the South Caucasus.

For too long this region has suffered. The international community should redouble its efforts to get all sides around a table and find a lasting peace.

• Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey

By Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar (Retd.) 

Armed interventions often demand the deployment of light forces over a short duration. Mercenaries have been used in such circumstances. If the state-employed mercenaries fail to achieve the desired end, the event is denied. 

The Russian Wagner Group is of interest in this context. It must be seen as a new phenomenon, primarily because their control, or lack of it, defies any formal structure. Their mass is that of a regular army (reportedly 50,000 strong) and their allegiance is questionable. It has, however, re-initiated conversation on the use of mercenaries in contemporary warfare, particularly its interplay with a state’s political and military leadership.

Background

The Wagner Group, a private Russian military company, was led byYevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, an oligarch, reportedly with connections and ambitions. Till recently tasked with fighting Kremlin’s land-war in eastern Ukraine, Wagner had indefinite access to Russian military infrastructure. Conceptually enigmatic and cloaked in a purpose that remains nebulous; Wagner’s command and control structure is unclear. What is clear is that relations between the Russian military and Wagner is a tenuous one, with the highest political circle in the Kremlin exercising exclusive control. Despite its ambiguous existence, Wagner has operated around the globe in furtherance of Russia’s foreign policy objectives. Its commission includes clandestine or overt, armed missions and security to private business interests. As for its legal status, it was obviously created with the intention of operating on the fringes of  international law of war.

Wagner’s mutinous failure in Ukraine ought to remind the Kremlin of the words of Machiavelli: “…Italy’s present ruin has been caused precisely by a prolonged dependence on mercenaries.”  Media caricatures of Mr. Prigozhin—outfitted in an undersized combat helmet, bulging out of his bullet proof jacket, fulminating over the lack of equipment and logistics, and threatening revolt—was telling. It spoke volumes of the mercenary’s regimen and ability to fight. Two months after a failed mutiny attempt against the Kremlin, Prigozhin’s death in a plane crash, along with top Wagner leadership, has enabled the state to project itself as the paramount power. For instance, after their leader’s death, Wagner fighters were ordered to sign an oath of allegiance to the Russian state.

Military Judgement and Leadership

In democracies, constitutional authority over the military will always be vested in civilian hands. What unsettles matters is when authority is made too pervasive and usurped by agents lower in the political hierarchy. The duties of a political office in charge of the military must not enter the domain of ‘military judgement’, where knowledge, motivations, and experience are at play.

Political savvy must essentially discern the line between strategic direction and the extent to which military means can aid in achieving purpose. The military decision loop first studies the nature of the threatening conflict and then seeks to rationalise an operational strategy that optimises means with effectiveness. In the Ukraine conflict, in addition to the divide between the military and the Wagner Group being evident, the latter’s mutiny against the Kremlin surfaced several anomalies and lacunae in the political-military-mercenary triad.

Grand Theory and the Operational Art­­

War, as Clausewitz postulated, is “a continuation of political activity by other means.” Waging war requires institutions that address problems along the politico-military interface. Modern militaries, while developing military plans, are loathe to taking risks that don’t hold a high probability of success. This in turn leads to a skewed situation, with unachievable policy aims set out. Moreover, both political and military leadership being resident in one authority, with neither check nor balance, is a recipe for disaster.

There are several instances in history when a politician-steered approach led to strategic blunders. Hitler’s role in World War II; America in Vietnam; and the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan are examples of wars in which the politico-military balance had gone awry. The Sino-Indian War of 1962 is of also particular significance: political decisions with external-security ramifications were made without military involvement and leadership surrounded itself with incompetent defence advisors. So much so that come crunch time, the army was routed; the navy remained in its havens; and the air force contemplated torching its forward-deployed fighter aircraft.

In the run-up to war, civilian leadership must not only have superior authority but also the sagacity to entertain alternative options that provide decision-avenues short of armed conflagration. And if recourse to arms is advanced then it must never be terminal.

Chilling Trends

Modern strategic thought has no logic that gives description to private wars. The mercenary fights for any state or nation without regard to political interests, cause, or even outcome, as long as wages are good. The return of the mercenary and their access to the highest bidder—be that a politician, oligarch, or a multinational corporation—is one of the most dangerous and unpredictable trends of our times.

Today, the mantri is engulfed by arm-chair strategists and think-tanks preaching the need for interventions that invite low intensity, ‘less-than-military’ operations. This has perilous implications for the marketplace of armed forces. In an unregulated situation, if the means of waging war are extended to entities such as the Wagner Group, who won’t flinch in marching against the state that deploys it, it only spells anarchy for global order. 

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar (Retd.) is Distinguished Fellow, IPCS, and former Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Forces Command of India.

But India can draw comfort from the fact that Muizzu has promised an independent and non-partisan foreign policy   

India has suffered a geopolitical setback in the Maldives. In the final phase of the Maldivian Presidential election held on Saturday, the pro-Indian incumbent Ibrahim Solih was defeated by his pro-China challenger Dr. Mohamed Muizzu.

But there is a silver lining: In his election speeches, Muizzu   repeatedly promised to follow an independent and non-partisan foreign policy. 

Be that as it may, the bottom line is that India will not have a monopoly of influence over the Maldives under Muizzu that it had during the Solih regime from 2018 onwards.    

In the second and final round of polling, called the “runoff” Dr.Muizzu got 53.9% of the valid votes and Solih 46.2%. Having got more than 50% of the valid votes, Muizzu won. 

Muizzu got a majority in 131 islands, 17 atolls & 4 cities and Solih won 64 Islands and one atoll, but did not win any city. 

With Muizzu grabbing the Presidency, the question in many minds is whether India’s geopolitical rival, China, will benefit from his victory. Muizzu is seen as being friendly to China and Solih to India. 

However, Muizzu has not explicitly said that his government will tilt away from India and towards China. His statements indicate that he will not tilt towards any power but follow an independent line seeking the cooperation of all. 

He has promised to protect the sovereignty of the Maldives against intrusions by outside powers. And he has categorically stated that he will not allow the stationing of any foreign military in the Maldives. 

This affects India adversely because India has deployed military helicopters in the Maldives, ostensibly to protect the widespread islands from smugglers and pirates. 

But a section of Maldivians, including some with a pro-India past, are opposed to the Indian military presence, or any foreign military presence, no matter what the reason. 

“When the helicopters were allowed by the previous Yameen government , the understanding was that Maldivians would be trained to pilot the choppers and the Indians would leave. But no Maldivians have been trained. It looks as if the Indians want to stay on,” said a political activist close to former President Mohamed Nasheed. 

Nasheed, who was vocally pro-India and anti-China, is currently neutral. 

The “India Out” movement initiated by Muizzu’s party, the Progressive  Party of the Maldives (PPM), is built around the presence of the Indian helicopters and their Indian crew. The Solih government was totally against the “”India Out” movement, condemning it as being antithetical to Maldivian interests. 

India had backed Solih to the hilt from the time of his candidature in the 2018 elections.  New Delhi had given his government generous development aid and even budgetary support.

While the Abdula Yameen government (of which Muizzu was part) took huge loans from China to carry out large projects such as the Sinamale Bridge connecting Male, Hulhule and Hulhumale, the Solih regime took most of its loans from India. 

Indian funds are being used to build the Thilamale bridge project, which will connect the city with Villimale, Gulhi and Thilafushi. Indian aid was taken for spots facilities also.

However, according to Muizzu’s supporters, the Solih government squandered Indian funds. It failed to deliver on promises. In other words, India’s help had gone in vain.

Solih spoilt his chances further in the run-up to the elections by making, at the eleventh hour, a plethora of promises about welfare projects including grants of land. This these were of no avail.   

Muizzu, on the other hand, appeared to be more credible. He had a good track record as a development administrator. A Ph.D in Civil Engineering from the University of Leeds, he had distinguished himself as the Housing Minister in the Abdulla Yameen government and subsequently as Mayor of the country’s capital, Male.

Muizzu gained prominence for his pivotal involvement in overseeing several significant infrastructure projects, most notably the iconic Sinamalé Bridge. This remarkable bridge served as a vital connection linking the capital city, Male, to the Velana International Airport on Hulhule and extending further to the planned new city of Hulhumale.

Throughout the period spanning 2013 to 2018, a multitude of infrastructure initiatives were successfully completed under his leadership, including the construction of numerous harbours, jetties, parks, mosques, public buildings, sporting facilities, and roads.

Muizzu on Foreign Policy

Here are some of Muizzu’s pronouncements on foreign policy made during the election campaign. These indicate the direction his government will take.              

In August, he told a public meeting that he intends to “counteract threats to the Maldives’ independence from the policies of the Solih government.” 

Speaking at a campaign event at Raa Ungoofaaru, Muizzu said that President Solih’s foreign policy had “compromised the Maldives’ national interest and its sovereignty.”

He further said that the protection of the country’s independence should get priority over development projects. 

Muizzu assured that foreign troops would not be allowed to remain in the Maldives under his Presidency.  

At another meeting, Muizzu said his foreign policy strategy would centre around “fostering strong and balanced relationships with friendly nations while preserving the Maldives’ interests.”

He charged that President Solih’s government was being influenced to the point that Maldives’ affairs were dictated by another country.

“The affairs of our country, have been arranged in such a way by the government of today, that it is impossible to do a single thing unless it is endorsed by a neighbouring country,” Muizzu charged. 

However, Muizzu always took care not to name India or China or any other country for that matter in his speeches.  

He expressed his commitment to avoiding discrimination against any nation. There would be “clear boundaries for diplomatic ties”, he stated. “We will not praise one country too much nor distance ourselves excessively from it,” Muizzu said.

His statements indicated that he would be even-handed vis-à-vis India and China and not pronouncedly pro-China. 

Stating his fundamental principle, Muizzu said: “While the Maldives is a UN-recognised nation, the people of Maldives should have the full right to maintain their sovereignty and independence.”

“Whether the country is small, big, close or distant, if we don’t go beyond the limits set in our foreign policy, all countries will be equal for us.”

“We will not be leaning towards a particular country or leaning away from it.”

Things did not go so well this time around.  When the worn Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy turned up banging on the doors of Washington’s powerful on September 21, he found fewer open hearts and an increasingly large number of closed wallets.  The old ogre of national self-interest seemed to be presiding and was in no mood to look upon the desperate leader with sweet acceptance.  

Last December, Zelensky and Ukrainian officials did not have to go far in hearing endorsements and encouragement in their efforts battling Moscow’s armies.  The visit of the Ukrainian president, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated at the time, “will underscore the United States’ steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through provision of economic, humanitarian and military assistance.”

Republican Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, was bubbly with enthusiasm for the Ukrainian leader.  “He’s a national and global hero – I’m delighted to be able to hear from him.”  Media pack members such as the Associated Press scrambled for stretched parallels in history’s record, noting another mendicant who had previously appeared in Washington to seek backing.  “The moment was Dec. 22, 1941, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill landed near Washington to meet President Franklin D. Rosevelt just weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor.”

Then House Speaker, the California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, also drew on the Churchillian theme with a fetishist’s relish.  “Eighty-one years later this week, it is particularly poignant for me to be present when another heroic leader addresses the Congress in time of war – and with Democracy itself on the line,” she wrote colleagues in a letter.

Zelenskyy, not wishing to state the obvious, suggested a different approach to the question of aiding Ukraine.  While not necessarily an attentive student of US history, any briefings given to him should have been mindful of a strand in US politics sympathetic to isolationism and suspicious of foreign leaders demanding largesse and aid in fighting wars.  

How, then, to get around this problem?  Focus on clumsy, if clear metaphors of free enterprise.  “Your money is not charity,” he stated at the time, cleverly using the sort of corporate language that would find an audience among military-minded shareholders.  “It’s an investment in global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.”  Certainly, Ukrainian aid has been a mighty boon for the US military-industrial complex, whose puppeteering strings continue to work their black magic on the Hill.

Despite such a show, the number of those believing in the wisdom of such an investment is shrinking.  “In a US capital that has undergone an ideological shift since he was last here just before Christmas 2022,” remarked Stephen Collinson of CNN, “it now takes more than quoting President Franklin Roosevelt and drawing allusions to 9/11, to woo lawmakers.”  

Among the investors, Republicans are shrinking more rapidly than the Democrats.  An August CNN poll found a majority in the country – 55% – firmly against further funding for Ukraine.  Along party lines, 71% of Republicans are steadfastly opposed, while 62% of Democrats would be satisfied with additional funding.

Kentucky Republican and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell continues to claim that funding Ukraine is a sensibly bloody strategy that preserves American lives while harming Russian interests.  “Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening – weakening – one of America’s biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot.”

The same cannot be said about the likes of Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul.  While Zelenskyy was trying to make a good impression on the Hill, the senator was having none of it.  “I will oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding. I will not consent to expedited passage of any spending measure that provides any more US aid to Ukraine.”  

In The American Conservative, Paul warned that, “With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer.”  President Joe Biden’s administration had “failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east.”  

Such a quagmire was also proving jittering in its dangers.  There was the prospect of miscalculation and bungling that could pit US forces directly against the Russian army.  There were also no “effective oversight mechanisms” regarding the funding that has found its way into Kyiv’s pockets.  “Unfortunately, corruption runs deep in Ukraine, and there’s plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since Russia’s invasion.”  The Zelenskyy government, he also noted in a separate post, had “banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests, so no, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a corrupt regime.”

Republicans such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley are of the view that the US should be slaying different monsters of a more threatening variety.  (Every imperium needs its formidable adversaries.)  The administration, he argued, should “take the lead on China” and reassure its “European allies” that Washington would be providing “the nuclear umbrella in Europe”.

On September 30, with yet another government shutdown looming in Washington, the US House approved a bill for funding till mid-November by a 335-91 vote.  But the measure did not include additional military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine.  In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion.  Of that amount $1.5 billion is earmarked for the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.

The limited funding measure proved a source of extreme agitation to the clarion callers who have linked battering the Russian bear, if only through a flawed surrogate, with the cause of US freedom.  “I am deeply disappointed that this continuing resolution did not include further aid for our ally, Ukraine,” huffed Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer.  “In September, the House held seven votes to approve that vital funding to Ukraine.  Each time, more than 300 House Members voted in favor.  This ought to be a nonpartisan issue and ought to have been addressed in the continuing resolution today.”

As Hoyer and those on his pro-war wing of politics are starting to realise, Ukraine, as an issue, is becoming problematically partisan and ripe.  The filling in Zelenskyy’s cap is inexorably thinning and lightening.

Today in my series on the common good, I’m proposing that our schools reinstate what used to be called “civic education.”

When, in 1961, I heard John F. Kennedy’s admonition that we ask what we can do for our nation, I was attending a small public high school in upstate New York. Part of the required curriculum was citizenship education. It involved a series of courses on history and government. As in most schools, some were well taught; others were taught abysmally. 

One teacher, named Ruth Lee, often pointed to a world map showing the Soviet Union, China, and most of Eastern Europe in bright red, with surrounding nations (Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and North Korea) in pink. Her ongoing civics lesson was that communism was spreading like an infectious disease. If we weren’t careful, what remained of the free world would catch it. 

Civic education in the 1950s and 1960s reflected many of the prejudices of that time. 

Yet it at least engaged us, day after day, in the practice of thinking about the well-being of our society and the world. The ongoing examination of history and our system of government had a cumulative effect: Regardless of our politics, we began to see ourselves as the inheritors of an important legacy. That legacy was far from perfect, but it was profoundly important. 

Above all, we had an obligation to become responsible citizens.

CIVIC EDUCATION WAS LONG AGO ELIMINATED from the standard high school curriculum. 

Now, education is viewed mainly as a private investment rather than a public good. What you learn is what you’ll earn, as the popular saying goes. 

With inequalities of income and wealth wider than they have been in over a century, parents and their children face the daunting possibility of unprecedented riches for those with the “right” education, or the risk of squalor for those on the losing track. 

These days, the typical college graduate earns twice as much as someone with only a high school degree. And a high school dropout earns half the earnings of a high school graduate. 

Yet if education is simply a private investment yielding private returns, there is no reason why anyone other than the “investor” should pay for it. No wonder increasing numbers of parents resist paying for the education of children who are poorer or require extra teacher time and resources. 

The same attitude extends to legislatures that have been cutting funding for public universities. If a university degree is a private investment offering a good return to the individual, they argue, why should taxpayers bear the cost? Why shouldn’t students and their parents take out loans to cover it, just as people borrow for all sorts of other worthwhile investments, such as a new home or business?

But education is not just a private investment. It is also a public good.America’s founders knew that the survival of the new republic necessitated a public wise enough to keep power within bounds. It required citizens capable of resolving the tension between private interests and the common good — people imbued with civic virtue.

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, someone was said to have asked Benjamin Franklin what sort of government the delegates had created for the people. He replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” 

What did “keeping it” require? More than anything else, education. 

“Ignorance and despotism seem made for each other,” Jefferson warned. But if the new nation could “enlighten the people generally . . . tyranny and the oppressions of mind and body will vanish, like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” 

During the colonial era, a few towns ran public grammar schools — but only for a few weeks in the winter when family farms didn’t require their children’s labor. Other towns relied on private tuition. 

After the Revolution, reformers pushed for free public education. Jedediah Peck of upstate New York typified the reform movement. “In all countries where education is confined to a few people,” he warned, “we always find arbitrary governments and abject slavery.” Peck convinced the New York legislature to create a comprehensive system of public education.

The person most credited with founding American public schooling, Massachusetts educator Horace Mann, also linked public education to democracy. “A republican form of government, without intelligence in the people,” he wrote, “must be, on a vast scale, what a mad-house, without superintendent or keepers, would be on a small one.” 

Mann believed it important that public schools educate all children together, “in common.” The mix of ethnicities, races, and social classes in the same schools would help children learn the habits and attitudes of citizenship. (His project was not without fault: It emphasized Protestantism over Catholicism, for example, which was one reason Catholics created their own private schools.) 

If the common good is to be restored, education must be reconnected to these public moral roots. We must stop thinking about it solely as a private investment that may lead to a good-paying job, and revive the founders’ understanding of it as a public good that helps train young people in responsible citizenship. 

This requires that schools focus not just on building skills but also on teaching civic obligations. 

What does this entail?

For starters, every child should gain an understanding of our political system, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. They must understand the meaning and importance of the rule of law, and why no one should be above it, and they need to know where these legacies came from, and why they continue to be important. 

This is what we demand of people who want to become naturalized citizens. Immigrants have to pass a civics test covering the organization of the U.S. government and American history. (When I served as secretary of labor, I had the privilege of administering the Pledge of Allegiance to some of those who had passed that test and witnessing their pride and gratitude in being welcomed into citizenship.)

Every child must also grasp the meaning and importance of justice — of equal political rights and equal economic opportunity, and how these two goals are related. They need to see how the economy is organized, how its rules are made, and what groups and interests have the most influence in making those rules. 

They must learn about our history of racism and of genocide — not, as Republican governors and legislatures across America have charged, in order to be ashamed of America — but to be aware of the moral challenges America has faced. This is a means of helping our children practice tolerance toward different beliefs, ethnicities, races, and religions. They need to learn about basic human rights and America’s responsibilities in the world. 

Such an education must encourage civic virtue. It should explain and illustrate the profound difference between doing whatever it takes to win, and acting for the common good. The difference between getting as much as one can get for oneself, and giving back to society. Between assuming everyone is in it for themselves, and understanding that we’re all in it together. Between seeking personal celebrity, wealth, or power, and helping build a better society for all. 

A CIVIC EDUCATION must also urge and equip young people to communicate with others who do not share their views. It should teach them how to listen, to open their minds to the possibility their own views and preconceptions may be wrong, and to discover why people with opposing views believe what they do. 

It should enable them to work with others to separate facts and logic from values and beliefs, and help them find facts and apply logic together even if their values and beliefs differ.

These lessons cannot be learned only in the classroom. A true civic education also requires learning by doing. 

Young people should develop what Tocqueville called the “habits of the heart” by taking on responsibilities in their communities — working in homeless shelters and soup kitchens, tutoring, mentoring, coaching kids’ sports teams, helping the elderly and infirm. 

Young people need to move out of their bubbles of class, race, religion, and ideology, and go to places and engage in activities where people look different from themselves and have different beliefs and outlooks from their own. They must learn to listen to them and communicate with them. 

TWO YEARS OF REQUIRED PUBLIC SERVICE would give young people an opportunity to learn civic responsibility by serving the common good directly. It should be a duty of citizenship. 

This is how we once regarded military service. From World War II until the final days of the Vietnam War, in January 1973, nearly every young man in America faced the prospect of being drafted into the army. Sure, many children of the rich found means to stay out of harm’s way, but the draft at least spread responsibility and heightened the public’s sensitivity to the human costs of war. 

Richard Nixon officially ended the draft and created a paid military mainly to take the wind out of the sails of the antiwar movement, and he succeeded.

Since then, the United States has had what’s called an “all-volunteer” army — “volunteer” only in the sense that young people have taken these jobs because they were among the best they could get. 

Today’s military is composed of fewer young people from rich families than the population as a whole. When compared with other groups of the same age, the military also has more Southerners and a higher percentage of Black Americans. Most come from the same kind of blue-collar households whose incomes have gone nowhere for four decades. 

It’s easy to support a war that you don’t have to fight in. A 2004 survey showed that the majority of young people supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but only a small minority were themselves willing to fight in that war.

Two years in the armed services or in some other service to the nation would help instill in all young people a sense of their obligations to society, regardless of their family’s wealth or status. It would allow young Americans to connect with other Americans who differed from them by race, social class, and politics. (Not incidentally, it might also remind many upper-income Americans of the personal costs and risks of American foreign policy.)

Public service could take many forms in addition to military service. The Peace Corps could be revived and expanded. Projects like “Teach for America” could be enlarged and extended to other service professions, like “Social Work for America.” Nonprofits could offer a range of public service work. 

All such recruits would be paid a modest stipend, at least living expenses plus interest payments on any student loans. That would be less than the current pay of “all-volunteer” army recruits.

WHENEVER THE IDEA OF NATIONAL SERVICE COMES UP, some object that no one should be forced to serve their country. In 2003, when George W. Bush proposed expanding AmeriCorps, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal grumbled “the entire concept of paid volunteerism is an oxymoron.” Dick Armey, then House majority leader, opined, “We give least well when we give at the direction and supervision of the government. The idea that government can teach charity to America rings very hollow with me.”

Rubbish. Young people were forced to serve their country when we had a draft. We require children to attend school for 16 years in order to learn the basics. Why shouldn’t they be required to put in two years of public service, to help learn the basics of citizenship? 

Besides, national service has nothing whatever to do with government teaching “charity.” It is about teaching civic virtue.

Once learned, civic virtue must be practiced. As I hope I’ve made clear, our obligations as citizens go beyond voting, paying taxes, obeying the law, and serving on juries. We owe to one another our time and energies to improve our communities and to protect and strengthen our democracy. 

This should not be thought of as “charity,” either. It is a commitment to pass on to future generations a society that comes closer to its ideals than it was when it was passed on to us.x

Next week, in the last of this series of essays, I will talk about truth as a common good. Thank you again for joining me on this journey. 

These weekly essays are based on chapters from my book THE COMMON GOOD, in which I apply the framework of the book to recent events and to the upcoming election. (Should you wish to read the book, here’s a link.) This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack

In no way is the Qur’an anti-Christianity, or anti-Judaism. However, there are people now, and there were people in the past; who have willfully misused verses in the Qur’an for the purpose of vilifying and attacking Christians, Jews and other people of the book.

Just as some Muslims have misused verses in the Qur’an to attack and vilify Suni, Shi’a or Sufi Muslims; some Muslims, as well as some Christians and some Jews, have misused some verses from their own Sacred Scriptures for unholy purposes of disrespect, disparagement and even destruction. 

One has only to read about the Inquisition, and the expulsion of Jews, and then Muslims from Spain, to realize how easily the teaching of religious contempt can lead people to violence and persecution. The thirty year war between Catholics and Protestants in Germany killed one third of the German population. 

And we can still see examples of the religious misuse of verses of Sacred Scripture to promote hatred and violence in many places in the world today: all done with the excuse of speaking the truth in the name of God.

With the Muslim expansion into Syria and Egypt, Muslims encountered large numbers of Eastern Orthodox priests, many of whom, as they learned about Islam, began to attack it. Most of these attacks were verbal but some were in writings that have survived to the present.

For example, Saint John of Damascus (c. 676–749 C.E.), who was familiar with Islam and Arabic wrote in the second chapter of his book, The Fount of Wisdom, titled ‘Concerning Heresies’, that “Muslims accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Hagar upon it, and others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. 

Then we say: ‘Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it, or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite (idol) whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.”

Saint John continues later: “In the chapter The Table, Muhammad says that Jesus asked God for a table and that it was given to Him. For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to you and yours an incorruptible table.’ And, while he ordered them to eat some things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from others. And he absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.

And in the chapter The Heifer,  he (Muhammad) says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised, the women too, and ordered them not to keep the Sabbath, and not to be baptized.”

These Christian anti-Islam polemics grew stronger and stronger over the next three and a half centuries until Crusaders in Spain and the Middle East turned them into violence and war. It is not surprising that Muslims answered the polemics with increasingly harsh words; and began to interpret the Qur’an message of religious toleration in a narrow minded, exclusionist manner. 

Thus, some people who prefer to hate and vilify their rivals rather than love and respect them,  misunderstood verses in their own Sacred Scriptures in order to justify their own hateful feelings and negative thoughts. An excellent example of misguidance by Satan is the frequent misuse of verses from the Qur’an that apply to some Christians and Jews, as if they applied to all Christians and Jews. 

For example, defining Christians and Jews in general as “the descendants of apes and pigs” is widespread today in religious, educational and public discourse in the Arab world. In a weekly sermon (April 2002) the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Al-Tantawi, a senior authority in the Sunni Muslim world, described Jews as “the enemies of Allah, sons of pigs and apes.”

In truth, the Qur’an never states all Jews were turned into apes or pigs; but clearly states that only some Jews were: “…They are those whom Allah has cast aside and on whom His wrath has fallen and of whom He has made some as apes and swine…” (5:60); “…You have surely known the end of those from amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, in consequence of which We condemned them: Be like apes, despised” (2:65). 

That in every generation there were some Jews who failed to live according to the covenant that God had made with B’nai Israel- the Jewish People is correct; just as in every generation some Muslims within the Muslim Umma have failed to live according to Islamic teachings. In every religious community of human beings there are many individuals who act like apes and pigs, and then fail to repent and amend their behavior. To them the Qur’an states: “When, instead of amending, they became more persistent in the pursuit of that which they were forbidden, We condemned them: Be ye as apes, despised” (7:166).

The Qur’an states specifically:  “They are not all alike. Some of the People of the Book are firmly committed to the truth. They recite the Verses of Allah during the hours of night, and remain in the state of [prayer] prostration before their Lord.” (3:113 – Qadri) Again we see the explicit declaration that the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not all alike. Some “…are firmly committed to the truth. They recite the Verses of Allah during the hours of night, and remain in the state of [prayer] prostration before their Lord.” and some do not; just as some Muslims pray everyday and are committed to the truth, and some Muslims do not. 

This misuse of Sacred Scripture was used against both internal sectarians and external rival religions; and was always done with the excuse of speaking the truth in the name of God. Indeed, there is a Hadith that Prophet Muhammad himself predicted Muslims themselves who sin will be turned into pigs, apes and monkeys.  

Narrated Abu ‘Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash’ari: that he heard the Prophet say: “From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something (in Payment), but they will say to him, ‘Return to us tomorrow.’ Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection.”  (Sahih Al-Bukhari Book #69, Hadith #494)

The Qur’an wisely warns us that every messenger’s recitations are subject to Satan’s tampering in order to test those whose hearts are diseased and hardened: “We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [recited], Satan threw in it [errors]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise so He may make what Satan throws in, a trial for those within whose hearts is disease and those hard of heart. Indeed, wrongdoers are in extreme dissension.” (Qur’an 22:52-3)

Allah does not prevent Satan from throwing in hateful, narrow minded, sectarian understandings of Qur’anic verses as “a trial for those within whose hearts is disease and those hard of heart”. It is up to those who pursue virtue to oppose and defeat extreme wrongdoers whose hearts are hard and diseased. 

Anyone who uses the words of Torah, Gospel or Qur’an to vilify and hurt others is causing extreme dissension; and thus his or her words are Satan’s misunderstanding. Anyone who uses the words of Torah, Gospel or Qur’an to advocate or defend terrorism and oppression is an agent of Satan’s misunderstanding.

The Qur’an refers to Prophet Abraham as a community or a nation: “Abraham was a nation-community [Ummah]; dutiful to God, a monotheist [hanif], not one of the polytheists.” (16:120) If Prophet Abraham is an Ummah then fighting between the descendants of Prophets Ishmael and Isaac is a civil war and should always be avoided.

If all Arabs and Jews can live up to the ideal that ‘the descendants of Abraham’s sons should never make war against each other’ is the will of God; we will help fulfill the 2700 year old vision of Prophet Isaiah: “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day Israel  will join a three-party alliance with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing upon the heart. The LORD of Hosts will bless them saying, “Blessed be Egypt My people, Assyria My handiwork, and Israel My inheritance.”…(Isaiah 19:23-5)

Russia has intensified serious efforts in strengthening relations in various directions including parliaments primarily due to the rapidly changing global political situation. While post-Soviet focus was initially on Europe and the United States, now that has shifted to Latin America, Asia and Africa. But Russia itself largely as Eurasian country still slow in opening up for frequent interactions with foreigners from the Global South.

During the past few years, interactions have been limited to conferences and summits. In March 2023 for instance, Russia held the second inter-parliamentary conference ‘Russia-Africa’ and that was followed by a summit late July. Now late September was the turn of Latin America.

On September 29 – October 2, the first international Parliamentary Conference ‘Russia – Latin America’ was held in Moscow at the initiative of the State Duma. More than 200 participants, including parliamentarians from different countries of Latin America and the Caribbean attended. Russian and her colleagues from Latin America and the Caribbean discussed several topics of common interest relating the changing geopolitics, inter-parliamentary diplomacy, economic architecture, and social and culture aspects of life.

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke at the opening session on September 29, emphasized the fact that the presence of high-ranking legislators from Latin America and the Caribbean re-affirmed the desire and willingness to develop a comprehensive beneficial partnership with Russia. “We are convinced that promoting direct dialogue between parliaments will open up opportunities for deepening our cooperation and expanding it through new areas of joint activity,” he told the gathering of parliamentarians.

Today with the changes taking place around the world, Latin American countries are showing a pattern in the political approach to may significant issues in the process of support to the formation of a multipolar system. In order to achieve this and their individual national goals, parliaments are expected to play its part. Apparently, the role of parliamentary diplomacy in strengthening cooperation between Russia and Latin American countries, and there is really nothing new, as it known to cut most notably across the board: in politics and security, as well as socioeconomic and humanitarian spheres.

In Latin American region, Russia has a few economic footprints, and there are possibilities to expand new business, engage in scientific and cultural exchanges and increase tourism in both directions. It currently has a nuclear research and technology centre is being built in Bolivia, that joint biopharmaceutical enterprises are expanding their activities in Nicaragua and Venezuela, and that a metallurgical plant is being upgraded in Cuba. 

In his speech, Putin also pointed to Russian-Latin American projects in medicine and public health, and biological and epidemiological security are being implemented with good results. During the coronavirus pandemic, Russia was among the first to supply Latin America with large shipments of vaccines, test systems, sanitary and hygiene products, and other medical and humanitarian goods.

Statistics show that  nearly half a million Russian have fully integrated into the society in Latin American region, compared Latinos in the Russian Federation. It explicitly points to the extent how closed has become Russian society, especially being vocal on multipolarism. Simply, both inbound and outbound tourism are down, despite Russia claims to have established visa-free travel system which currently includes 27 Latin American countries.

Chairman of the State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, noted the contribution to the development of relations between Russia and Venezuela made by the Presidents Vladimir Putin and Nicolás Maduro. The task of the parliaments is to reach an absolutely new level of dialogue, to provide legislative support for the implementation of the agreements reached by the heads of states, according to Vyacheslav Volodin.

“We have great opportunities to make our own contribution to the development of relations between our states, our nations. Venezuela and Russia are connected not only by ties of friendship and long-standing relations. We are counterparts and like-minded people, we stand for a multipolar world, building a just world order,” emphasized the Chairman of the State Duma.

“The world is not unipolar anymore. There is no more global policeman who told us what we should do and with whom we should cooperate. Just like you, we stand for a multipolar world – a world based on the principles of cooperation, respect, respect for the right to independence and sovereignty,” said Jorge Rodríguez Gómez.

“We are supporters of building a multipolar world, we stand for a just world order and believe that every country should have the opportunity to develop and plan its future,” emphasized Vyacheslav Volodin at the meeting with the President of the National Congress of the Republic of Honduras Luis Redondo Guifarro. And also with Brazilian Veneziano Vital do Rêgo Segundo Neto. 

Vyacheslav Volodin held special bilateral meeting the President of the National Assembly of People’s Power and the Council of State of Cuba Juan Esteban Lazo Hernández. Volodin recalled the first meeting of the Commission on Cooperation between the State Duma and the National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba was held in Havana in April. Among the priority areas of joint projects between Russia and Cuba, included the extraction and processing of mineral resources, the production of cane sugar, tourism, and solar energy, humanitarian and education cooperation.

The development of parliamentarism has become one of the platforms to further in-depth discussions on a number of issues facing Russia in the changing world. Latin American parliamentarians gathered here for a four-day international forum (September 29 to October 2) at the initiative of the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russian Federation.

The Horn of Africa States is known for its continuing conflicts. Whenever a fire is extinguished somewhere in the region, another one flares up somewhere else. It is the story of the region over the past four decades and even earlier when the two largest countries of Somalia and Ethiopia were at each other’s throats over territories, despite both having been in the socialist camp of the time. Whether the conflicts were internal or external to the member states of the region, it is not clear if they were entirely of the making of the region or if these conflicts were driven by others from beyond the region. Conflicts became the norm of the region and both external and internal influences have played a part in their making and continue to do so.

While the Horn of Africa States is commonly known as a conflict-ridden region, nowadays, conflicts are spreading across the globe. There are the troubles of West Asia, the troubles and wars of Europe as manifested in the NATO-Russian conflict and war in Ukraine, and the other African conflicts such as those of Sudan, Niger, Mali, and others.  These all seem to be conflicts and chaos mischievously created to achieve some hegemonic power over others and people, innocent people, suffer, die, and/or are maimed in the process.

What should the leaders of the region thus be doing in this respect? Should they continue to be willing or unwilling participants? Should they not be, at least discussing these matters together? Are they still stuck with that single-state format, where each of them thinks that it can solve its internal problems and even external problems alone? In the context of the now widening and constantly spreading conflicts across the globe, and the tough and cutthroat competition among the great powers of the world, the region needs to review its situation carefully. The region would, no doubt, face security, hard and soft persuasion from bigger powers, continuing humanitarian and increased refugees fleeing the region, all because of its geostrategic location.

It is our belief that the region cannot be acting on an “as usual” basis and that just watching things as they happen, and complacency would not be a good option. Wouldn’t it be better for the region to collectively sit down together to prepare for eventualities? The single-state approach is no longer a viable option. It is where the leadership of the region should now demonstrate their capacity as true leaders of the region and take the necessary steps to prepare the region for all eventualities.

This is not to frighten the region and its populace but forewarned is forearmed. The region was not already in a safe situation, but the growing turmoil, across the globe, necessitates going beyond the single-state approach and moving on to a collective regional approach, not only to face conflicts but to build together common internal and external policies, an integrated economic infrastructure, and help each other manage the internal problems without abusing the population of the region. God helps those who help themselves, and therefore, the countries of the region should depend on themselves and their region instead of the brewing new global blocks and/or the oncoming multi-polar world.

Perhaps, the region should start working on setting up a crisis unit to monitor developments, and hence plan the survival of the region, despite its internal problems. Food security would be paramount among the issues such a crisis unit should be working on. Already the war in Ukraine has irked many countries with respect to food. The region owns a large youthful population, which it should perhaps put to work in food production, providing incentives, skills, and even financial help. Food availability would be at risk in a world at war.

The stability of the region would also be of paramount importance and hence the region should be working hard at extinguishing all the current fires and conflicts. This may not be of interest to some of the leaders of the region, but sometimes, great men and women take steps that do not necessarily address their personal goals/agendas but the larger public interest. 

Over the years, I have been writing about the greater good of the region and many citizens of the region now know the importance of working together and foregoing the past, which was not pleasant. It is clear to me that the region needs to work together in the face of the growing calamities around it. I say to them that it is time for the leaders to address the region’s conflicts and avoid all actions and policies that may be harmful to the region.

The plight of Afghan girls seeking education has captured the world’s attention, compelling global powers to respond to this urgent humanitarian crisis. In the wake of the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, Afghan girls face severe obstacles to accessing education, jeopardizing their futures and the prospects of their nation. This essay explores the role of global powers in addressing the education crisis faced by Afghan girls, emphasizing the moral obligation and diplomatic responsibilities that the international community bears.

To comprehend the gravity of the issue, it is crucial to recognize the dire circumstances confronting Afghan girls. According to UNESCO, Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of out-of-school children globally, with over 60% of girls not attending school. The situation has only worsened since the Taliban regained control of the country in August 2021. The denial of education to Afghan girls not only hinders their personal development but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality, posing significant long-term risks to Afghan society.

Education is a fundamental right and a key driver of social progress. It empowers individuals, promotes gender equality, and fosters economic growth. For Afghan girls, education is a pathway to independence and the ability to contribute positively to their communities. Denying them this opportunity is a grave injustice.

Global Powers and Their Responsibilities

Global powers, including international organizations and influential nations, have a crucial role to play in addressing the education crisis in Afghanistan. The following sections delve into their responsibilities and the actions required to make a difference.

International organizations, particularly the United Nations (UN), play a pivotal role in advocating for the rights of Afghan girls. The UN has a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that all children, regardless of their nationality, have access to quality education. Its agencies, such as UNICEF and UNESCO, have a mandate to support educational programs and advocate for the protection of children’s rights. Their efforts should focus on ensuring that Afghan girls can attend school safely and without fear of discrimination or violence.

Certain influential countries possess diplomatic leverage and economic resources that can be instrumental in addressing the education crisis. The United States, for example, has historical ties to Afghanistan and played a significant role in the country’s recent history. As a global superpower, the U.S. can exert diplomatic pressure on the Taliban to respect the rights of Afghan girls and facilitate humanitarian aid to support education initiatives.

Similarly, regional powers like Pakistan and Iran, which have historically hosted Afghan refugees, can use their influence to encourage the Taliban to allow girls to attend school. These countries have a vested interest in regional stability, and an educated Afghan population can contribute positively to that goal.

The Moral Obligation of the International Community

Beyond diplomatic and strategic considerations, there exists a moral obligation for the international community to act. All nations, regardless of their political interests, should stand together to protect the rights of Afghan girls. Education is a universal human right, and its denial constitutes a violation of the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Global powers must prioritize this issue, viewing it not as a matter of politics but as a humanitarian imperative.

First, the Taliban’s policies and restrictions have severely curtailed girls’ rights to education. Since their return to power, the Taliban have implemented policies that ban girls from attending secondary schools and universities. These restrictions are based on their interpretation of Sharia law and have had devastating consequences for the education of Afghan girls.

Second, security concerns and threats further deter girls from attending school. The Taliban’s control over large parts of the country has created a hostile environment where girls face harassment and violence when trying to access education. Without adequate protection, parents are reluctant to send their daughters to school, fearing for their safety.

Lastly, Afghanistan’s education system lacks the necessary resources and infrastructure to accommodate all children. Decades of conflict have left schools in disrepair, with a shortage of qualified teachers and educational materials. Global powers must support efforts to rebuild and strengthen the education system to ensure that it can provide quality education to all, including girls.

Balancing diplomacy with the protection of Afghan girls’ rights requires skill and sensitivity. Engaging with the Taliban necessitates a pragmatic approach that seeks to influence their policies without causing harm to vulnerable populations. Striking this balance requires careful negotiation and collaboration with regional actors.

Conclusion

The education crisis facing Afghan girls demands urgent attention and action from global powers. Education is not a privilege but a fundamental human right. The international community, including international organizations, influential countries, and concerned citizens, must work together to ensure that Afghan girls can access quality education safely and without discrimination. The moral obligation to protect their rights transcends politics and geopolitics. By empowering Afghan girls through education, we invest in a brighter future for them and for Afghanistan as a whole. 

The Pacific summit under President Biden’s leadership faced a setback when Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare of the Solomon Islands chose not to participate, leading to disappointment on the part of the United States in the midst of the regional competition with China. Pacific Islands summit without participation of Solomon Islands indicates potential in China’s counter-US strategy. However, this also signifies the bargaining capabilities of these strategically important locations in the US-China strategic competition being played under the integrated deterrence mechanisms. 

Notably, in April, 2022, China confirmed a covert five-year security accord with the Solomon Islands, characterized as a ‘treaty’ by Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare. Although not officially disclosed, the leaked draft has originated from within the Solomon Islands government. The pact carries profound implications, particularly for China, the Solomon Islands, Australia, and the United States. The strategic positioning of the Solomon Islands holds the potential to exert control over critical sea and airspace regions, posing a threat to communication channels vital to the United States and its Pacific partners, notably Australia. The establishment of a Chinese naval base in the Solomon Islands could disrupt military support for Taiwan. Furthermore, even the presence of a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) facility for intelligence operations and patrols in the Solomon Islands would intricately complicate defense strategizing, primarily for Australia and to a lesser extent for the United States.

The Solomon Islands’ strategic importance to the United States is multifaceted. Firstly, its geostrategic location within the South Pacific Ocean positions it between the U.S. and Australia, a region of growing importance in U.S. foreign policy and strategic considerations within the Indo-Pacific. This location has the potential to influence trade routes and maritime security dynamics. Secondly, the proximity of the Solomon Islands to the second island chain, a significant element in U.S. military strategy, presents opportunities for force projection, logistical support, and naval operations, thereby enhancing U.S. military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. Thirdly, the United States maintains alliances and partnerships with Pacific nations like Australia and New Zealand, who share interests in the Solomon Islands. Therefore, the Solomon Islands have become a focal point in the competition for influence between the U.S. and China in the South Pacific. China’s efforts to expand its presence through investments and infrastructure projects in the region necessitate U.S. efforts to counterbalance Chinese influence, safeguard its interests, and uphold regional stability. 

The United States is addressing its prior neglect of the Oceania region by, for instance, reopening its embassy in Honiara and committing to a substantive bilateral dialogue with the Solomon Islands. In anticipation of potential escalations, the U.S. has conveyed its preparedness to take appropriate measures should the Solomon Islands proceed with actions aimed at establishing a de facto permanent military presence, power projection capabilities, or military installations in the region. Notably, Australia is confronted with significant hurdles in its efforts to counter China’s expanding influence in the Southwest Pacific. This challenge is exacerbated by the internal divisions within the Pacific Island Forum, a critical regional multilateral organization, which China has leveraged to its advantage in consolidating its sway. 

Asia-Pacific, and specifically Oceania, has emerged as a focal point of geopolitical competition, primarily involving the United States and its allies in efforts to counterbalance China’s regional influence. Simultaneously, these islands also occupy centrality in China’s integrated deterrence framework against the U.S. strategy dealing with the region. Consequently, the Pacific Islands grapple with the imperative of ensuring authentic partnership dynamics, safeguarding their autonomy amid the global geopolitical rivalry. 

The United States has solidified its preeminence in the region, boasting an extensive military presence with strategically positioned bases in Hawai’i, Guam, the Marshall Islands, and Australia. Notably, the Indo-Pacific Command, headquartered in Hawai’i, possesses an unparalleled geographic jurisdiction relative to its regional counterparts. A noteworthy aspect is the substantial U.S. military presence in Guam, which occupies approximately 30% of the island’s territory. Recent developments include Palau’s invitation to the United States for the establishment of a military base and radar facility, a similar initiative in the Federated States of Micronesia, and collaborative efforts between the United States and Australia to upgrade the Lombrum naval base in Manus, Papua New Guinea. These developments underscore the evolving dynamics of U.S. strategic presence and cooperation in the region with the Pacific Islands.

The significance of Pacific islands for the US integrated deterrence strategy against China is multi-faceted. These islands are strategically located in the Indo-Pacific region, making them crucial hubs for various aspects of the strategy. Firstly, their strategic location allows them to serve as vital nodes in maritime trade routes which is essential for the economic dimension of the strategy. Secondly, Pacific islands offer potential support for US military operations, providing access to ports and airfields for logistical purposes and potential bases for forward deployment, thus enhancing the military dimension of the strategy. Thirdly, they can serve as platforms for intelligence gathering and surveillance activities, bolstering the intelligence and surveillance dimension. Additionally, Pacific islands play a pivotal role in regional diplomacy to counter China’s regional influence: strengthening partnerships with them allows the US to promote shared values, enhance regional security, and address common challenges, aligning with the diplomatic aspect of the strategy. They contribute to the effectiveness of the US integrated deterrence strategy against China in the Indo-Pacific region.

In parallel to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, which directs significant shifts in the Indo-Pacific region, China’s strategic interests in Pacific islands are also integral to its comprehensive deterrence strategy within the broader Indo-Pacific context. China’s military interests in these islands are discernible from its overarching military modernization endeavors, aimed at bolstering its presence in the Indo-Pacific. This modernization encompasses investments in naval capabilities, including aircraft carriers, submarines, and advanced missile systems, positioning China to project power in the Pacific and reinforce its deterrence strategy. These military interests are closely linked to China’s broader geopolitical objectives, such as securing access to strategic sea routes, defending maritime claims, and countering the influence of regional powers, particularly the United States. 

China’s participation in territorial disputes in the South China Sea, where several Pacific islands are located, as well as its construction and militarization of artificial islands in the region, underscore its commitment to strengthening its presence in the Pacific. Additionally, China has pursued military diplomacy and expanded military partnerships in Pacific islands, conducting joint exercises, providing military aid, and establishing military bases or access agreements, all contributing to an augmented military presence, influence, and power projection capabilities in the Pacific islands as part of its integrated deterrence strategy in the Pacific.

In today’s world, many students seek various ways to finance their education. Among these, unconditional scholarships and donations are quite popular. However, these resources often come with specific terms and expectations. While everyone may request these resources without conditions, in reality, they often come with expectations.

Especially abroad, in places like Western Europe or North America, students applying for scholarships or loans often have to agree to work in return. This work may encompass various tasks such as washing dishes in the cafeteria, cooking in the dining hall, working in the library, or even assisting a professor. This arrangement allows students not only to receive financial support but also to contribute to the educational process.

Unconditional scholarships or donations are rare worldwide. People generally believe that financial aid is based on a student’s academic performance, abilities, or potential contributions in a specific field. Therefore, those seeking educational support are expected to put in effort to earn it.

Education is the foundation of the future, and financing this process is crucial. However, most financial aids come with a cost. When students accept scholarships or donations, they should carefully consider what is expected in return and whether these conditions align with their goals.

In conclusion, it’s important to remember that there is seldom something truly unconditional in the world of education, and more often than not, it requires dedication.

Herbig-Haro (HH) objects are luminous regions surrounding newborn stars, formed when stellar winds or jets of gas spewing from these newborn stars form shock waves colliding with nearby gas and dust at high speeds. This image of HH 211 from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope reveals an outflow from a Class 0 protostar, an infantile analog of our Sun when it was no more than a few tens of thousands of years old and with a mass only 8% of the present-day Sun (it will eventually grow into a star like the Sun).

Infrared imaging is powerful in studying newborn stars and their outflows, because such stars are invariably still embedded within the gas from the molecular cloud in which they formed. The infrared emission of the star’s outflows penetrates the obscuring gas and dust, making a Herbig-Haro object like HH 211 ideal for observation with Webb’s sensitive infrared instruments. Molecules excited by the turbulent conditions, including molecular hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and silicon monoxide, emit infrared light that Webb can collect to map out the structure of the outflows.

The image showcases a series of bow shocks to the southeast (lower-left) and northwest (upper-right) as well as the narrow bipolar jet that powers them. Webb reveals this scene in unprecedented detail — roughly 5 to 10 times higher spatial resolution than any previous images of HH 211. The inner jet is seen to “wiggle” with mirror symmetry on either side of the central protostar. This is in agreement with observations on smaller scales and suggests that the protostar may in fact be an unresolved binary star.

Earlier observations of HH 211 with ground-based telescopes revealed giant bow shocks moving away from us (northwest) and moving towards us (southeast) and cavity-like structures in shocked hydrogen and carbon monoxide respectively, as well as a knotty and wiggling bipolar jet in silicon monoxide. Researchers have used Webb’s new observations to determine that the object’s outflow is relatively slow in comparison to more evolved protostars with similar types of outflows.

The team measured the velocities of the innermost outflow structures to be roughly 48-60 miles per second (80 to 100 kilometers per second). However, the difference in velocity between these sections of the outflow and the leading material they’re colliding with — the shockwave — is much smaller. The researchers concluded that outflows from the youngest stars, like that in the center of HH 211, are mostly made up of molecules, because the comparatively low shock wave velocities are not energetic enough to break the molecules apart into simpler atoms and ions.

What makes for a successful climate-resilient fishery, one that sustainably produces resources for human benefit despite increasing climate stressors and human impacts? It’s a question that faces present and future fisheries, their practitioners and fishing communities as the world turns to the ocean to feed its growing population.

“For a fishery to be resilient it needs to be able to prepare for, resist, cope with, recover from, or adapt to any given impact,” said Jacob Eurich, who is a research associate at UC Santa Barbara’s Marine Science Institute, and a fisheries scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). “In most cases a fishery will need to have a combination of these capacities to continue to produce food, income and well-being to the people who rely on them.”

It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation, according to Eurich, who led an international cohort of researchers for a paper published in the journal Fish and Fisheries. Because fisheries are complex marine ecosystems that face unique combinations of circumstances across the globe, achieving climate resilience will require equally diverse strategies, he said.

Fortunately, there are climate resilience success stories to draw lessons from. To gain these valuable insights, Eurich and colleagues examined 18 fisheries that expand our knowledge about how resilience operates across the world. They tested these fisheries’ resilience attributes to learn how and why they were able to persist despite climate change and human impact and, importantly, for whose benefit. The researchers then synthesized their findings into fishery archetypes and resilience pathways for other fishery practitioners that aspire to increase levels of resilience and sustainable benefits to society.

Diverse fisheries, diverse strategies

For a fishery to be successful in the face of climate change, it must be effective across ecological, social and governance dimensions — that is, be able to not only support the health and productivity of its resources but also be supported to that end in its operations and its role in society.

“The biggest challenge is that every fishery is different,” Eurich said. “Each fishery has different characteristics and operates on different scales, for different reasons and with unique goals.” The survey conducted by the research team — from the Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) Climate Resilient Fisheries Working Group, which was led by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), Cornell University and EDF and convened at UCSB’s National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (NCEAS) — provided the data for a framework that standardized, prioritized and scored 38 attributes of fisheries and their milieu. This system allowed the researchers to find strengths and commonalities to which other fisheries under similar circumstances may align to increase their own resilience.

Pathways to resilience

The researchers developed five archetypes of climate-resilient fisheries and detailed two pathways to climate resilience. They found that in some fisheries, climate resilience is derived from strong ecological assets and tight-knit communities that promote flexible governance, despite having limited economic avenues outside of fishing. In these fisheries, the non-monetary benefits of fish, such as nutrition and culture, are distributed broadly. However, the shift to globalized economies can disrupt this model.

In other fisheries, robust governance and economic assets drive the efficient conversion of fish into economic benefits. Competition, coupled with access to knowledge and capital for investment, can spur technological advancement, which often results in responsive governance. However, in these fisheries, wealth might become concentrated among the most successful firms, leading to power imbalances and enabling only a select group to withstand losses or capitalize on new economic opportunities posed by climate change.

“We also identified key priority areas, where a deficiency in certain attributes hindered fishery resilience,” Eurich added. “Often, fishery practitioners know the climate-ready management interventions needed in their system but political obstacles and a lack of support or capacity block these changes. By taking the time to identify and enhance inhibiting attributes, practitioners can increase the success of long-term interventions.”

Next steps

Lily Zhao, a Ph.D. student in the UCSB’s Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, who co-led the piece, added that “There's still a lot of work to be done to ensure sources of resilience are distributed equitably to support climate adaptation within fishery systems, so I'm excited to see how priority areas we found like equitable and inclusive governance will be built and emphasized in the coming decades”.

The framework for assessing fishery resilience and research findings have also been converted to an interactive decision support tool. The Climate-Resilient Fisheries Planning Tool guides users through a six-step process that will provide key elements needed to develop a fishery resilience plan.

A team of scientists, led by researchers from the Universidad de Alcalá (UAH) and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), has discovered and analyzed the first direct evidence of basketry among hunter-gatherer societies and early farmers in southern Europe in the Cueva de los Murciélagos of Albuñol (Granada, Spain).

Their work, published in the prestigious journal Science Advances, analyzes 76 objects made of organic materials (wood, reed and esparto) discovered during 19th century mining activities in the Granada cave. The researchers studied the raw materials and technology and carried out carbon-14 dating, which revealed that the set dates to the early and middle Holocene period, between 9,500 and 6,200 years ago. This is the first direct evidence of basketry made by Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies in southern Europe and a unique set of other organic tools associated with early Neolithic farming communities, such as sandals and a wooden mace.

As researcher of the Prehistory Department of the University of Alcalá Francisco Martínez Sevilla explains, ”the new dating of the esparto baskets from the Cueva de los Murciélagos of Albuñol opens a window of opportunity to understanding the last hunter-gatherer societies of the early Holocene. The quality and technological complexity of the basketry makes us question the simplistic assumptions we have about human communities prior to the arrival of agriculture in southern Europe. This work and the project that is being developed places the Cueva de los Murciélagos as a unique site in Europe to study the organic materials of prehistoric populations”.

Cueva de los Murciélagos is located on the coast of Granada, to the south of the Sierra Nevada and 2 kilometers from the town of Albuñol. The cave opens on the right side of the Barranco de las Angosturas, at an altitude of 450 meters above sea level and about 7 kilometers from the current coastline. It is one of the most emblematic prehistoric archaeological sites of the Iberian Peninsula due to the rare preservation of organic materials, which until this study had only been attributed to the Neolithic. The objects made of perishable materials were discovered by the mining activities of the 19th century and were documented and recovered by Manuel de Góngora y Martínez, later becoming part of the first collections of the National Archaeological Museum of Madrid.

As detailed by María Herrero Otal, co-author of the work and researcher at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, “the esparto grass objects from Cueva de los Murciélagos are the oldest and best-preserved set of plant fiber materials in southern Europe so far known. The technological diversity and the treatment of the raw material documented demonstrates the ability of prehistoric communities to master this type of craftsmanship, at least since 9,500 years ago, in the Mesolithic period. Only one type of technique related to hunter-gatherers has been identified, while the typological, technological and treatment range of esparto grass was extended during the Neolithic from 7,200 to 6,200 years before the present”.

The work is part of the project “De los museos al territorio: actualizando el estudio de la Cueva de los Murciélagos de Albuñol (Granada)” (MUTERMUR), which has been funded by the Community of Madrid and the Universidad de Alcalá. The objective of this project is the holistic study of the site and its material record, applying the latest archaeometric techniques and generating quality scientific data. The project also included the collaboration of the National Archaeological Museum, the Archaeological and Ethnological Museum of Granada, the City Council of Albuñol and the owners of the cave.

“The results of this work and the finding of the oldest basketry in southern Europe give more meaning, if possible, to the phrase written by Manuel de Góngora in his work Prehistoric Antiquities of Andalusia (1868): ‘the now forever famous Cueva de los Murciélagos’”, the authors highlight.

Recent research uncovers the resilience of certain soil microorganisms in the face of increasing drought conditions. While many bacteria become inactive during dry spells, specific groups persist and even thrive.

This study, conducted by the Centre for Microbiology and Environmental Systems Science (CeMESS) at the University of Vienna, offers ground-breaking insights into bacterial activity during drought periods, with implications for agriculture and our understanding of climate change impacts. The study has been published in the renowned scientific journal Nature Communications.

The images of the parched Po Valley in 2022 and this year's forest fires in Greece underscore the reality of extreme droughts – not just as news headlines but as immediate threats. The repercussions for humans and plant life are evident: crop failures, withered meadows, and water rationing. However, the impact of drought on soil microorganisms remains hidden from the naked eye.

Soil microorganisms play a pivotal role in ecosystems. They contribute to soil fertility, assist plants in nutrient absorption, and determine whether soils store or release CO2, thereby influencing climate change trajectories. Until now, measuring the activity of microorganisms in dry soils and identifying which species remain active was challenging. Thanks to a novel method developed by scientists at the University of Vienna, bacterial activity during drought periods can now be observed.

New method uses water vapor to measure bacterial activity

In the study, recently published in "Nature Communications", soil samples from the "ClimGrass" climate change experiment in Styria were incubated with isotopically-marked water vapor. Growing bacteria incorporated the oxygen from the water vapor into their DNA, allowing for a measure of growth without adding liquid water to the soil.

"Most bacteria became inactive as dryness increased. However, this wasn't uniform across all microbial groups," explains Dennis Metze, PhD student and lead author of the study. Moreover, bacterial growth during drought was influenced by whether the soils had been exposed to current or future climatic conditions, i.e., higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

Microbial communities could become more drought tolerant in future

In the heart of Styria, the "ClimGrass" experiment paints a vivid picture of the future. Here, 54 experimental plots simulate the world of tomorrow. Infrared heaters elevate temperatures to levels expected in future climate scenarios, while miniFACE systems adjust atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Automated rainout shelters mimic severe summer drought events, creating a tangible representation of the challenges our ecosystems might face.

"Simulating future climate conditions actually resulted in more bacteria remaining active despite drought," explains Andreas Richter, professor of ecosystem research and head of CeMESS. "Under these simulated conditions, more drought-tolerant species were able to establish." A particularly drought-resistant bacterium from the Streptomyces genus became more prevalent in dry soils, accounting for a significant portion of total bacterial activity.

The filamentous growth of this bacterium might allow it to bridge disconnected pore spaces in drought-stricken soils, enabling it to access water and nutrients from distant sources. Previous studies have indicated that such bacteria might play a role in aiding plants to cope with drought.

The findings of this study offer invaluable insights into the resilience and adaptability of soil microorganisms in the face of increasing droughts due to climate change. As these tiny organisms play a monumental role in maintaining soil fertility, aiding plant growth, and regulating carbon sequestration, understanding their behaviour is crucial for both our ecosystems and agricultural sectors.

As the world grapples with the challenges of climate change, food security, and ecosystem balance, research like this paves the way for informed strategies to safeguard our planet's health and the well-being of its inhabitants.

As we hurtle toward crucial tipping points on a warming planet, an international team of scientists is recruiting a surprising ally to make a powerful dent in greenhouse gas emissions: the cow.

Animal sciences researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are driving a new project to reduce methane production resulting from rumen fermentation in beef and dairy cattle. The 3-year, $3.2-million project is part of the Greener Cattle Initiative, led by the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR).

According to the researchers, aggressively targeting methane could help course-correct our climate trajectory on a quicker timeline than controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) alone. Methane is 28 times more potent than CO2 and degrades in the atmosphere within a dozen years, compared to the hundreds of years it takes CO2 to dissipate. 

“What this means is that anything we do now with ruminant animals can have a huge impact on warming within decades, rather than centuries. Our challenge is to reduce enteric methane emissions by about 30 to 40% with the technologies we have,” said project leader Rod Mackie, professor in the Department of Animal Sciences, part of the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES) at U. of I. Mackie is also affiliated with the Division of Nutritional Sciences in ACES and the Carl R. Woese Institute of Genomic Biology. 

The project involves six research hubs around the world, all tackling the challenge of enteric methane, which is produced in the rumen as part of the microbial fermentation process. Mackie, along with Illinois animal sciences professor Josh McCann, will start by tracking hydrogen production and utilization during fermentation. 

A key step in the fermentation process is the regeneration of a high-energy carrier molecule known as NADH. For microbes to keep producing energy during glycolysis, NADH has to dump its hydrogen — the H in NADH — and wait for a recycled one to take its place from breakdown of carbohydrates and other fermentable organic matter provided in the diet. Normally, the excess hydrogen from NADH is used to convert CO2 to methane, a molecule comprised of one carbon and four hydrogen atoms. However, the research team thinks there may be ways to redirect the excess hydrogens towards more productive end-products. 

“In anaerobic fermentation in the rumen, you have to have some way of recycling hydrogen through the conversion of NADH to NAD. In that process, most of the excess hydrogen goes towards methane. If you shut down methane production, hydrogen builds up and inhibits glycolysis,” Mackie said. “We don't want that to happen. Instead, we want to redirect hydrogen into other products, such as propionate and butyrate, reduced fatty acids that serve as the primary energy source for all ruminants.”

McCann added, “There are a lot of groups working on inhibiting methane directly using dietary additives. Our focus is trying to figure out how we actually make it work in an animal and make it more energetically feasible. That's really been the missing piece,” he said. “If cows can’t metabolize the excess hydrogens for productive benefit and to improve growth, there will continue to be limited adoption of methane reduction strategies or additives. There's no economic incentive.” 

The team will start by taking a close look at hydrogen production and utilization in the lab. They will take rumen microbial communities from beef cattle that naturally produce more or less methane to explore potential adjustments they can make to the system with promising inhibitor compounds. Later, they will bring their findings back into cows.

“Most of the grant is focused on the basic and the mechanistic side, but once we make something that might work within a microbial community, it still has to work in an animal,” McCann said. “We have complicating factors like diet components and how much they want to eat. Not to mention dairy cattle and beef cattle are eating different things, so the bugs in the rumen function differently. So, if we apply a methane inhibitor to a dairy microbial community, we might have to approach the hydrogen capture a little bit differently than in a beef rumen community.”

Mackie said the project is the beginning of a longer-term endeavor to find enteric methane solutions. But by the end of three years, the goal is to be able to recommend specific amounts of inhibitors that don’t hinder or even improve production performance. 

Beyond that? “What we'd like is to have ruminants save the planet within 10 years,” he said. “That would be amazing.”