Hauna Trimble is a young and promising political analyst. She is specialized in the changing political landscapes in the US and in the Middle East. She recently graduated from a prestigious university in the Middle East.

By electing an Afro-American president in 2009, Americans assumed they were taking large leaps to close the gaps between blacks and whites and finally leaving behind the sins of the past. Yet eight years later in the year 2015, America couldn’t be more divided than it was in the 1960’s. Just shy of a year away from the next U.S. presidential elections and already, the debates have been full of heat, controversy, and divisions. Racial tensions between whites and blacks on issues surrounding welfare, equal treatment and police brutality have never been higher.

The need for immigration reform and what to do about the millions of “undocumented” immigrants has become a crisis, with no consensus on how to deal with it. America is a truly divided nation, which has played a large role in the presidential debates we see today between the various Democrat and Republican candidates.

The Democrats have always benefited from attracting the minority and young vote, thanks to the benefits they promise minorities and the liberal perspectives they claim to represent among the youth. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has struggled to break out of the long standing impression they have as representing only the white, Christian, “greedy” Americans who are the supposed root of all minority, young, and female cleavages in the country. This has been pivotal in Obama’s election and reelection, and unless the Republican Party makes strategic moves to show something different, it will spell another inevitable defeat.

So, does the Republican Party have a chance to win over ethnic minorities? Yes, but it will have to make some radical changes in its presentation and message. Mitt Romney from last election may have been perfectly qualified to be president. But let’s face it, he didn’t stand a chance at winning. In the minds of minorities, Romney represented everything wrong with the Republican Party, and only confirmed the already preconceived notion that the party solely represents white Christian men.

It seems Republicans have a problem accepting the reality that these types of candidates really stand no chance in the face of rapidly changing demographics across the nation. The 2016 elections need to look vastly different. First of all, as ridiculous as it may sound, the Republican Party needs a minority to represent them, although this is just one out of many necessary things a candidate must possess. This point right here proves just how far America is from actually being a nation of equals, where minorities as the perceived victims can actually stand a better chance at getting a scholarship, keeping a job, or winning U.S. presidency, but the truth isn’t always pretty. Another thing that needs to happen is for the party to speak to the entire country, and not just Republicans. 

To expand on this point, the Republican Party needs to evolve to become more inclusive of the reality that America is in currently. This doesn’t mean changing republican values, policies, or goals, it simply means presenting itself in a way that shows its inclusion, empathy, and interest to serve the people, and not just themselves. For the Democrats, the appearance of including everyone is easy to portray through false socialist promises, even though socialism has done nothing more for America than further divide races and genders. Yet, for the Democrats, it’s easy to continue attracting minorities when Republicans focus on accusations more than they focus on what they can do to make America a better place for everyone.

Time and again, Republican candidates make statements that further enrage minority groups, isolating themselves to just their constant supporters. These statements may hold a lot of truth, yet focusing on blame and negativity is self-defeating, especially in politics. The point being, the Republican candidate needs to truly unify the country, and not divide and accuse.

A candidate such as Donald Trump may be refreshing for many people to listen to in his raw honesty. So many are tired of the political correctness of our time, and hearing someone like Donald Trump tell it like it is can be attractive. Yet, Trump is a risky candidate, because someone like him could further divide the country into extreme camps on opposite ends of the spectrum. We are at a time and place where we simply can’t afford more division. A candidate like Marco Rubio, however, would have a more wholesome, inclusive message to convey to the country, in a much less threatening manner. His minority background, ability to truly understand minority cleavages, coupled with his strong leadership and Republican views, would give him a real shot at delivering a message that benefits everyone. In any case, America is in a serious social crisis, and in need of a strong leader.

This leader can’t be just a minority, or just someone who is technically qualified. The Republican candidate needs to make sweeping strides on virtually every front. To demonstrate this point, a look at Ben Carson shows that being a minority just isn’t enough. Carson is a black Republican candidate, yet has utterly failed at capturing black supporters and may not really have what it takes to pull this country together. He is a world renowned brain surgeon, but does that mean he is qualified to be president? His platform severely lacks any sort of clarity, and his speeches do not seem to resonate with the minority populations, even though Carson is technically a minority himself.

This is why the selection of a Republican candidate needs to be a very wise, thought out process, because the reality is that the Republican Party needs to make some serious comebacks. They have a lot to offer America, yet their presentation needs some very real reforms. Who they chose as their representative of the Republican Party is extremely delicate, and any miscalculation will put their chance at winning over the minority vote, and ultimately the presidency, in serious jeopardy.

Adrien Gonin is a young and rising economic analyst. He studied Economics in top French and German University. He is widely recognized as an expert of European and American Economies.

Since 2003, The European Union and the U.S. have been preparing the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement – called also TAFTA Treaty – a free trade deal in order to boost both economies by harmonizing commercial and trade norms.

What is the TAFTA Treaty?

A Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) also called TTIP, is a proposal to create a trans-atlantic free-trade area covering Europe and North America. Once complete, if combined with free trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and the European Free Trade Association,  it could form a free trade area covering a large portion of the two continents.

The TAFTA Treaty assembles negotiators representing big companies from many sectors (banking, energy, food, industry). Its goal is to reach common regulations to increase competition between companies. As a logical consequence, the consumer output should be higher quality product for lower prices.

The TAFTA Treaty would be the biggest agreement of its kind, and affects one quarter of global trade.

Nevertheless, a key issue remains hard to clear: are the positive effects given by the TAFTA Treaty to big companies really good for the citizens?

An undemocratic negotiation process:

Meanwhile the TAFTA Treaty has significant consequences on the market structure between the EU and US, the decisions are taken in secret behind closed doors by representatives of big companies. Journalists and neutral observers are not allowed to follow and report the negotiations of the TAFTA Treaty.

What are the issues behind this agreement?

• Importation of farming techniques from America to Europe

American practices in terms of agriculture are not appreciated by European consumers. The American law enables farmers industries to produce hormone-treated meat, chlorinated chicken or gmo which wouldn´t not be acceptable for local producer such as in France or Italy.  Those practices are nowadays still forbidden within the E.U. but American negotiators are holding pressure to develop their mass production on the other side of the Atlantic…

• Shale gas exportation from the U.S. to Europe

American companies are able to charge a low price for gas due to massive shale gas extraction. This measure first seems very positive for European households as the energy price is very high in Western Europe.   Nevertheless, the extraction of shale gas from the earth remains highly dangerous for the soils and groundwater, the costs and the responsibility for damaging the ground are not determined. This issue remains very important, especially as the COP 21 begins this week in Paris.

• Conflicts between different labor and union laws

European law structure enables more rights for workers. Workers have the right to be represented by unions. Unions have the right to negotiate with their employer, whether there are large corporations or not. On the other hand, American companies are not constrained to respect high European working conditions: collective negotiations between unions and employers do not exist, working standards are very low in the US.

A harmonization of working right between EU and US will result to fewer straight rules for European employers. European social gains may be threatened and results to impairments in working conditions.

• Investor-state settlement

The initial project of the TAFTA treaty allows international companies to charge states before international arbitrators to obtain compensation. What is the reason for claiming compensations? – The regulation of a state leading to a decrease in a company´s profits will be the main argument for companies to complain. In the end, the costs of these penalties will be paid by the consumers leaving in the state.

The impact on consumers would be massive: the possible cases for companies to attack states are boundless (e.g. minimum wage, taxes, measures for the environment).

Final Analysis :

 At the first look The TAFTA treaty seems to be, good news for everyone. But the safety standards provided by the states of the EU – beneficial for us on a daily basis could be damaged.

The first winners of the treaty are multinational big companies that will use economies of scale to maximize their profits. The citizens may not be the main preoccupation of the treaty.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Price winning economist in 2001 shares the same opinion: “Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits. Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers – namely, the rest of us.”

 

 

The Islamic State’s use of natural resources to achieve its strategic goals is nothing new. Oil, one of the group’s biggest sources of funding, plays an especially important role in its calculations — something the countries fighting the Islamic State are increasingly coming to realize. And they have begun to adjust their target sets accordingly. The United States and France, for example, have begun to launch airstrikes against the group’s oil trucks and distribution centers, hoping to hamper its ability to pay for its military operations.

But what is less talked about, although no less important, is the Islamic State’s use of water in its fight to establish a caliphate. Its tactics have brought water to the forefront of the conflict in Iraq and Syria, threatening the very existence of the people living under its oppressive rule. If the Islamic State’s opponents do not move to sever the group’s hold over Iraqi and Syrian water sources — and soon — it may prove difficult to liberate the region from the Islamic State’s hold in the long term.

An Age-Old Conflict

Civilizations have long battled for access to water and founded their empires around great rivers. Historians believe that the ancient Sumerian city of Ur was favored by the empires that followed for its abundance of water and its proximity to the Persian Gulf. Other accounts say the city’s inhabitants abandoned it amid severe droughts and the drying up of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Today, drought and low rainfall compete with the manmade disaster of terrorism to destroy the same, once-fertile swathe of land stretching along the two rivers.

Governments and non-state actors alike have used water as a weapon for centuries. While the number of full-blown wars over water resources has been lower than one might expect, given how critical water is to any population’s survival, smaller conflicts have been numerous, destructive and deadly. The Middle East has fallen prey to this competition in recent years as states and groups have increasingly shifted from simply cutting off water supplies for a short period of time to diverting water flows or completely draining supplies in an attempt to threaten or coerce consumers.

The Islamic State is no exception. Since the group began expanding its territorial claims in western Syria, it has used water as a tool in its broader strategy of advancing and establishing control over new land. True, the Islamic State has also (and perhaps more visibly) targeted strategic oil and natural gas fields in both Syria and Iraq, but a close look at the group’s movements clearly indicates that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers hold a central role in its planning. Recognition of the Islamic State’s intention to organize its new caliphate around the Tigris-Euphrates Basin may prove helpful in the long-term fight against the group.

In 2012, the Islamic State emerged from the power vacuum created by the Syrian civil war and made its presence known in the western city of Aleppo. It had little in common with Syria’s other rebel groups, which were primarily focused on fighting the forces of Syrian President Bashar al Assad for regime change. Instead, the Islamic State was a terrorist organization with a clear agenda and strategy: It wanted to build an Islamic caliphate that would, from its perspective, follow the truest form of Islam as decreed by the Prophet Mohammed. Over the following year, the group moved quickly and decisively, cutting a path through Syria and toward Iraq, capturing the key towns of Maskana, Raqqa, Deir el-Zour and al-Bukamal  — all of which are positioned along the Euphrates River.

The Iraqi front didn’t look much different; the Islamic State easily captured the river towns of Qaim, Rawah, Ramadi and Fallujah, two of which (Rawah and Ramadi) gave the group direct access to two of Iraq’s major lakes, Haditha Dam Lake and Lake Tharthar. Meanwhile, the Islamic State pursued a similar strategy along the Tigris River, successfully capturing Mosul and Tikrit and attempting to seize other towns and cities along the way. In Iraq the goal was Baghdad, from which the group could rule a caliphate encompassing Syria and Iraq. While the oil and natural gas fields it seized along the way were a means for the group to threaten military forces and make money, the bodies of water and infrastructure were a means to hold the entire region hostage.

Historically, the Euphrates and Tigris rivers have been an important source of contention between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. The lack of cooperation and coordination between these countries on sharing the mighty rivers has led to a failure to regulate their use and an overconsumption of resources. Consequently, any and all activity by upstream nations regarding the water resources carries the risk of agitating tensions with downstream countries. With no regional coordination and poor security along the rivers themselves, terrorist groups — including the Islamic State — have been able to use water as both a target and a weapon. Not only have they destroyed water-related infrastructure such as pipes, sanitation plants, bridges and cables connected to water installations, but they have also used water as an instrument of violence by deliberately flooding towns, polluting bodies of water and ruining local economies by disrupting electricity generation and agriculture.

Since 2013, the Islamic State has launched nearly 20 major attacks (as well as countless smaller assaults) against Syrian and Iraqi water infrastructure. Some of these attacks include flooding villages, threatening to flood Baghdad, closing the dam gates in Fallujah and Ramadi, cutting off water to Mosul, and allegedly poisoning water in small Syrian towns, to name just a few. Most of these operations are aimed at government forces, designed to fight the military by using water as a weapon against them, though some targeted water infrastructure to disrupt troop movements. Such efforts also often have the added benefit of enhancing recruitment efforts; by allowing water to flow to towns sympathetic to the Islamic State’s cause, or even by simply doing a better job of providing necessary services, the group can attract more men and women to its ranks.

With water at the core of its expansionist strategy, the Islamic State has also ensured that bodies of water and their corresponding infrastructure have moved to the forefront of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The control of major water resources and dams has, in turn, given the Islamic State a firm grip on the supplies used to support agriculture and electricity generation. Mosul Dam, for example, gave the Islamic State control over 75 percent of Iraq’s electricity generation while it was in the group’s possession. In 2014, when the group shut down Fallujah’s Nuaimiyah Dam, the subsequent flooding destroyed 200 square kilometers (about 77 square miles) of Iraqi fields and villages. And in June 2015, the Islamic State closed the Ramadi barrage in Anbar province, reducing water flows to the famed Iraqi Marshes and forcing the Arabs living there to flee. While coalition and government forces in both countries have managed to recapture some key water sites, the threat of further damage persists.

At the same time, governments and militaries have used similar tactics to combat the Islamic State, closing the gates of dams or attacking water infrastructure under their control. But the Islamic State’s fighters are not the only ones hurt by these efforts — the surrounding population suffers, too. The Syrian government has been repeatedly accused of withholding water, reducing flows or closing dam gates during its battles against the Islamic State or rebel groups, and it used the denial of clean water as a coercive tactic against many suburbs of Damascus thought to be sympathetic to the rebels.

Finding a Regional Solution

Because of its importance to both electricity generation and agricultural production, water has the power to run or ruin an economy. And since bodies of water often extend beyond any one country’s borders, history shows that the competition for water resources can often only be settled peacefully through regional cooperation. Before Iraq and Syria deteriorated, and groups like the Islamic State arose, countries around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers had only each other to contend with. And in late 2010, the leaders of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan appeared to be on the verge of making progress toward setting up an integrated economic region. The countries’ leaders called for regionwide cooperation on tourism, banking, trade and other sectors, and could have laid the foundation for further agreements on the distribution of shared natural resources like water. Though ambitious, the ideas and sentiments behind the proposals had the power to transform the region.

But politics prevailed, as is so often the case, and in less than a year the moment was lost. Had Turkey, Iraq and Syria taken the opportunity to act while political conditions were favorable, they would have found it easier to collectively tackle the Islamic State’s advance later on. Bodies of water could have been labeled regional commons and thus the collective responsibility of all parties, ensuring swifter reactions by the governments involved to protect the water and associated infrastructure from terrorism. This, in turn, would have better protected the people and areas surrounding the rivers and lakes in the region. Of course, it is easy to look back and lament actions not taken, but the point remains that there is still a chance for these countries to come together and start working collectively to protect the water resources they share.

There is no doubt that the Islamic State has a very clear strategy, one that extends even beyond Syria and Iraq and into the wider region. The group has established bases throughout North Africa, following a similar path of controlling key resources and using them as weapons against the populations and governments it seeks to coerce or destroy. It is time that nearby states and the international community re-examine what they know about the Islamic State’s tactics and formulate a new plan of action. Forces fighting the Islamic State must look at the region as a single integrated basin and bring bodies of water — and by extension, the populations dependent on them — to the forefront of their strategies. Water has always formed the core of civilizations; the Middle East — not to mention an Islamic State caliphate — is no different.

In 2014, Yemen’s leader Hadi began pursuing a federal system to better distribute power among Yemen’s different political groups, but obstacles to the plan emerged. The country’s Houthi rebel group wanted more power within the new system and stepped up its campaign against the government in Sanaa, advancing all the way to the capital and eventually forcing it into U.N.-brokered peace talks in August. Per the agreement, Yemen formed a new government to appease the Houthis. However, the group was unhappy with the terms of the new proposition for the country’s constitution. Despite agreeing to a cease-fire Jan. 19, Houthi rebels stormed the presidential palace in Sanaa and surrounded Prime Minister Khaled Bahah’s residence Jan. 20. Although on the surface the Houthis’ actions resemble a coup, the militants are actually pursuing a different strategy. Their recent moves are aimed at demonstrating their strength — they are not interested in directly ruling Yemen. Instead, they seek to increase their influence within Yemen’s federal system. Stratfor has been tracking the conflict in Yemen closely, and below is a routinely updated chronicle of the most recent developments.

Oct. 19: In Yemen, a Violent Stalemate

Heavy fighting continues across Yemen, with a major Saudi-led ground offensive to retake Sanaa underway. Yemeni Foreign Minister Riad Yassin announced Oct. 13 that the battle to retake the country’s capital had begun, but so far, progress has stalled in Marib province in the face of heavy resistance. Saudi-led coalition aircraft are inflicting punishing airstrikes on Yemeni towns and cities still under the control of Houthi rebels and forces loyal to former president-turned insurgent Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Two battalions of Sudanese infantry arrived in the port city of Aden to help support military operations in Yemen. They may be called upon to augment existing forces in Aden to try and improve the security situation, or to move north to assist with the Sanaa offensive, or perhaps to try to tip the balance in the stalled operation to drive the Houthis out of the contested city of Taiz. Though additional troops are a boon for the anti-Houthi alliance, the diverse nature of the military coalition is problematic. Coordinating the various ground and air forces has been difficult, leading to several friendly fire episodes. The most recent incident occurred Oct. 17, when a misplaced Saudi airstrikes killed 20 coalition fighters by mistake and injured dozens more. Difficulties aside, the coalition has made progress in some areas, particularly along the Red Sea coast, although the critical port of al-Hudaydah remains out of reach for now.

 

Unwilling to be fixed in place, Houthi and Saleh-aligned forces conducted several successful counterattacks over the weekend. A rebel thrust into Bayda province regained territory and inflicted significant coalition losses. Other counterattacks in Shabwa province were also reportedly successful. As well as launching indirect fire attacks across Yemen’s northern border into Saudi Arabia, the rebels also stage cross-border raids. In an attack over the weekend, the Houthis managed to kill several paratroopers at a base in Jizan province, Saudi Arabia, and reportedly took at least one soldier captive.

Further capitalizing on the chaos and disorder in Yemen, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula extended its influence in Abyan province, strengthening its hold over the provincial capital, Zinjibar. Meanwhile, the Islamic State continues its systematic assassination campaign targeting coalition soldiers and aid workers in the Aden peninsula. This has a wider destabilizing effect because Aden is a key transit hub for essential humanitarian supplies: Beyond the immediate conflict, Yemen is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, experiencing shortages of food, gas, water and medical supplies in particular. The situation is worsened by intense fighting resulting from the coalition’s push to remove deep-rooted Houthi and Saleh-aligned elements throughout the country as well as the naval blockade that has prevented essential supplies from reaching ports such as al-Hudaydah.

On the diplomatic front, the rebels provisionally agreed to abide by a U.N.-brokered peace plan developed earlier in October. Yemeni President Abd Rabboh Mansour Hadi recently announced that his administration is willing to accept U.N.-led peace talks. In response, the Houthis issued an agreement, but said they would keep fighting in the meantime. Going into talks, all parties want to negotiate from a position of strength, supported by successes on the battlefield. Rather than crumbling under the weight of the combined coalition, the Houthis have stayed potent. As long as they have a stomach and resources for the fight, they will not easily concede at the negotiating table or on the battlefield until they can achieve a favorable position.

Analysis

 In San Bernardino, a peaceful town of California, Syed Rizwan Farook got into an altercation at his office holiday party Dec. 2, after which he and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, conducted a sophisticated attack on the event. Though many details of the attack remain unclear and the motive is still being investigated, the incident seems to be a prime example of the blurred line that sometimes exists between international ideologically driven terrorism and violence perpetrated by lone assailants.

Farook was a 28-year-old public health employee for San Bernardino County, where he had worked for the past five years. According to witnesses, he began to argue with another employee at the office holiday party. He then left the party and retrieved his wife, and both returned around 11 a.m. armed with assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns and dressed in black tactical gear.

The two shot indiscriminately at the employees of the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, killing 14 people and wounding 21, before fleeing in a black SUV. Police eventually caught up with the SUV in a chase and shootout that left Farook and Malik dead and two officers wounded. Later, investigators found a failed explosive device that used the remote control from a car as the command detonator at the scene of the attack and, at the couple’s home, 12 pipe bombs, ample material to construct bombs and 2,000 rounds of ammunition for a .223.

Neither Farook nor Malik were known to the FBI, but investigators are searching for potential links to international terrorist groups. The key to establishing these links will be found on the couple’s technological devices. And according to initial searches, Farook does seem to have been in touch by phone and through social media with at least one international terrorism suspect on the FBI watch list. Moreover, the failed explosive device at the scene seems to be similar to one featured in the jihadist magazine Inspire.

As the FBI takes over the investigation and more details about Farook and Malik emerge, we will begin to get a better understanding of who the two were and what their seemingly mixed motives were for the attack. It will be particularly important to note whether Farook and Malik operated alone or whether they were part of a larger grassroots cell, which poses a much bigger threat from a law enforcement perspective.

In the meantime, discussions about the role of the authorities and the individual in ensuring safety will be prominent. When thinking about personal protection, it is important to remember that the brain is the most important weapons system — even for armed individuals. When people have the proper mindset, practice good situational awareness and recognize a problem while it is still developing, they put themselves in a much better position to effectively deploy and employ their body, knife, gun or whatever secondary weapon they have access to. If the brain is not effectively and actively engaged, a person is left relying on luck, happenstance and the ineptitude of the criminals — these are not things prudent people should trust their lives to.

Moreover, as more details emerge on just what happened in San Bernardino the morning of Dec. 2, it is important that individuals and policymakers keep a cool head. Terrorism is a fact of life and will continue to be so. This is because there is a wide variety of groups that practice it and seek to use violence as a means of influencing the behavior of a government — either their own or another. Terrorist attacks are also easy to conduct, especially if the assailant is not concerned about eluding capture. Finally, it is impossible to protect everything, so there are a large number of vulnerable targets in every country. This means that some terrorist attacks will invariably succeed.

The way in which people react to successful attacks — whether with a sober, measured response or with hysteria — defines whether an attack has been successful as an act of terrorist theater. Making sure that response is measured will help guard against costly and ineffective policy decisions.

Analysis

Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet in Syria has raised the stakes in an already crowded and complicated conflict. The Nov. 24 incident will also likely undermine efforts to find a solution to the country’s protracted civil war.

Since Syrian air defenses intercepted a Turkish aircraft on June 22, 2012, resulting in its destruction and the deaths of its two pilots, the Turkish air force has maintained an assertive stance toward aircraft that violate Turkey’s border with Syria. On Sept. 16, 2013, Turkish fighter jets shot down a Syrian Mi-17 helicopter that flew into Turkish airspace; about six months later, a Syrian MiG-23 that reportedly strayed into Turkey’s airspace met a similar fate.

The number and frequency of incidents in the air above the Turkey-Syria border have risen since Russia’s Sept. 30 intervention into the Syrian conflict. Turkey has lodged many complaints against both Russia and Syria, alleging numerous airspace violations (including one confirmed by Russia in which an Su-30 accidentally crossed into Turkey) and the harassment of Turkish aircraft patrolling the border region.

Over the past week, as Russian forces backed several loyalist offensives against rebels in the area, Russia’s aerial activity near the Turkey-Syria border has been particularly high. The rebel groups, including the 1st Coastal Division, the 2nd Coastal Brigade and the Sham Brigade, contain a large number of Turkmen fighters and are closely linked to and supported by Turkey, further stoking Ankara’s anger over Moscow’s presence in Syria.

One thing that remains unclear is the fate of the Russian pilots. Videos and photographs taken at the scene suggest that rebels on the ground shot and likely killed them as they descended with their parachutes. However, a number of Turkish officials have said they believe the pilots are still alive. If this is true, Ankara could use its connections with the rebel groups to quickly transfer the pilots back into Russian custody, somewhat defusing the situation. But if they are dead, Russia will probably ramp up its operations against the rebels in the area, exacerbating tensions with Turkey.

The destruction of a Russian search-and-rescue helicopter sent to find the downed jet’s crew will only aggravate the situation more. Rebels brought down the helicopter with small arms fire, killing one Russian marine, and then destroyed it with a TOW anti-tank guided missile — a weapon built and supplied by the United States. Even though the rest of the crew survived the attack, Russia will not be pleased that another outside party’s weapons are being used against it in the fight.

Peace Moves Further Out of Reach

The incident with the fighter jet will no doubt raise the risk of clashes occurring in the airspace over Syria. The United States had made considerable progress in deconflicting Syrian airspace by signing a memorandum of understanding with Russia that laid out procedures to prevent problems from arising as each side carried out airstrikes. But with the Russians angry at the Turks, and the Turks operating in close concert with the Americans — especially in the planned anti-Islamic State operation over northern Aleppo — the United States and its coalition partners may find themselves drawn into the spat between Ankara and Moscow. Therefore, in spite of any prior agreements that have been reached, the United States and its partners will be far more wary of any Russian or loyalist aircraft they encounter in the conflict. So although this incident alone will not halt airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, coalition forces may modify the structure of the strikes to include more protection against any potential action by Russian or Syrian government aircraft.

The dispute will also undermine ongoing attempts to find a solution to the Syrian civil war, especially since Turkey is an important foreign patron of many of the rebel groups that were expected to have a seat at the negotiating table. With video circulating of Turkmen fighters from these units shooting at the Russian pilots, Moscow probably will no longer accept their participation in the talks. Since some of these groups also belong to the Free Syrian Army and are part of Syria’s more moderate opposition, this will make it much more difficult to reach a roster of representatives that all sides can agree on before heading into negotiations. And as long as talks on a power-sharing agreement in Syria remain elusive, the foreign sponsors of the Syrian civil war will be dealing with an increasingly complex battlefield.

 

Analysis

Amid the flurry of activity that has occurred in the United Kingdom Parliament since the Conservative government was elected with a majority in May, one measure passed on Oct. 22 that perhaps did not receive the attention it deserved: the “English Votes for English Laws” (EVEL) law.

Coming as a direct result of last year’s Scottish independence referendum, perhaps commentators felt the subject had been exhausted. Nevertheless, EVEL has the potential to be just as important for the United Kingdom’s fate as the referendum itself, since it moves the political system one step further in devolution of power.

Since its formation as a union in 1707, the United Kingdom has struggled with rebellious elements in its more remote regions. Scottish highlanders rebelled more than once in the 18th century, and in the 19th century Ireland demanded its independence and eventually won it in the 20th century. The problems of secessionism have continued into recent decades. EVEL was designed as an attempt to resolve a resulting issue that has been tugging at the United Kingdom’s parliamentary sleeve for many years. Known as the “West Lothian question,” the issue emerged in the 19th century when Ireland was embarking on its course to independence, but resurfaced again in 1977 during discussions about devolving power to Scotland and Wales. Under the suggested new system, Scotland and Wales would gain some independent control over some of their own domestic administration, while Scottish and Welsh parliament members in London would still have full voting powers over all the national laws involving the entire United Kingdom, though England would lack an equivalent power. The parliament member for West Lothian, Tam Dalyell, asked how it was fair that Scottish and Welsh parliament members should have a say over English laws while English parliament members were not afforded an equal influence to the north and west of the border.

The referendum that followed the discussions did not lead to devolution, putting the problem on hold for two decades, but it returned in 1997 when another referendum returned a positive result and the Scotland Act saw the creation of a Scottish parliament in 1999. The West Lothian question has thus been in play for the last 16 years, but to a small enough degree that the “unfairness” has been tolerable. This is because the powers afforded to the Scottish parliament have been somewhat limited, and with England making up 84 percent of the United Kingdom’s population and Scotland just 8 percent, English parliament members had influence over such an overwhelming proportion of the laws passed in the United Kingdom as a whole that the discrepancy could be overlooked.

 

However, the Scottish referendum of 2014 changed the situation. As the referendum approached its climax, the polls began to show an increasing likelihood that the “Out” vote might win, prompting senior members of the Westminster government to rush up to Scotland to hurriedly improve the devolution terms on offer should the Scots choose “In,” which they ultimately did. The terms offered to the Scots appear to have tipped this mildly unbalanced situation into a pronounced enough disequilibrium that the day after the vote, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would finally address the West Lothian question as part of the new deal offered to the Scots to reassure English voters.

The EVEL law is the result of that promise. Under the new rules, the speaker of the British Parliament will decide whether or not a new law should be considered “English” — for example, if it does not touch the other three members of the union. Once a law has been labeled as English, it will then be considered only by English parliament members in a separate session, cutting the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliament members out of the voting before adding them all back in later on in the process. This system is in place now and will be reviewed after a year.

It is a flawed solution for several reasons. First, it politicizes the position of the speaker, who will now have to decide whether or not Scottish parliament members are allowed to vote on a matter; historically, the Labour Party has had many more Scottish parliament members than the Conservatives have. Moreover, removing the influence of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliament members over English matters also removes from them a great deal of influence over the overall workings of Westminster, since England is such a substantial part of the whole. Thus it becomes much harder for a Scottish parliament member to become prime minister (Gordon Brown, a Scot, was Cameron’s predecessor as prime minister), since it would be difficult for a prime minister to rule while locked out of at least some of the domestic vote for 84 percent of the country. Because it diminishes the chances of someone from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland getting the top job, EVEL surely will have a corrosive effect on the subnational members’ loyalty to the union as a whole. Members of the Scottish National Party already have loudly denounced the development.

But if this is not a sustainable plan, what is the solution? In Scotland, Britain has to cope with a union member that is demanding ever more powers and autonomy if it is to remain part of the union. EVEL is evidence of the existing system being stretched into contortions in an attempt to accommodate this. The systemic shift that would appear to be the ultimate end goal, and the one toward which EVEL might be a step, is outright federalism: a U.S.- or German-style system in which power is devolved in equal terms to all the underlying states, which are overseen by a federal government that combines the considerations of all its members.

The problem is that unlike Germany and the United States, the United Kingdom is not made up of a sizable number of reasonably equal-sized states (with some outliers); it would instead be a four-state union that would be utterly dominated by the largest — England. A federal government leader, such as a president, would have to cope with an English state government whose leader would represent 84 percent of the president’s total purview. The power balance between these two figures would be such that any foreign leader would surely be confused as to which person to call to address the true power in the United Kingdom. In addition, unlike Germany and the United States, the United Kingdom has real and significant separatist problems.

Thus a federal solution does not appear to be the answer, and the solution that has emerged looks set to drive Britain’s smaller nations further away from the center, creating more problems for the union. Before the referendum, the Scottish Nationalist Party stated that the vote would settle the matter for a generation, but the strong undercurrents that have emerged partly as a result of the referendum have caused the party to reconsider, and given an opportunity it is likely that the Scots will begin to lobby hard for a rerun of the vote. The United Kingdom may have escaped losing Scotland a year ago, but the prevailing currents continue to push against the bonds that tie the union together. The EVEL law is just another symptom of the trend.

For most strategic planners, space represents the ultimate high ground. In the same way that control of the skies added a new dimension to combat in the great wars of the 20th century, the military exploitation of space will be a defining characteristic of the 21st century.

German rocket technology propelled the first unmanned systems into space during the latter stages of World War II. These systems traveled beyond the Karman line — the commonly accepted boundary between Earth and space, at around 100 kilometers altitude (62 miles). From the late 1950s onward, the ability to routinely launch manned and unmanned systems into orbit heralded a new era of competition between the Soviet bloc and the West, led by the United States. As the Cold War progressed, the utilization of the near-Earth environment shaped a new strategic aspect to the conflict and added another battlefield in which the world’s superpowers could compete.

In the standoff between the post-war powers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were the only weapons to enter space. They were projected on an arc that took them beyond the Earth’s atmosphere before deploying warheads carried by re-entry vehicles to their targets. There were no existing defensive systems that could be stationed in space or close enough to ensure the destruction of the ballistic missiles themselves or of their deadly payloads. The development, staging and maintenance of space-based weapons and bases was untenable at the time, so treaties limiting what could be done in Earth’s immediate vicinity were relatively uncontroversial and easy to pass.

These pacts also hoped to address some of the prevalent fears of the time, including concerns about nuclear explosions in space and about debris descending back to Earth. U.N.-brokered regulations were based on existing Cold War technologies, capabilities and expectations, influenced by the fact that emerging space law was particularly ambiguous. Therefore, existing international law considers the lowest perigee attainable by an orbiting craft: Anything in orbit is taken to be in international space, and anything not orbiting is accepted to be in national airspace. The problem with legal ambiguity, however, is the extent to which gray areas can be exploited for gain.

Yet, as technology improved and countries’ strategic imperatives evolved, so did the consideration given to the domination of space. The announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1983 was heavily criticized, but it proved that the logical evolution of missile defense involved orbital platforms as well as ground-based systems. Although the initiative — known by its more popular moniker Star Wars — did not reach fruition, the United States still achieved global military superiority in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In achieving military dominance, the United States came to increasingly rely on space-based infrastructure to wage war. While Washington adhered to the prohibition on placing offensive weapons — including kinetic kill systems, directed energy weapons platforms and missile-carrying satellites — in space permanently, the United States installed a huge portion of its electronic networking capability in orbit, enabling it to intervene in conflicts around the globe. Military satellites were the lynchpin of a network-centric approach to operations, comprising command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance structures, better known as C4ISR. The evolution of C4ISR coincided with the advent of precision-guided munitions and the drone revolution, enabling the free movement of near real-time data. Everything from GPS, early warning monitoring, weather tracking, tactical and strategic communications, and full-spectrum intelligence gathering is facilitated through the United States’ expansive network of military satellites.

However, the U.S. military is not the sole operator of space-based infrastructure. Countries with advanced space programs, such as China, Russia, Israel, Japan and some NATO alliance members, all rely on some military space-based capability. And the trend is only increasing. As much as the United States leads the field, however, it is increasingly reliant on its space-based systems — of which a significant percentage are highly vulnerable and largely indefensible. This vulnerability has not escaped the notice of the United States’ biggest competitors. By finding a way to disable space-based systems, a potential antagonist could disconnect the multiple interlocking U.S. military systems, plunging it into information darkness and delivering a critical blow ahead of any physical strike — and to do so would not violate any existing space treaty.

Emerging Threats

The single biggest example of this threat to U.S. military orbital systems comes from China. A progression of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests carried out over the past few years has alarmed the Pentagon. Though there are still limitations to the effectiveness of ground-based anti-satellite weapons — namely the tracking and accuracy requirements, given the speed, size and altitude of satellites — the technology is rapidly advancing. For countries that are still developing militarily, there is a strong incentive to pursue anti-satellite technology in the hope it could neutralize or disrupt one of the greatest advantages that the United States has: its C4ISR infrastructure.

Most other countries do not have the same vulnerabilities as the United States, which makes it difficult for Washington to impose the kind of retaliatory deterrence structure that worked so well during the nuclear arms race. In other words, the United States cannot use the threat of disabling other countries’ space-based communications infrastructure to prevent attacks because other countries do not rely as heavily on the technology. So U.S. Space Command faces a conundrum: How does it cover what is a largely exposed and defenseless flank?

Perhaps partly because of concerns over Chinese anti-satellite tests — the most recent of which was conducted Oct. 30 — the Pentagon has recently started to talk about “space control.” And the shift in language could indicate a change to the U.S. defense approach. Washington knows that to be proactive may mean stepping beyond the boundaries of the Outer Space Treaty, and the move would not be without precedent: Reagan showed a willingness to overstep the treaty with his Star Wars program, though he was ultimately stalled because of a lack of political will and technological capability.

The Space Race

As Washington works to secure its orbital technology, it also realizes that competitors are catching up. This is not to say that the U.S. military has been negligent in developing and expanding its capabilities. The United States leads the field in ballistic missile defense (BMD), and many of its maturing systems are designed to operate outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. The United States also dominates space-tracking infrastructure: Being able to see other countries’ space-based systems is beneficial from both a defensive and offensive perspective.

The U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has the ability to reach into space and to attack ICBMs in the middle of their flight trajectory. A key component of GMD is something known as an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which separates from its boost vehicle in space and collides with an incoming projectile. This technology does not violate existing space treaties but is revealing of the way military planners — and the defense industries that serve them — are thinking.

Regulation and enforcement is not clear, but the trend is. As militaries around the globe expand their capabilities, so will they increase their reliance on space-based systems. Thus space will become increasingly militarized. The push to expand, occupy and dominate space will eventually erode the efficacy of the current treaty structures set in place decades ago. Currently, all space-based military infrastructure supports terrestrial operations. But long-term considerations about the eventual exploitation of resources in the broader solar system factor into current debates. When space exploration and the collection and refinement of resources become economically feasible, competition will inevitably ensue.

History tells us that such opportunities for resources rarely go smoothly or unchallenged, though deep-sea mining shows us that peaceful competition is possible. Still, generally, competition on Earth has led to perpetual conflict and military posturing, so it is logical that competition for resources elsewhere could inevitably lead to more conflict and could necessitate the ability to project military power there in one form or another. Closer to home, we can look to the opening of the Arctic for comparison: There is no clear precedent for ownership, there are mineral resources present, and only certain countries have the technological know-how to explore and exploit such an inhospitable environment. Countries have already staked their claims and military posturing has begun. As the ability to capture the riches of the solar system becomes more viable, it is highly likely that similar disputes will emerge in the more forbidding environment of space.

A key goal of this week’s visit to Israel by French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron was to lure Jewish investors and high-tech talent back to France, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

Indeed, during his visit in Israel, the French economy minister tried to convince young graduates and entrepreneurs who left France for Israel to return to France. It is exactly this kind of entrepreneurs that the French economy desperately needs, analyzed the Wall Street Journal.

It is a cruel dilemma for the French government. In recent years, Israel “has become the refuge for the kind of talent that the second largest economy in the euro zone needs: Young Entrepreneurs specialized in the  high-tech sectors,” suggests The Wall Street Journal.  This Exile is due not only to Israel prowess to attract young entrepreneurs but also  because anti-Semitism is gaining ground in France. Not to mention “chronic rigidity of the French education system and framework,” the newspaper said.

A France without Jews would be a disaster
The French economy minister was visiting Israel from September 6 to 8, where he met with students and entrepreneurs, including the Israel Institute of Technology. “A large part of his mission was to convince Jewish investors and talents to return to France”, notes the Wall Street Journal. Last year, 6,961 French Jews left for Israel – two times more than in 2013 – and 36% of these emigrants had a diploma of higher education. These significant departures “deprive [France’s] future business leaders and investors, while the economy is struggling with low growth and double-digit unemployment,” analyzes the American newspaper.

Culture of failure

Israel has become a model for governments around the world, with its policy of aggressive subsidies for young companies. And even if Paris is well placed in the race for talent, with effective measures for start-ups, “young people who join Israel go there for something that France can not offer them the spirit tranquilllité , “the Wall Street Journal.

The daily quoted one hand the attacks against Jews occurred recently (notably the killing of Hyper Kosher in Paris), but also the “culture of failure” in France: “In France, young entrepreneurs fear the stigma associated with failure. ”

In Israel, employers and investors view early failure as a valuable learning experience, émigrés say, while it can be viewed as career-ending in France.

For the Jews of France, everything changed
Emmanuel Macron tried to reassure safety for Jews in France, and mentioned government programs to support young companies that have failed. His speech could have paid off, says the Wall Street Journal, citing a young French arrived in Israel a year ago: “What he said is strong, because he understands what is happening. I am now Israel, but I will always be French. “