Voiceless: why millions of Americans won’t be able to vote on November 8

by David Kavanagh

Following months of incessant campaigning by this year’s presidential candidates, registered American voters will make their way to the ballot box this Tuesday to finally decide who will replace outgoing president Barack Obama from next year on.

With the race to the White House close and controversial, supporters from both sides of the partisan divide have been urging people to vote since early voting stations started opening their doors last month.

In America, voting is not compulsory.

Previous election years have seen particularly poor voter turnout as a result. In 2012, the numbers stood at under 55% of the eligible population, or around 4% less than in 2008.

Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton addresses a rally at Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio. 2016. Source: Timothy A. Clary/ AFP/ Getty

But these statistics can be misleading. While political apathy or general laziness can be in part to blame for the lack, the truth is that millions of Americans cannot register to vote to begin with.

“If instead of looking at Americans over 18 that vote you consider the share of registered voters who show up on election day, the US jumps from 30th place among 34 developed countries [in voter turnout ranking] to sixth,” writes The Guardian’s Mona Chalabi.

“There is a simple reason for this: a lot of adults in the US simply cannot register to vote. And their absence will affect this presidential election.”

Criminal disenfranchisement
An estimated 6.1 million adults have had their right to vote taken away due to criminal convictions as of this year, a figure that has risen drastically since the mid 1970s.

In the US, convicted individuals can continue to suffer ‘collateral consequences’ after they have completed their original sentences, resulting in some people never having their right to vote fully restored, among other legal restrictions.

In a number of states, such as Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, this ban is complete and permanent, and results in what opponents often refer to as a form of ‘civil death’ that makes it difficult for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society after serving their terms.

A disproportionate amount of people affected by this system of punishment also belong to minority groups, with one in three adults with criminal convictions being African American.

Restrictive voting laws
In June 2013, the Supreme Court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional and struck it down, effectively weakening the entire Act.

Since then, 14 states have introduced new voting restrictions and strict voter identification laws that both make it harder to register to vote and limit early voting.

Again, in some cases this has been found to hit minority communities unfairly, with some states, like North Carolina, implementing restrictions that were found to specifically suppress the vote of African Americans

NAACP members protest as North Carolina legislators debate a ‘discriminatory’ voter ID law. April 2013. Source: Gerry Broome/Associated Press

Unauthorised migrants
According to Human Rights Watch’s Antonio Ginatta, over 20 million unauthorised migrants have lived in the US for at least 20 years.

In that time, they have been provided with no avenues by which to legalise their status and register to vote.

A further 728,000 who came to America as children have lived there for five or more years and are therefore eligible to legally remain and work in the country under a program implemented by the Obama administration.

Despite this, they still cannot become citizens or access the right to vote that comes with it.

Minorities unheard
It goes without saying that a large proportion of those who cannot vote on November 8th belong to a minority group. Their limited representation may ultimately be felt in the election results.

“These groups all have one thing in common,” writes Mr Ginatta.

“Those who cannot vote in November, for one reason or another, are disproportionately Black or Latino. Whoever takes the reins of US government in November should work to end unreasonable restrictions on voting rights.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter 

Brussels Attacks: everything we know so far

by David Kavanagh

Today, between approximately 8am and 9am local time, a series of explosions ripped through the Belgium capital of Brussels in what Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel has described as a “cowardly” attack and “black moment” for the nation.

This comes days following raids in the neighbourhood of Molenbeek which led to the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, the suspected ringleader behind last November’s terror attacks in Paris, and four others.

While the numbers may rise in the coming hours and days, current confirmed figures put casualties at 34 dead and over 230 injured, with 14 killed in two blasts at Zaventem airport (one of which may have involved a suicide bomber) and 20 killed in a third bombing at Maelbeek metro station.

Two women sit on chairs after being injured during the Zaventem airport blasts. Source: Facebook/ Ketevan Kardava

Witness accounts, photographs and video footage from both locations portray scenes of mass confusion and chaos, with some people having apparently lost limbs in the explosions.

Others, such as airport baggage security officer Alphonse Lyoura, have said they heard gunfire (according to local media) and men shouting in Arabic before the first detonation

As public transport throughout Belgium grinds to a halt, the twittersphere has lit up with people in Belgium using the hashtag #ikwillhelpen (translating to: “I want to help”) to offer shelter for those stranded.

The Belgian Taxi Drivers Union has additionally urged its driver to provide free transportation where they can.

At the same time, while major cities around the world ramp up security, Belgian anti-terror police are conducting house searches throughout regions near the capital.

The Prime Minister and Belgium crisis centre have urged civilians across the country to remain indoors.

5:10 GMT UPDATE:
Islamic State officially claims responsibility for the Brussels attacks, according to a news agency associated with the extremist group, while a third bomb found at Zaventem airport has been detonated in a controlled explosion.

While Belgium’s King Philippe prepares to make a televised address to the nation at 7pm local time, many world leaders have already condemned Tuesday’s violence and vowed to continue in their shared commitment to end terrorism on an international scale.

A joint statement from EU members has also been released.

“The European Union and its member states stand firm with Belgium in solidarity and are determined to face this threat together with all necessary means,” it reads.

“This latest attack only strengthens our resolve to defend the European values and tolerance from the attacks of the intolerant.”

As investigations continue, federal prosecutors have released a photo captured from CCTV footage showing three men they believe to have been involved with the attack at the airport.

While it is thought the two men on the left of the photograph blew themselves up, the man in white is wanted by police.

The man in white (right) is the subject of federal police inquiry.

As shock and anger continues to take the globe by storm, UN official Amin Awad has criticised people for taking their grievances out on asylum seekers fleeing violence in places such as Syria.

“To lump everybody together and say refugees are posing a security risk, that is not true,” he said.

“Any sort of hostilities [toward refugees] because of the Brussels attack or Paris attack is misplaced.”

Rushed calls for tighter airport security have also been discouraged by leading aviation security expert Phillip Baum.

“It’s ultimately down to looking for people with negative intent and we have to do that without creating new security hurdles that create new targets, such as checkpoints at the entrance to terminals,” he said.

Although Belgium’s terror threat level remains at Level 4, denoting the potential for “serious and imminent attack”, officials have stated civilians do not necessarily need to stay indoors any longer.

For live updates, check out coverage by the BBC, The Guardian, or Politico. This page will also be edited as events unfold.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Overpriced tuberculosis drug unavailable to countries needing it most: MSF

by David Kavanagh

A promising tuberculosis drug that has had approval for usage for over 2 years and could effectively treat over 300000 newly infected people has only been utilized in 180 cases, according to medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

In a statement released last week, the group criticised Japanese pharmaceutical company Otsuka for overpricing its experimental drug delamanid and not doing enough to ensure the most vulnerable have access.

Tuberculosis (TB) is one the world’s deadliest diseases, killing an estimated three people per minute and infecting approximately one third of the global population. It is also the leading killer of people diagnosed with HIV.

A TB patient in Daru Hospital, Papua New Guinea, where TB is nearly an epidemic. Source: Philippe Schneider/ World Vision

As one of only two TB drug treatments developed and made available in the past 50 years, the other being Johnson and Johnson’s bedaquiline, delamanid is said to be potent against some of the most lethal strains of the disease, including multidrug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB.

Otsuka currently provides the drug, which has to be taken alongside other costly medicines, to a handful of countries for US$1700 per treatment course.

TB advisor for MSF’s Access Campaign Dr Grania Brigden said most governments, especially those in the developing world, deem this pricing unaffordable.

Furthermore, Otsuka has to date registered the drug in only four countries, including Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, all of which house a very low number of drug-resistant TB cases.

“Otsuka should prioritise expanding access for people whose lives could be saved by delamanid,” said Dr Bridgen

“The price for delamanid needs to come down to an affordable level, and Otsuka should also register delamanid quickly in all countries where the drug has been tested… [and] in countries with the highest burdens of drug-resistant TB.”

Surprised by MSF’s criticisms, Communications director for Otsuka’s global TB program Marc Destito said Otsuka needed MSF, which has been treating multidrug-resistant TB since 1999, to work alongside it in order to improve the situation.

“The price of delamanid was mutually agreed with the Global Drug Facility (GDF) and is the lowest price that we can offer to cover our high manufacturing costs,” he said.

A patient diagnosed with TB holds his x-ray picture. Kyrgyzstan. Source: Helmut Wachter/ 13photo

“We are trying to create a sustainable business model to try to entice more companies to get involved in the neglected disease area.

“We are actively working to register delamanid in high-burden countries including Russia, India, China and South Africa but there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome.

“Some countries are not part of GDF, others do not allow special importation of drugs and some lack the regulatory capacity to deal with the processes.”

Last week, Otsuka signed a deal with the Stop TB Partnership, an international body that aims to coordinate various actors in the fight against TB, and cited a desire to increase access to low and middle-income countries.

A public-private partnership between the two groups would include a variety of services designed to assist with the incorporation of delamanid into existing national healthcare programs.

Only countries following relevant WHO guidelines and eligible for financing by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria would be included in this.

MSF’s HIV and TB policy advisor Sharonann Lynch told the Pharma Letter the agreement would mean very little if the drug remained too expensive and inaccessible.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Tax havens a major contributor to rising inequality: Oxfam

by David Kavanagh 

The use of tax havens by hundreds of multinational corporations worldwide is one of the main causes of rising global inequality, according to a recent 44-page report by international not-for-profit Oxfam.

Based on research by economist Gabriel Zucman, An Economy for the 1% reveals that corporate tax-dodging costs developing countries at least $100 billion annually.

In an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, Oxfam International’s executive director Winnie Byanyima called on the international community to step up its effort at curbing tax avoidance and bridging the extreme wealth gaps between the world’s rich and poor.

The Tondo slum sits just beyond high-rise buildings in Manila, Philippines. 2014. Source: Dewald Brand/ Oxfam

“Trickle-down economics is a fallacy… the rich can no longer pretend their wealth benefits the rest of us,” she wrote.

“Our governments – which are meant to represent our interests – need to shun the vested interests of the richest by stopping the race to the bottom on tax and pulling back the curtains on shady financial dealings.

“If inequality is not dealt with, we could see more social unrest across the world, a brake on growth and all the work that has been done in the last quarter-century on poverty halted – potentially reversed.”

Wealth gaps widening
Last year, the World Bank announced that global extreme poverty had fallen from 29% in 1999 to under 10% (or about 702 million people living below the line) in 2015.

But while poverty has generally decreased, the world’s wealth has risen drastically, and inequality is higher than it has ever been.

In 2010, 388 individuals possessed as much wealth as the world’s poorest 50% (or 3.6 billion people by today’s population).

Only five years later, that number substantially decreased to 62 individuals owning the same amount.

Furthermore, by Oxfam’s estimates, if the gap between rich and poor had not widened as drastically as it did between 1990 and 2010, an additional 200 million may have also escaped poverty, bringing the stats down more so.

What are tax havens? How do they contribute to global inequality?
Put simply, tax havens are financial institutions, shelters, shell companies or offshore accounts that corporations and individuals can use to store their funds in (at least on paper) without having to pay national taxes within other countries.

They exist in places such as the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg and are used by at least 350 multinational corporations (according to the 2014 Luxleaks), including business giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Starbucks, and Walt Disney to name a few.

At present, approximately $7.6 trillion of individual’s wealth sits in tax haven accounts offshore, a sum that would generate about $190 billion if it were subject to taxation.

The United States government alone would be owed around $620 billion worth of federal taxes if its biggest 500 corporations were not keeping a further $2.1 trillion of wealth overseas.

A tall statue representing Uncle Sam stands outside a tax preparation office. Queens, NY. April 14, 2014. Source: Anthony Behar/Sipa USA

These numbers may increase even more – between 2000 and 2014, corporate investment in tax havens expanded.

While defenders of tax havens say they facilitate a smoother flow of capital around the globe, opponents argue that when corporations work around taxes and financial regulations put in place by governments, the less fortunate are generally affected the most.

According to Oxfam US policy director Gawain Kripke, this is because the large loss of funds that results from already wealthy corporations avoiding taxes deprives governments of revenue needed to provide basic services that could benefit the wider population.

“It’s starving key programs that help everybody, but especially poor people, get on their feet,” Mr Kripke said.

“This is true in both rich and poor countries, but you see it most acutely where poor countries have no health care system, where large numbers of students are either getting no education or a very poor quality education.

“That’s where it becomes a moral issue.”

Furthermore, since so many firms aren’t paying their fair share, ordinary people are required to shoulder the burden and pay increased taxes from their own wallets.

What is to be done?
Efforts to mitigate the severe consequences of tax avoidance have already started with the international community enshrining their opposition to inequality and poverty in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals and G20 nations agreeing to some measures to make tax-dodging more difficult.

According to Mrs Byanyima, however, a lot more has to be done.

This week, Oxfam representatives will be attending the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland to pressure governments and firms to “play their part”, a seemingly important venture given that nine out of 10 WEF partners exist in at least one tax haven themselves.

“The second order challenge is how to create black lists and pressure on tax havens to at least be more transparent,” said Mr Kripke.

“If not to shut it down, to make it more difficult or impossible to use strategies that many wealthy people and corporations are using to avoid taxes.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Tensions rising: the South China Sea dispute explained

by David Kavanagh

Saturday’s first-time landing of a Chinese civilian airplane on one of Beijing’s newly constructed island runways in the South China Sea has added more fuel to ongoing tensions about the disputed Indochinese region.

The 3000 metre runway, located on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly archipelago, is one of three runways China has been building in the area in an attempt to support its expansive ownership claims over the territory.

This has occurred despite continuing outcry from rival nations claiming varying degrees of sovereignty in the region.

While these disputes have effectively been going on for centuries now, it is only recently that tensions have rapidly increased, prompting the US to get involved over concerns the friction could have global consequences.

What’s the dispute all about?
Contesting nations, including China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Phillipines, and Malaysia, have all claimed differing levels of territorial ownership and sovereignty over certain areas in the South China Sea.

Source: UNCLOS and CIA

This includes particular ocean segments, two island chains known as the Paracels and the Spratlys, and a host of other small islands, outcrops, sandbanks, atolls, and reefs, like the Scarborough Shoal (referred to as Huangyan Island in China).

What’s so special about the South China Sea?
The South China Sea acts as a vital commercial gateway for a substantial portion of global merchant shipping.

Since over $5 trillion worth of  world trade passes through the sea annually, control over the area could be of great strategic and lucrative economic benefit to whoever controls it.

The believed existence of large oil, gas and mineral reserves in the largely uninhabited Spratly and Paracel archipelagos, in addition to rich fishing grounds supplying the livelihoods of many in the sea itself, is another motivation for claimants.

For nation states geographically outside of the immediate Indochinese subregion, the South China Sea is important because conflict in the area could impact the international system.

The US specifically, concerned about potential impeded passage to commercial shipping, has worked to condemn attempts to limit freedom of navigation in the area.

While its attempts at mitigation are aimed at all claimants, the US, as the arguably declining world hegemon, is also expressly worried about the growth of Chinese influence in Asia and its military strength generally.

Following the landing of the civilian airplane near Fiery Cross Reef, analysts and foreign officials warned that a rising Chinese military presence in the area could potentially result in the creation of a strategically-located Chinese air defence zone.

Construction at the Fiery Cross Reef, April 2015. Source: CNES

By extension, future conflict concerning the South China Sea could also affect Washington’s relationship with China generally, putting at stake bilateral and multilateral cooperation regarding issues like terrorism, epidemics, climate change, and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.

Who claims what, and why?
In claiming an area defined by the “nine-dash-line”, stretching hundreds of miles from south to east, China has made by far the largest claim in the region.

In 1947, it issued a map that allegedly shows the Paracel and Spratly island chains falling squarely within China’s territorial bounds.

As such, the Chinese government believes it has a historically-backed right to a large portion of the area. Taiwan mirrors these claims.

Vietnam severely contests this, instead declaring that alternative historical documents show that it has had control over both the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos since the 17th Century.

The Phillipines has also made different territorial claims, the most prominent of which is a claim over the Scarborough Shoal.

Furthermore, Malaysia and Brunei also believe some areas fall into their territorial umbrella, basing their assertions on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which establishes various laws and measures intended to chart out economic rights relating to land and sea ownership.

What conflict has occurred as a result?
The most serious escalations in conflict in the region have been between China, Vietnam and the Phillipines.

In 1974, Beijing physically seized the Paracels from Vietnam in an operation that resulted in the deaths of over 70 Vietnamese soldiers.

Over a decade later, in 1988, the neighbouring nations clashed once again in the Spratlys, leading to the loss of about 60 Vietnamese sailors.

Throughout 2012, China engaged in a number of stand-offs and disputes with both Vietnam and the Phillipines, some of which regarded the Scarborough Shoal and the Paracels.

Manila accuses China of increasing its military presence in the region. Source: AP

In late 2012, anti-China protests erupted throughout Vietnam following yet unverified claims that China’s navy had sabotaged two of the country’s exploration operations.

In 2013, the Philippine government stated it would take China to a UN tribunal to challenge its claims, using UNCLOS to back it up. While this hasn’t taken full form yet, China would not be legally bound by any decision made by the UN.

Further collisions between Vietnamese and Chinese ships occurred in 2014 when Beijing introduced drilling rigs into the waters near the Paracel chains.

2015 and onwards:
Satellite images obtained in April 2015 ostensibly showed China constructing an airstrip on reclaimed parts of the Spratly archipelago.

Five months later in October, China warned the US to “not act blindly or make trouble out of nothing” after a US guided-missile destroyer entered the seas near the artificial islands in an attempt to assert freedom of navigation.

The US intends to continue to organise such operations to ensure freedom of movement isn’t limited.

This latest report of a civilian airplane landing on the Fiery Cross Reef runway shows China’s controversial plans to build up various facilities, such as airstrips, to back its ownership claims are right on schedule.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Turning the tide: why the victory in Ramadi matters

by David Kavanagh

Earlier this week, following months of intensive preparation, Iraq’s armed forces successfully recaptured the western city of Ramadi from the Islamic State militants who had held it since May.

The vital offensive saw members of the Iraqi military and allied militias, supported by a campaign of US-led airstrikes, meticulously clear the city of an estimated 400 IS fighters while avoiding complex networks of booby traps, IEDs, human shields, and other forms of resistance.

In so doing, Iraq has won what analysts are calling its first major victory against the violent extremist group since it began terrorising the region in mid-2014 in an effort to create its own Sharia-governed “caliphate” (or state).

Victory in Ramadi was declared on Monday. Source: AFP/ Ahmad al-Rybaye

Since last summer, IS has already lost a number of Iraqi towns and cities, such as Sinjar and Tikrit, and is also on the defensive in neighbouring Syria where Kurdish Peshmerga forces are pushing the group back.

However, the liberation of Ramadi is of particularly great strategic significance for a number of reasons.

Ramadi: the vein of Baghdad
Located in the Euphrates river valley in Iraq’s west, the city of Ramadi is the capital of primarily Sunni Muslim Anbar province, the second largest province in the nation.

Referred to by some experts as the “vein of Baghdad”, Ramadi is in close proximity and grants access to the borders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria (and by extension Raqqa, IS’ main stronghold in the latter), as well as the Iraqi cities of Baghdad, holy Shiite Karbala, and IS-held Fallujah.

In a propaganda tape released after IS initially took Ramadi back in May, its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stated that their next targets would be Karbala and Baghdad.

Evidently, Ramadi’s central position gives whoever controls it a crucial strategic advantage in the ongoing war.

Not only can Iraqi forces now sever some connections between different IS-dominated locales, but it can also launch further offences in the surrounding area.

A much-needed confidence boost
Prior to the victory in Ramadi, the Iraqi military and its allies had suffered a list of humiliating defeats in the battle against IS, losing the cities of Tikrit and Mosul and substantial territory in Anbar in 2014.

In Mosul specifically, two divisions of Iraq’s army, numbering 30,000 men, were routed by only 800 IS extremists.

As the conflict that has so far killed thousands and displaced around 3.2 million civilians continued, trust in the authority of a government that had already been marred by deep sectarian division and corruption fell drastically.

In fact, in many locations, the militant group have used local dissatisfaction and pre-existing conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims to recruit new fighters. 

While success in Ramadi may not completely turn around public opinion in itself, it provides a breath of much-needed optimism for the country going into next year.

Following news of the victory, people all across Iraq waved Iraqi flags in celebration.

Celebrations in Baghdad following the Ramadi victory. December 28, 2015. Source: Getty Images/ Haydar Hadi

Where to now?
With US Secretary of State John Kerry committing continued US support, Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has already vowed to rid the nation of IS entirely in 2016, starting with the northern city of Mosul.

“If 2015 was a year of liberation, 2016 will be the year of great victories, terminating the presence of Daesh [another name for IS] in Iraq and Mesopotamia,” he said in a televised address.

“We are coming to liberate Mosul, which will be the fatal blow to Daesh.”

In an exclusive interview with Reuters, Iraq’s Finance Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the successful capture of Mosul, the largest population centre currently controlled by IS, would effectively mark the end of the group’s caliphate in Iraq.

However, this cannot be achieved without the help of the Peshmerga, the armed forces of the autonomous northern region of Iraqi Kurdistan.

A Kurdish Peshmerga fighter launches mortar shells towards IS-controlled Zummar, near Mosul. September 15, 2014. Source: Reuters/Ahmed Jadallah

“Mosul needs good planning, preparations, commitment from all the key players,” Mr Zebari  said in Baghdad on Monday.

“Peshmerga is a major force; you cannot do Mosul without Peshmerga.”

While concise planning of the next military action is vital, it is also important that effort is put into rebuilding areas already liberated.

Coordination with local police forces and tribal leaders will be necessary to help displaced families return to their homes and to ensure locations remain secure in the future.

Read further: Iraq’s battle for Ramadi isn’t just about defeating Islamic State by The Conversation.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Modi visits Pakistan: a step towards peace?

by David Kavanagh

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise stop in Pakistan on Friday to discuss bilateral ties with his counterpart Nawaz Sharif at his estate East of Lahore.

In so doing, Mr Modi became the first Indian premier in about a decade to visit the country with which India has quarrelled since Britain officially left that part of the world in 1947.

While a scheduled official meeting between the two leaders was cancelled last August following ceasefire violations along their borders, high level talks were partially resumed during a short interaction at last month’s climate talks in Paris.

Indian PM Narendra Modi meets Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore. Source: European Pressphoto Agency

Expanding on this, Mr Modi’s decision to physically visit Pakistan on his way home from Russia is being viewed by some as a welcome step towards warming relations between the nuclear-armed neighbour states.

A spokesman for Mr Sharif said their more intimate hour-long meeting involved a discussion about a diversity of bilateral issues, among which is the disputed Kashmir region that has historically caused the most conflict between the two nations.

A Hindu nationalist, Mr Modi rose to power in May 2014 partly on the promise that he would offer a harder approach towards Pakistan.

Following his election he gave security forces greater license to retaliate forcefully to incursions along the Kashmir divide.

Skeptical oppositional groups have decried Mr Modi’s visit to Pakistan as inappropriate and irresponsible.

Opposition Congress Party leader Manish Tewari said nothing in the relationship between the two countries had changed on-the-ground to warrant attempts at peace.

“If the decision is not preposterous, it is utterly ridiculous,” he said.

An activist alights a picture of PM Narendra Modi after hearing about his stop in Pakistan. Source: Chandan Khanna

In recent months, Pakistan has been accused of both supporting terrorism in India and funding Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

Just prior to visiting Pakistan, Mr Modi visited Kabul and pledged to support the war-torn country in an effort to foster regional peace.

“India is here to contribute, not to compete; to lay the foundation of the future, not light the flame of conflict,” he said.

The India-Pakistan feud in context:
Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan have been engaged in a bitter and complex rivalry since 1947, when British colonial India was partitioned into the two separate states as part of the independence process.

Since then, the countries have engaged in three major wars and a multitude of other skirmishes and diplomatic disputes, many of which have been centred around one particular flashpoint: the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

While a back-and-forth, ever-escalating conflict over this area has always been a mainstay of the history of India-Pakistan relations, the dispute took especially severe shape in 1965, when a border war along the Line of Control of Kashmir erupted.

The Kashmir region is divided along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. Source: AFP/ Getty Images

This was concluded with a UN brokered ceasefire in the same year which, along with the Simla (or Shimla) peace accord in 1972, made it seem like violence over the region would eventually dissipate.

This was not the case, however, and the situation in Kashmir has gone through convoluted ebbs and flows in escalation since, complicated even more so by the growing Islamic militant groups carrying out insurgent attacks on Indian territory.

The 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, which killed approximately 166 people, was carried out by militants that had been trained in Pakistan.

Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the apparent mastermind behind the attack, was freed from a Pakistani prison earlier this year, prompting mass public outcry and further tension with India.

For a far more detailed account of the history of the India-Pakistan feud, check out Al Jazeera’s in-depth timeline here.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Brunei, Somalia, Tajikistan: the countries that banned Christmas

by David Kavanagh

As a majority of the world waits in festive anticipation for Christmas to come about once again, a few would-be celebrants in at least three countries so far are not quite as lucky.

The populations of Brunei, Somalia, and Tajikistan this year face severe government-enforced bans on any form of celebration relating to the Christian holiday.

While this is by no means the first instance of anti-Christmas sentiments and restrictions on yuletide revelry emerging, here’s a closer look at what exactly is going on this time.

Brunei
Last year, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, one of the richest men in the world, introduced Sharia law to the tiny, oil-rich nation of Brunei.

Met with far-reaching condemnation from many international human rights organisations, the country, which sits neatly on a small corner of the island of Borneo, became the first in South-East Asia to be officially governed by strict Islamic doctrine.

Fearing that the Christian holiday of Christmas could negatively impact Muslims throughout the sultanate, religious leaders this month declared that any festivities, other than those hosted by Christians in a non-excessive or open manner, would be met with punishment.

Brunei’s all-powerful Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah introduced Sharia law last year. Source: Ahim Rani/ Reuters

Christians make up about 9% of Brunei’s 430,000 citizens.

“Using religious symbols like crosses, lighting candles, putting up Christmas trees, singing religious songs, sending Christmas greetings… are against Islamic faith,” imam sermons in Brunei’s local presses read.

Although penalties are not as outrightly severe as others espoused by Sharia law, such as death by stoning, those that violate the ban could be met with a five-year stint in prison.

To enforce this, authorities have been ordered to step up checks throughout the country.

This has resulted in most people in Brunei fearing there’d be repercussions if they were to speak out against the decree.

“The ban is ridiculous,” one unnamed Bruneian Muslim mother told the ABC, despite this.

“It projects this image that Islam does not respect the rights of other religions to celebrate their faith.

“Islam teaches us to respect one another and I believe it starts with respecting other religions, even if what is being banned are ornamental displays.”

In protest, others have taken to social media.

The hashtag #MyTreedom, part of a larger campaign aimed at drawing attention to oppression against Christian populations worldwide, has been flooded with Christmas-themed imagery and messages.

Somalia
Like in Brunei, Somalia’s decision to ban public Christmas and New Year festivities is grounded in religious uncertainty and fears that the Christian holiday could lead Muslims astray.

The East African country, which borders Ethiopia on the horn of Africa, has a population that is almost entirely Muslim and has been governed by Sharia law since 2009.

While Christmas is not celebrated much in Somalia anyway, save for during parties thrown just for the sake of partying, this is the first year that it has been officially banned.

“Having Muslims celebrate Christmas in Somalia is not the right thing, such things are akin to the abandonment,” top official at the Somalian justice and religious affairs ministry Mohamed Kheyrow said.

Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke leads the government that banned Christmas in Somalia this year. Source: Getty Images

According to the BBC, an increasing number of Somalis that grew up in the West are returning home as the country recovers from civil war, bringing Western traditions with them.

Fears pertaining to this, as well as concerns that Christmas gatherings could be targeted by al-Shabab, an Islamist extremist group operating in the region whose edicts expressly denounce Christmas, are the driving argument behind this ban.

Last Christmas, al-Shabab launched an attack on African Union headquarters near the capital Mogadishu, killing four.

Concessions will be made for foreign diplomats, aid workers and soldiers staying in their homes or at UN or African Union compounds, so long as they celebrate privately.

Tajikistan
The Central Asian country of Tajikistan, bordering Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, has tightened curtailments during the festive season for somewhat differing reasons to Brunei and Somalia.

Although Muslim’s make up a majority of the population, the former Soviet state remains a nominally secular republic.

Its primary motivation for banning gift-giving, fireworks, festive food and Christmas trees in education centres throughout the country stems from a uncertainty about the benefits of Russian, and particularly Soviet, influences.

In fact, Tajikistan has been toning down the number of Russian-inspired traditions it celebrates for some time now.

In 2013, it banned the Russian version of Santa Claus, known as Father Frost, from appearing on TV at all.

Russia’ Santa Clause, Father Frost, was banned from Tajikistan television two years ago. Source: Tass/ Barcroft Media

Measures against other holidays deemed to threaten the local culture have also been enforced since, with some reports suggesting people found dressed up in costume on Halloween were detained by police.

Uncertainties about Tajikistan identity extend beyond the government in this case, causing division among the population.

At the end of 2011, on New Year’s Eve, 24-year-old Parviz Davlatbekov was murdered while dressed up as Father Frost by an unknown group in the city of Dushanbe.

These assailants reportedly yelled “infidel” before stabbing the young man to death.

But it’s not all bad news
While the list of countries opposing Christmas celebrations for religious or other reasons continues to change, others have lifted restrictions in recent years.

China, Cuba, and Albania have all witnessed a growing trend of support for the tradition in both public and private realms.

In places like Pakistan and Iraq, festivities are thrown despite constant threats from violent insurgents and other obstacles.

The Christmas spirit remains strong.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Falcon 9 re-entry: what the successful landing means for the future of space travel

by David Kavanagh

Private spaceflight company SpaceX has made history today by coordinating the first ever successful and up-right landing of its powerful First Stage Falcon 9 rocket in Cape Canaveral, California.

The unmanned, 23-storey-tall rocket had been sent to deploy 11 satellites for telecommunications giant ORBCOMM on Tuesday as part of the first flight organised by SpaceX since one of its ISS-bound cargo rockets was destroyed minutes after launch in an accident in June.

Although Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin, a primary competitor to SpaceX, achieved a similar feat during a landing test last month, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is the first rocket to deliver a payload for a commercial orbital mission and safely return.

But why does it matter?
Falcon 9 rockets, like all big space exploration vehicles, are expensive to produce and have, up to now, always been rendered unusable upon re-entry, either because they crash into the sea or are burned up in the atmosphere.

The upgraded variant used during the ORBCOMM-2 mission instead landed smoothly on its specially designed deployable legs.

Business magnate and high-tech entrepreneur Elon Musk co-founded SpaceX in 2002 and endeavours to, among other space-based missions, eventually turn space tourism into reality.

Ultimately, having access to reusable rockets that make use of advanced systems of precise navigation, guidance, and thrust control should make the operational and time costs involved in these sorts of tasks far more affordable since the expensive machines would not have to be rebuilt for every launch.

SpaceX CEO and co-founder Elon Musk at the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium in October. Source: Dominick Reuter

It also gives SpaceX a noticeable advantage over its rivals in the extremely competitive private space launch industry.

“Reusability is the critical breakthrough needed in rocketry to take things to the next level,” said Musk at the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium in October.

While the construction of a stable armada of reusable rockets will take some years and great coordination, today’s Falcon 9 success demonstrates that it is possible.

As Wall Street Journal’s Andy Pasztor put it, this historic landing really does have the potential to “shake up [the] space industry.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Paris climate agreement: a three-point summary

by David Kavanagh

After around two weeks of intensive debate at the COP21 climate talks in Paris, the nearly 200 attendant countries reached consensus and published the final Paris Agreement on December 12.

The unparalleled accord succeeds where the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 failed, uniting the international community in a singular stance against the ever-encroaching threat of climate change and global warming.

“This agreement is differentiated, fair, durable, dynamic, balanced, and legally binding,” said French foreign minister and President of the COP21 talks Laurent Fabius.

While many leaders from around the world expressed a collective sense of cautious optimism about the key elements espoused in the resulting document (which you can read in full here), some experts and activists remain skeptical.

They stress that although the deal is a positive step forward, the real work starts now and a lot more has to be done for it to be effective in mitigating the effects of climate change.

For now, here’s a quick guide to the most important points raised in the agreement.

COP21 attendants applaud the adoption of the Paris Agreement after two weeks of intense negotiation. Source: AFP/ Francois Guillot

The 2°C limit:
By adopting the agreement, countries commit to keeping global temperatures at “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Ultimately, the accord also highlights a more ambitious target of 1.5°C, which vulnerable low-lying island nations say is necessary if they are to survive the dangers of rising sea levels and climate-related disasters at all.

The aim is to achieve this by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide, with the agreement specifically calling for global emissions to “peak as soon as possible”.

However, experts worry that existing national targets around the world are not enough.

Based on current pledges, global temperatures could rise by about 2.7°C if more ambitious targets aren’t set.

National reviews every 5 years:
In order to ensure countries follow through with their commitment to decrease emissions, the Paris Agreement requires that every nation submit their self-determined emission reduction plans for review every 5 years, starting in 2020.

Each subsequent plan will need to be an improvement on the one before.

While some experts believes this is a great system for checking progress and encouraging ambitious commitment, there is no official requirement that parties must review or upgrade their pledges prior to 2030.

They may do so voluntarily, however.

Financial assistance to developing countries:
Rich and developed countries like the US will be required to provide “climate finance” or financial assistance to poorer countries in order to help them transition and develop using renewable energy.

At least US$100 billion will be contributed every year from 2020 onwards.

While the Paris Agreement doesn’t make any formal distinction between developed and developing nation states, it recognises that rich countries should effectively take the lead and poorer countries should aim to do what they can “over time”.

This is in large part due to the fact that developed and industrialised countries generally emit more greenhouse gases and can also better afford transitions to alternative energy sources than developing states.

As a side note, a significant point of contention during the COP21 debate was the issue of loss and damages, a concept that claims vulnerable countries should be compensated for their losses resulting from climate change by developed countries.

While mention of loss and damages and recognition of the greater vulnerability of developing states made its way into the final document, the requirement of compensation was excluded, reflecting fears put forth by the US that the provision could have been used to sue American companies.

For more, check out The Paris climate agreement at a glance by The Conversation.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter