Connect with us

Middle East

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East

Published

on

The Middle East is the only region where all three kinds of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been used and developed. Accusations, allegations, but unfortunately blur information and data, with very limited open-source information about the possession and quantity of WMD in countries in this region represents further instability factor and creates uncertainty and tensions between rival countries.

There are 17 countries in the region: Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Sometimes the political term also includes countries from South Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and there exists various definitions which countries belong to the Middle East and which do not. In this report focus is on states which possess WMD. WMD on territory can be found in 6 countries, in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Syria. For the rest of the countries in the Middle East is not known to possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons programs. Globally accepted definition of WMD does not exist, but all include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Even though all types of WMD are inhumane in its possibilities and consequences of usage, nuclear weapons are the one getting most of the attention. Today in the world more than 30 countries want nuclear power. The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Report for 2013-2014 says that making fuel for nuclear power plants involves the same technology as making materials for nuclear weapons. Actions to reduce proliferation and security risks must be taken to prevent the dangerous spread of uranium enrichment or plutonium technology. The report pointed out that nuclear exchange is less likely, but many scenarios could lead to a catastrophic explosion. Another topic regarding nuclear weapons needs to be taken care of. The fact that today about 2.000 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear materials remain spread across hundreds of sites around the globe with poor security creates concerns.

Many international arms control agreement have been reached since the existence of nuclear, biological and chemical WMD. With the threat posed by terrorism United Nations Security Resolution 1540/04 was accepted which affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery constitute a threat to international peace and security. States are obliged to refrain from supporting by any means non-state actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems. On nuclear area steps have been made toward non-proliferation with the Partial Test Ban Treaty and prohibition of nuclear testing and the Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT that places restrictions. Important role playsInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with its 164 Member States which promotes safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the NPT has a role of the international safeguard inspectorate. The use of nuclear weapons violates many international laws such as UN charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and many others. In this segment among many others, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which prohibits all testing of nuclear weapons is important.

Elimination of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction has shown as a hard task to accomplish. States usually do not publicly announce their stockpiles. Usually information comes from rival countries, public state representatives in speeches or reports and tasks. Verification has been hardly ever available. History has shown that possession of chemical or biological weapons is verified when country has used prohibited means in fighting, usually by international organizations. Most of the time there are speculations. In the field of the biological weapon reduction Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons (BTWC) as a global solution plays an important role. The Treaty prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, or acquisition of biological and toxin weapons, and mandates the elimination of existing weapons, weapons production material and delivery means.

For the third WMD, chemical weapons, Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) – Convention on the prohibition of the development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical weapons and on their Destruction is the important agreement watch over by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Both biological and chemical weapons have been used in the recent past and both arsenals are speculating if even known for most of the countries. Even though they have been used more as nuclear weapons, which were used in in the fighting only in the Second World War, they do not get so much public attention. Next table shows countries in the Middle East, possession of WMD and international obligations and commitments.

Country Nuclear weapon Biological weapon Chemical weapon Signatory NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)

Signatory CTBT

(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty)

Signatory CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) Signatory BTWC (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons)
Egypt No, only civil use – two nuclear research reactors Yes based on public opinion but no based on verification Suspected for maintaining capabilities Yes No ratification No No ratification
Turkey Host of 60 to 70 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons under NATO No possession No possession Yes Yes Yes Yes
Iran Ambitions to require some Possibility of dual use activities In the past Yes No ratification Yes Yes
Iraq No In the past / possibility of remains In the past/ possibility of remains Yes Yes Yes Yes
Israel Yes Possibly Possibly No No ratification No ratification No
Syrian Arab Republic No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Egypt is one of the four countries that has neither signed nor acceded CWC and Israel is one of the two countries that have yet to ratify it. The NTI country report says that country’s civil nuclear program is relatively sophisticated compared to other countries in the Middle East, but still in development stages. Country signed the BTWC in 1972 but since no ratification has been made speculations about covert possession of biological weapon is presumed. Many western and Israelis report has been made on developing biological weapon, but no concrete evidence has been given so far. They are based on speeches of formal representatives of state without real background. Egypt official stance of not ratifying is concerns of Israelis nuclear weapon arsenal and that country do not possess nor seeks biological weapons. Blur is also an Egyptian chemical weapon arsenal and both poses and no poses are possible. The country had in history used chemical weapons during the 1960s conflict in North Yemen. Allegation of collaborating with Iraq and Syria to boost their chemical weapons has been made in the past. It stays unclear whether the country is still active and has an arsenal of both chemical and biological weapons on their ground.

On the other hand Turkey is also a party to the NPT, BTWC and CWC and is not known to own nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or programs. It peruses civilian nuclear technology. Country is part of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) umbrella and host from 60 to 70 tactical nuclear weapons on its strategically important territory.

Iran has an advanced nuclear program that in Iranian world is peaceful in nature. Even as a member of the NPT it failed to report everything to the IAEA and the possibility of developing all aspects of nuclear fuel cycle has caused international concern and even sanction imposed on the country. Countries stockpile is about 10.000 kg of low enriched uranium. Very little public information to determine whether biological weapons exist is available. Iran ratified the BTWC Convention. It is assumed that it has the capacity to produce biological warfare agents. In a war with Iraq, Iran suffered severe losses because of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. Iran ratified the CWC and has publicly acknowledged the existence of a chemical weapons program, but activities were terminated by the year 1997.

Much has been said about the Iraqi supposedly nuclear program and weapons. The nuclear weapons program was in Iraq dismantled by the IAEA from 1991 to 1997. U.S. and coalition forces began military actions against the country in 2003 based on a possession of nuclear weapons that was never found till this day. The country has extensively used chemical weapons against Iran and its Kurdish population in the past. The program was dismantled, but still last year there were reports that ISIS fighters had taken control over a former chemical weapons facility with sarin. It has also pursued offensive biological weapon capabilities until 1990s.

The only country in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT, which is the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states, is Israel. The Treaty has 190 States parties, including five nuclear-weapon States. Unfortunately, conference on the 22 of May this year ended without a consensus and without a new action plan, among other things also because of discussions around the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and its disagreement. Based on the NTI country report it is widely believed that Israel have produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for 100 to 200 nuclear warheads. It has a nuclear arsenal, but the capacity remains unclear. The country has not made a lot of international bounding commitments in the WMD area since it is not a state party to the CTBT, CWC or BTWC. Israel also remains reluctant to so called Middle East Weapon of Mass Destruction Free Zone. Israel is opposed to every country in the neighborhood that has nuclear ambitions. It believes Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and in this order they have carried out a covered operation to stall Iran’s nuclear program with disruption of equipment supply, computer viruses such as Stuxnet and Flame and even the accusation of assassination of Iranian scientists have been made. In the past air strikes against Iraq’s Osiraq Reactor in 1981 and Syria’s suspected reactor near Al-Kibar in 2007 were carried out in order to protect itself in the Arab world. It exists also the possibility that country poses chemical and biological weapons, based on official reports about military training, defensive biological weapon research and education of employees in the military, with advance chemical industry.

A non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT and CWC suspected of nuclear weapons ambitions, now caught in civil war possibly has and did possess WMD. No nuclear or biological weapons in the country seem to exist but chemical does. Syria had in the past refused to renounce its chemical weapons program until Israel abandons its nuclear. The country has an arsenal of chemical weapons, although was dependent on foreign suppliers at the beginning also from Egypt and then with international isolation had development gone further. Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war. Allegations of chemical weapons used in Homs, Damascus and Aleppo caught wider public attention. The chemical weapon program was counter balanced to Israelis conventional warfare and in recent events to fight citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic with agent Sarin. The events lead to international control and commitment of Syria to join the CWC. According to OPCW’s findings the Syrian arsenal includes 1.000 metric tons of Category I chemical weapons, 290 tons of category II chemicals and 1.230 of category III delivery systems. Some speculation still exists about hidden chemical weapons in the country.

Before humanity and society difficult challenges of abolishment, prohibition and controlling of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons lies and waits for the right solution. Is the world going to be better without WMD, can it even be abolished and if not, what can and should we do about it? When the world has a common answer to those questions victims of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare will become a distant past. Until then the danger and uncertainty posed by WMD still lingers.

Teja Palko is a Slovenian writer. She finished studies on Master’s Degree programme in Defense Science at the Faculty of Social Science at University in Ljubljana.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Published

on

The conflict between Israel-Palestine is a prolonged conflict and has become a major problem, especially in the Middle East region.

A series of ceasefires and peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine that occurred repeatedly did not really “normalize” the relationship between the two parties.

In order to end the conflict, a number of parties consider that the two-state solution is the best approach to create two independent and coexistent states. Although a number of other parties disagreed with the proposal, and instead proposed a one-state solution, combining Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big state.

Throughout the period of stalemate reaching an ideal solution, the construction and expansion of settlements carried out illegally by Israel in the Palestinian territories, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem, also continued without stopping and actually made the prospect of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis increasingly eroded, and this could jeopardize any solutions.

The attempted forced eviction in the Sheikh Jarrah district, which became one of the sources of the conflict in May 2021, for example, is an example of how Israel has designed a system to be able to change the demographics of its territory by continuing to annex or “occupy” extensively in the East Jerusalem area. This is also done in other areas, including the West Bank.

In fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem which began at the end of the 1967 war, is an act that has never received international recognition.

This is also confirmed in a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council Numbers 242, 252, 267, 298, 476, 478, 672, 681, 692, 726, 799, 2334 and also United Nations General Assembly Resolutions Number 2253, 55/130, 60/104, 70/89, 71/96, A/72/L.11 and A/ES-10/L.22 and supported by the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on Legal Consequences of The Construction of A Wall in The Occupied Palestine Territory which states that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli “occupation”.

1 or 2 country solution

Back to the issue of the two-state solution or the one-state solution that the author mentioned earlier. The author considers that the one-state solution does not seem to be the right choice.

Facts on the ground show how Israel has implemented a policy of “apartheid” that is so harsh against Palestinians. so that the one-state solution will further legitimize the policy and make Israel more dominant. In addition, there is another consideration that cannot be ignored that Israel and Palestine are 2 parties with very different and conflicting political and cultural identities that are difficult to reconcile.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​a two-state solution is an idea that is also difficult to implement. Because the idea still seems too abstract, especially on one thing that is very fundamental and becomes the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely the “division” of territory between Israel and Palestine.

This is also what makes it difficult for Israel-Palestine to be able to break the line of conflict between them and repeatedly put them back into the status quo which is not a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The status quo, is in fact a way for Israel to continue to “annex” more Palestinian territories by establishing widespread and systematic illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, more than 600,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In fact, a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council have explicitly and explicitly called for Israel to end the expansion of Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territory and require recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the region.

Thus, all efforts and actions of Israel both legislatively and administratively that can cause changes in the status and demographic composition in East Jerusalem and the West Bank must continue to be condemned. Because this is a violation of the provisions of international law.

Fundamental thing

To find a solution to the conflict, it is necessary to look back at the core of the conflict that the author has mentioned earlier, and the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to encourage Israel to immediately end the “occupation” that it began in 1967, and return the settlements to the pre-Islamic borders 1967 In accordance with UN Security Council resolution No. 242.

But the question is, who can stop the illegal Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and West Bank areas that violate the Palestinian territories?

In this condition, international political will is needed from countries in the world, to continue to urge Israel to comply with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and also the UN Security Council Resolutions.

At the same time, the international community must be able to encourage the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security Council, as the organ that has the main responsibility for maintaining and creating world peace and security based on Article 24 of the United Nations Charter to take constructive and effective steps in order to enforce all United Nations Resolutions, and dare to sanction violations committed by Israel, and also ensure that Palestinian rights are important to protect.

So, do not let this weak enforcement of international law become an external factor that also “perpetuates” the cycle of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will demonstrate that John Austin was correct when he stated that international law is only positive morality and not real law.

And in the end, the most fundamental thing is that the blockade, illegal development, violence, and violations of international law must end. Because the ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict is only a temporary solution to the conflict.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran unveils new negotiation strategy

Published

on

Image source: Tehran Times

While the West is pressuring Iran for a return to the Vienna nuclear talks, the top Iranian diplomat unveiled a new strategy on the talks that could reset the whole negotiation process. 

The Iranian parliament held a closed meeting on Sunday at which Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian briefed the lawmakers on a variety of pressing issues including the situation around the stalled nuclear talks between Iran and world powers over reviving the 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t give any details about the session, but some lawmakers offered an important glimpse into the assessment Abdollahian gave to the parliament.

According to these lawmakers, the Iranian foreign ministry addressed many issues ranging from tensions with Azerbaijan to the latest developments in Iranian-Western relations especially with regard to the JCPOA. 

On Azerbaijan, Abdollahian has warned Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev against falling into the trap set by Israel, according to Alireza Salimi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s presiding board who attended the meeting. Salimi also said that the Iranian foreign minister urged Aliyev to not implicate himself in the “Americans’ complexed scheme.”

In addition to Azerbaijan, Abdollahian also addressed the current state of play between Iran and the West regarding the JCPOA.

“Regarding the nuclear talks, the foreign minister explicitly stated that the policy of the Islamic Republic is action for action, and that the Americans must show goodwill and honesty,” Salimi told Fars News on Sunday.

The remarks were in line with Iran’s oft-repeated stance on the JCPOA negotiations. What’s new is that the foreign minister determined Iran’s agenda for talks after they resume. 

Salimi quoted Abdollahian as underlining that the United States “must certainly take serious action before the negotiations.”

In addition, the Iranian foreign minister said that Tehran intends to negotiate over what happened since former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA, not other issues. 

By expanding the scope of negotiations, Abdollahian is highly likely to strike a raw nerve in the West. His emphasis on the need to address the developments ensuing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018 could signal that the new government of President Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi is not going to pick up where the previous government left. 

This has been a major concern in European diplomatic circles in the wake of the change of administrations in Iran. In fact, the Europeans and the Biden administration have been, and continue to be, worried about two things in the aftermath of Ayatollah Raisi taking the reins in Tehran; one is he refusing to accept the progress made during six rounds of talks under his predecessor Hassan Rouhani. Second, the possibility that the new government of Ayatollah Raisi would refuse to return to Vienna within a certain period of time. 

With Abdollahian speaking of negotiation over developments since Trump’s withdrawal, it seems that the Europeans will have to pray that their concerns would not come true. 

Of course, the Iranian foreign ministry has not yet announced that how it would deal with a resumed negotiation. But the European are obviously concerned. Before his recent visit to Tehran to encourage it into returning to Vienna, Deputy Director of the EU Action Service Enrique Mora underlined the need to prick up talks where they left in June, when the last round of nuclear talks was concluded with no agreement. 

“Travelling to Tehran where I will meet my counterpart at a critical point in time. As coordinator of the JCPOA, I will raise the urgency to resume #JCPOA negotiations in Vienna. Crucial to pick up talks from where we left last June to continue diplomatic work,” Mora said on Twitter. 

Mora failed to obtain a solid commitment from his interlocutors in Tehran on a specific date to resume the Vienna talk, though Iran told him that it will continue talks with the European Union in the next two weeks. 

Source: Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Middle East

Shaping US Middle East policy amidst failing states, failed democratization and increased activism

Published

on

The future of US engagement in the Middle East hangs in the balance.

Two decades of forever war in Afghanistan and continued military engagement in Iraq and elsewhere in the region have prompted debate about what constitutes a US interest in the Middle East. China, and to a lesser degree Russia, loom large in the debate as America’s foremost strategic and geopolitical challenges.

Questions about US interests have also sparked discussion about whether the United States can best achieve its objectives by continued focus on security and military options or whether a greater emphasis on political, diplomatic, economic, and civil society tools may be a more productive approach.

The debate is coloured by a pendulum that swings from one extreme to the other. President Joe Biden has disavowed the notion of nation-building that increasingly framed the United States’ post-9/11 intervention in Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that the top-down nation-building approach in Afghanistan was not the way to go about things. It rested on policymaking that was informed by misleading and deceitful reporting by US military and political authorities and enabled a corrupt environment for both Afghans and Americans.

The lesson from Afghanistan may be that nation-building (to use a term that has become tainted for lack of a better word) has to be a process that is owned by the beneficiaries themselves while supported by external players from afar.

Potentially adopting that posture could help the Biden administration narrow the gap between its human rights rhetoric and its hard-nosed, less values-driven definition of US interests and foreign policy.

A cursory glance at recent headlines tells a tale of failed governance and policies, hollowed-out democracies that were fragile to begin with, legitimisation of brutality, fabrics of society being ripped apart, and an international community that grapples with how to pick up the pieces.

Boiled down to its essence, the story is the same whether it’s how to provide humanitarian aid to Afghanistan without recognising or empowering the Taliban or efforts to halt Lebanon’s economic and social collapse and descent into renewed chaos and civil war without throwing a lifeline to a discredited and corrupt elite.

Attempts to tackle immediate problems in Lebanon and Afghanistan by working through NGOs might be a viable bottom-up approach to the discredited top-down method.

If successful, it could provide a way of strengthening the voice of recent mass protests in Lebanon and Iraq that transcended the sectarianism that underlies their failed and flawed political structures. It would also give them ownership of efforts to build more open, pluralistic, and cohesive societies, a demand that framed the protests. Finally, it could also allow democracy to regain ground lost by failing to provide tangible progress.

This week’s sectarian fighting along the Green Line that separated Christian East from the Muslim West in Beirut during Lebanon’s civil war highlighted the risk of those voices being drowned out.

Yet, they reverberated loud and clear in the results of recent Iraqi parliamentary elections, even if a majority of eligible voters refrained from going to the polls.

We never got the democracy we were promised, and were instead left with a grossly incompetent, highly corrupt and hyper-violent monster masquerading as a democracy and traumatising a generation,” commented Iraqi Middle East counterterrorism and security scholar Tallha Abdulrazaq who voted only once in his life in Iraq. That was in the first election held in 2005 after the 2003 US invasion. “I have not voted in another Iraqi election since.”

Mr. Abdulrazaq’s disappointment is part and parcel of the larger issues of nation-building, democracy promotion and provision of humanitarian aid that inevitably will shape the future US role in the Middle East in a world that is likely to be bi-or multi-polar.

Former US National Security Council and State Department official Martin Indyk argued in a recent essay adapted from a forthcoming book on Henry Kissinger’s Middle East diplomacy that the US policy should aim “to shape an American-supported regional order in which the United States is no longer the dominant player, even as it remains the most influential.”

Mr. Indyk reasoned that support for Israel and America’s Sunni Arab allies would be at the core of that policy. While in a world of realpolitik the United States may have few alternatives, the question is how alignment with autocracies and illiberal democracies would enable the United States to support a bottom-up process of social and political transition that goes beyond lip service.

That question is particularly relevant given that the Middle East is entering its second decade of defiance and dissent that demands answers to grievances that were not expressed in Mr. Kissinger’s time, at least not forcefully.

Mr. Kissinger was focused on regional balances of power and the legitimisation of a US-dominated order. “It was order, not peace, that Kissinger pursued because he believed that peace was neither an achievable nor even a desirable objective in the Middle East,” Mr. Indyk said, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr. Indyk noted that in Mr. Kissinger’s mind the rules of a US-dominated order “would be respected only if they provided a sufficient sense of justice to a sufficient number of states. It did not require the satisfaction of all grievances… ‘just an absence of the grievances that would motivate an effort to overthrow the order’.”

The popular Arab revolts of 2011 that toppled the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen, even if their achievements were subsequently rolled back, and the mass protests of 2019 and 2020 that forced leaders of Sudan, Algeria, Iraq, and Lebanon to resign, but failed to fundamentally alter political and economic structures, are evidence that there is today a will to overthrow the order.

In his essay, Mr. Indyk acknowledges the fact that “across the region, people are crying out for accountable governments” but argues that “the United States cannot hope to meet those demands” even if “it cannot ignore them, either.”

Mr. Indyk may be right. Yet, the United States, with Middle East policy at an inflexion point, cannot ignore the fact that the failure to address popular grievances contributed significantly to the rise of violent Islamic militancy and ever more repressive and illiberal states in a region with a significant youth bulge that is no longer willing to remain passive and /or silent.

Pointing to the 600 Iraqi protesters that have been killed by security forces and pro-Iranian militias, Mr. Abdulrazaq noted in an earlier Al Jazeera op-ed that protesters were “adopting novel means of keeping their identities away from the prying eyes of security forces and powerful Shia militias” such as blockchain technology and decentralised virtual private networks.

“Unless they shoot down…internet-providing satellites, they will never be able to silence our hopes for democracy and accountability again. That is our dream,” Mr. Abdulrazzaq quoted Srinivas Baride, the chief technology officer of a decentralised virtual network favoured by Iraqi protesters, as saying.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas19 mins ago

Biden’s Department of Justice: parents as domestic terrorists

In recent developments in the United States, US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, and the FBI have put under the FBI radar parents...

Americas2 hours ago

Iran poll contains different messages for Biden and Raisi

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of...

Economy4 hours ago

The Blazing Revival of Bitcoin: BITO ETF Debuts as the Second-Highest Traded Fund

It seems like bitcoin is as resilient as a relentless pandemic: persistent and refusing to stay down. Not long ago,...

Finance6 hours ago

Credit Suisse to pay $475 million to U.S. and U.K. authorities

Credit Suisse Group AG has agreed to pay nearly $475 million to U.S. and U.K authorities, including nearly $100 million...

Americas8 hours ago

Gallup: World’s Approval of U.S. Govt. Restored to Obama’s Record High

On October 19th, Gallup issued their “2021 Rating World Leaders” report and finds that “Six months into the first year...

Science & Technology10 hours ago

China beats the USA in Artificial Intelligence and international awards

The incoming US Secretary of the Air Force said that China was winning the battle of Artificial Intelligence over the...

Development12 hours ago

Iraq: An Urgent Call for Education Reforms to Ensure Learning for All Children

Learning levels in Iraq are among the lowest in the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region and are likely...

Trending