Mediaboss Marketing

By M. Ashraf Haidari, the Director-General of Policy & Strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan The recent emphasis on infrastructure development across Eurasia, underscored by Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, is creating opportunities for Afghanistan to foster the kind of economic growth that can blunt the appeal of radicalism. Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghanis National Unity Government aspires to restore Afghanistans former status as the roundabout of the Silk Road. Doing so could place the strife-torn country on a clear road toward stability. An important economic partner for Afghanistan is Turkmenistan. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, resource-rich Turkmenistan has sometimes been a cautious trade partner. But the global downturn in energy prices is encouraging Ashgabat to explore economic avenues beyond natural gas exports. President Ghani visited Ashgabat in early July for discussions with his Turkmen counterpart, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, with both expressing a desire to foster win-win economic cooperation. Toward that end, the two leaders signed seven bilateral cooperation agreements and MOUs on July 3. In Turkmenistan, President Ghani emphasized the importance of implementing multilateral energy and transportation projects. An area of particular interest for the Afghan side was electrification. Afghan leaders have pointed to the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) and Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Tajikistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TUTAP) electricity projects as having great potential to promote stability. Their realization would increase urban and rural access to electricity, benefiting households and small and medium-sized businesses across the region. In short, it is a development project that could have tangible advantages for broad segments of the regions population, and foster faith among them about a better future. Electrification of rural Afghanistan and Pakistan could help the two countries improve their dismal social development indicators in such areas as education and healthcare. Electrification can thus drive qualitative and quantitative improvements to drive the two countries sustainable development, which is seen by many as the best antidote to extremism. Other potential projects that were discussed during the Ashgabat talks include the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey (Lapis Lazuli) trade and transit corridor, as well as the Tajikistan-Afghanistan-Turkmenistan (TAT) railway, whose implementation would open alternative trade routes for the entire region. In addition, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan remain interested in building the long-discussed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) natural gas pipeline. There is lots of will to implement some or all of the above-mentioned projects. But outside assistance will be needed. An opportunity to discuss financing will come in November, when Ashgabat is scheduled to host the 7th Regional Economic Cooperation on Afghanistan (RECCA VII). The gathering will bring together regional and global stakeholders to discuss investment opportunities. The expanding economic relationship between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan offers an example that Kabul hopes to emulate with other neighbors, including Pakistan. The National Unity Government realizes that securing Afghanistans future is most efficiently achieved via win-win economic deals. Editors Note: A Visiting Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS), M. Ashraf Haidari is the Director-General of Policy & Strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and formerly served as the countrys Deputy Chief of Mission to India. Prior to this, he was Afghanistans Deputy Assistant National Security Advisor, as well as Afghan Charg dAffaires to the United States. He tweets @MAshrafHaidari

Follow this link:
Afghanistan and Turkmenistan: A Model for Regional Economic Cooperation - EurasiaNet

Sixteen years after the start of the international intervention in Afghanistan, the country remains beset by a debilitating array of conflicts, undermined political stability, an economic and security decline since the withdrawal of a majority of international forces, and a divided government since the 2014 elections. As the US government, its partners, and NATO consider a revised military strategy for Afghanistan, it is essential to recognize that politics has been, and remains, at the center of that conflict. With an eye to Afghan stability, peaceful and sustainable governance, and economic growth, this report examines the potential political roadmap for the country through 2020.

Summary

Sixteen years after the start of the international intervention in Afghanistan, the country remains beset by a debilitating array of conflicts, undermined political stability, an economic and security decline since the withdrawal of a majority of international forces, and a divided government since the 2014 elections.

Afghanistan needs to reform and restructure its political institutions if it is to have stability, peaceful and sustainable governance, and economic growth. Four approaches, in combination, may have the potential to put Afghanistan on a more stable and sustainable path while improving prospects for reconciliation.

Between now and the 2019 presidential elections, President Ghani and CEO Abdullah need to continue and improve progress in implementing the executive power-sharing approach of the National Unity Government concerning appointments, key policy initiatives, and the coming elections.

At the same time, Afghan leaders need to reform key aspects of the electoral system to facilitate negotiation and compromise across voting blocs and political parties to allocate power based on popular support.

The government in Kabul needs to follow through on commitments to decentral-ize administrative power and authority within the current constitutional system, through, for example, strengthening municipal and district-level governance, democratic processes, and accountability.

Long-term political stability requires agreement on reforms to balance power across regions and between the central government and the provinces within the political system.

A political settlement with the Taliban will require an even more difficult balance of power, which makes it especially important that reforms include accommodating new political actors.

About the Report

This Special Report examines Afghanistans potential political roadmap through 2020, from the operation of the current National Unity Government agreement to parliamentary, district, and presidential elections and proposals for constitutional amendment. As the US government, its partners, and NATO consider a revised military strategy, it is essential to recognize that politics has been, and remains, at the center of the Afghan conflict.

About the Authors

Alex Thier is the executive director of the Overseas Development Institute, the leading independent think tank of international development and humanitarian issues, based in London. Its mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice, which leads to the reduction of global poverty and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. He was previously in senior leadership at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), including as chief of Policy, Planning, and Learning and as assistant to the administrator for Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs. Scott Worden is director of Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs at the US Institute of Peace, prior to which he served as director of the Lessons Learned Program at the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and as acting director of policy and senior policy adviser for the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs at USAID.

Continued here:
Political Stability in Afghanistan: A 2020 Vision and Roadmap - ReliefWeb

This publication is now archived.

The U.S. State Department considers Iran the worlds "most active state sponsor of terrorism." U.S. officials say Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups--most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon--posing a security concern to the international community. Irans declarations that it has successfully enriched uranium and developed new missile technology have heightened alarm in the United States and other countries that the Islamic Republic might transfer weapons of mass destruction (PDF) to militants or armed groups. Irans leaders, who deny allegations they support terrorism (DerSpiegel), assert their rights under an international treaty to pursue nuclear power and insist their efforts are for peaceful purposes. But the international community remains unconvinced, imposing a growing list of sanctions against Tehran. Financial pressure has been applied by the UN Security Council, the European Union, international financial bodies, and a number of individual countries, including the United States.

The United States has accused Iran of sponsoring terrorist organizations for decades, but in the post-9/11 era, the allegations have taken on added significance. Despite Irans assistance following the U.S.-led campaign to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan, Iran was labeled part of an axis of evil--which also included Iraq and North Korea--by President George W. Bush in 2002. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq." For these reasons, in October 2007 the United States added Irans Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to its list of foreign terrorist organizations, and has continued to link economic sanctions to alleged support for militants. In June 2010, the UN Security Council approved a fourth round of sanctions, expanding on its list of targeted Iranian entities--including members of the IRGC.

"Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions . . . and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq." -- Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State

Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told CFR.org in June 2007 there is "overwhelming evidence" that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and "compelling" evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan. Iran has repeatedly denied involvement in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, though in October 2008, a top Iranian military commander did acknowledge Iran supplies weapons to "liberation armies" (AP) in the Middle East. Western intelligence officials insist Irans malfeasance is widespread. According to the State Departments 2010 Country Reports on Terrorism, the IRGC, and more specifically the elite Quds Force, remains Irans "primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad." An unclassified Defense Department report on Irans military power (PDF) from April 2010 made similar claims. And according to declassified intelligence reports released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point in October 2008, Iranian support to militants in Iraq has included "paramilitary training, weapons, and equipment" (PDF). Similar meddling is believed to be ongoing in Afghanistan. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, speaking with journalists in March 2010 in Kabul, said Iran was supplying weapons to fighters in southern Afghanistan.

The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in January 1984. Among Irans alleged activities have been the following:

- Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a UN observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.

- Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.

- U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.

- Military officials say numerous attacks since 2001 on U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and coalition forces in Iraq, have been attributed to Iranian-made weapons.

- A set of classified documents leaked by the website WikiLeaks.org in July 2010 reports extensive collaboration between Iran and the Taliban, Afghan warlords, and al-Qaeda, but all the claims have not been corroborated (Guardian).

- Iran has also been blamed for attacks in Balochistan in Pakistan.

- In April 2011, the United States and the European Union accused the Quds Force of providing equipment and support to help the Syrian regime suppress revolts in Syria.

- In October 2011, Washington accused the Quds Force of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador (NYT) to the United States, and plotting to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Argentina.

Since a 1979 revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini toppled the U.S.-backed regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the country has been governed (BBC) by Shiite Muslim clerics committed to a strict interpretation of Islamic law. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei serves as commander-in-chief of the armed and police forces; the head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), the state ministry in control of television and radio; and appoints the head of key state institutions, from the military to the countrys judiciary. The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), currently headed by Saeed Jalili, doubles as Irans top negotiator on nuclear issues; the council enjoys close relations with Ayatollah Khamenei, who has final say over all SNSC decisions. The SNSC is composed mostly of top officials from the ministries of foreign affairs, intelligence, and interior, as well as military leaders from the army and the Revolutionary Guards, Irans main security apparatus formed in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The power of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the popularly elected president, is checked by the supreme leader. Ahmadinejad, who has aroused controversy by calling for Israelis elimination, has vigorously supported the countrys nuclear energy program while denying any military connection.

Although al-Qaeda and Iran are seemingly on opposite ends of the religious and ideological spectrum (al-Qaeda is a Sunni extremist militant group, while Iran is predominantly Shia), some Western analysts believe Tehran has sought to leverage the militant group against U.S. interests. These ties were most notably described by the 9/11 Commission (PDF), which revealed that senior al-Qaeda figures maintained close ties to Iranian security officials and had frequently traveled across Irans border. At least eight of the fourteen Saudi "muscle" operatives selected for the 9/11 operations traveled through Iran in the months before the attacks, though its unclear whether cooperation was informal or officially sanctioned.

In recent years, Irans ties to al-Qaeda have become increasingly murky. In 2010, Iran reportedly began releasing detained al-Qaeda operatives, a move that prompted speculation among U.S. intelligence officials that Iran was seeking to replenish al-Qaedas ranks (AP). According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, as many as twenty members of Osama bin-Ladens family (PDF) have lived in a compound in Iran since September 11, 2001, while bin Ladens son and high-ranking advisors to his father have been able to easily slip in and out of the country.

U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

There has also been speculation that Iran encouraged Hezbollahs July 2006 attack on Israel to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs with the Congressional Research Service, questions this assertion (PDF), but notes that while Iran "likely did not instigate" the 2006 war, Iran has long been Hezbollahs "major arms supplier." The U.S. Department of Defense estimates Iranian support to Hezbollah at roughly $100 million to $200 million annually (PDF). And Iran is suspected of providing training and arms shipments to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, including, according to the U.S. State Department, "small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives."

In April 2010, a U.S. Defense Department report on Irans military power suggested the Islamic Republic may not have made a decision to build a bomb. Instead, Tehran "is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, if it chooses to do so," the Pentagon said. Yet recent nuclear power-related advances have led some to question Irans motivations. With help from Russia, Iran is operating a nuclear power plant at Bushehr (TehranTimes), but Western officials believe that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy. Since 2003, the United States and international allies have pursued political and economic policies, including sanctions, meant to prevent Iran from adapting its nuclear program to military applications.

"[J]ust as the bomb-making is easier than getting the HEU [highly enriched uranium], the delivery is much easier than making a bomb. -- Daniel Poneman, former senior fellow, Forum for International Policy

These efforts have had a limited impact. In April 2006, Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium (SundayTimes). The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in May 2010 that Iran had produced over 5,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium--enough nuclear fuel to, with further enrichment, make two nuclear weapons (NYT). In late 2010, the IAEA also reported Iran has begun enriching uranium at higher levels of efficiency, a process that could speed up (Reuters) its conversion of uranium to weapons-grade purity.

There is also speculation that Iran has advanced in the development of nonnuclear weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government says Iran "may have already" stockpiled (PDF) chemicals that can induce bleeding, blistering, and choking, as well as the bombs and artillery shells to deliver these agents. U.S. officials say Iran has an active biological weapons program, driven in part by its acquisition of "dual-use" technologies--supplies and machinery that can be put to either harmless or deadly uses. Some weapons experts say the Iranian programs started after the countrys forces were struck by Iraqi chemical attacks in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. But analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies urges caution (PDF), noting that "any analysis of Irans biological weapons effort must be even more speculative than an analysis of its chemical and nuclear weapons efforts, and the details of its missile programs."

Iran has hundreds of Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles. It has also manufactured and flight-tested the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,300 kilometers--enough to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iran is developing missiles with even greater range, including one that it says will be used to launch satellites but that experts say could also be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile. In March 2006, Iran claimed it had successfully tested a missile capable of evading radar and hitting multiple targets. A month later, Daniel Poneman, then a senior fellow at the Forum for International Policy and former special assistant to the president and senior director for nonproliferation and export controls at the National Security Council, said at a CFR symposium on Iran that "They could use trucks for delivery systems. I think just as the bomb-making is easier than getting the HEU [highly enriched uranium], the delivery is much easier than making a bomb."

Russia, China, and North Korea. Pakistan may also have been a supplier, though Pakistani and Iranian officials deny this.

William Saborio contributed to this report.

Read more from the original source:
State Sponsors: Iran | Council on Foreign Relations

A cattle feed store in Texas has caused international outrage by printing bomb bomb bomb Iran on a receipt.

The phrase appeared at the bottom of a July 3 receipt from Arcola Feed and Hardware in Rosharon, Texas, a small town just south of Houston.

The words are likely a reference to a parody of the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann, which replaces the lyrics with Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. The parody existed as early as 1979, in the wake of the Iran hostage crisis, but was re-popularized in 2007 when Sen. John McCain sang part of it while on the presidential campaign trail in answer to a question about possible U.S. military involvement in Iran.

After a photo of the receipt went viral on Telegram, a mobile messaging app widely used in Iran, and was posted to Twitter, the store was inundated with phone calls.

I have spoken to probably a hundred members of the Iranian community both here in the States and from ALL over the world, wrote owner Tara Burk Jurica in a Facebook message to BBC Persian correspondent Bahman Kalbasi. I have tried to assure them we dont feel that way My apologies to the Iranian community both here and abroad. The message printed at the bottom of the receipt has now been changed.

Kalbasi posted a photo of the receipt on his Twitter account on July 8:

A July 8 post on the stores Facebook account apologized for the receipts message, while stating that the owners did not know how the message got there in the first place:

Phone calls to Arcola Feed and Hardware went unanswered on Monday afternoon, and the stores Facebook account now appears to have been deleted.

If youre curious what the whole Beach Boys parody sounds like, heres one rendition:

Majid Saeedi/Getty images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

More:
Texas Feed Store Sparks Outrage with 'Bomb Iran' Message - Foreign Policy (blog)

Countries around the world, including U.S. allies and rivals, have come together in congratulating Iraq for its recent victory over the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in its former stronghold.

Amid sporadic fighting between security forces and remaining pockets of jihadist resistance, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi arrived Sunday in Iraq's second city of Mosul, the largest city by far once controlled by ISIS, to congratulate his armed forces and officially declare the defeat of ISIS,BBC News reported. The nearly nine-month-long campaign to dislodge the ultraconservative Sunni Muslim group from the city has been regarded as one of the largest battles of the 21st century,and its conclusion has been met with worldwide praise. The unlikely grouping of nations that have stepped forward to congratulate Abadi and Iraq's military highlights the multifaceted nature of the fight against the militants and the complex relationships of the countries involved.

Related: Is this the beginning of the end for ISIS?

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

"The global coalition fighting ISIS congratulates Prime Minister al-Abadi and the Iraqi Security Forces on their historic victory against a brutal and evil enemy," Lieutenant General Stephen J. Townshend, commanding general of the U.S.-Iraq Combined Joint Task Force for the Pentagon's Operation Inherent Resolve, said in a statementissued Monday by U.S. Central Command.

"Make no mistake; this victory alone does not eliminate ISIS and there is still a tough fight ahead. But the loss of its twin capitals and a jewel of their so-called caliphate is a decisive blow." he added, referring to a parallel U.S.-led campaign on ISIS's de facto capital of Raqqa in northern Syria.

Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service members celebrate in the Old City of Mosul, July 9, 2017. While pockets of jihadist resistance remain, Iraq's victory over the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in Mosul has received worldwide praise, including from rivaling countries involved in the fight against ISIS. Alaa Al-Marjani/Reuters

In addition to the statement by Central Command, President Donald Trump said he mourns "the thousands of Iraqis brutally killed by ISIS." His sentiments werein a statement read by Principal DeputyWhite House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.The secretary of state called the win "a critical milestone" in the multinational efforts to defeat the global jihadist network that once claimed nearly half of Iraq and Syria. While praise was forthcoming from the White House, good will was also shared by other nations actively battling ISIS in separate, sometimes clashing campaigns.

Iran has contributed troops, weapons and funds to counter ISIS since the jihadists' lightning advance in 2014, making it a reluctant, yet effective partner of the U.S. Neither country has significantly recognized the other's role in battling ISIS, but both have bolstered Iraq's armed forces through local partners and direct intervention. The U.S.-led international coalition against ISIS offered support for Iraq's military, federal police as well as Kurdish forces, while Iran has operated mainly through majority-Shiite Muslim militias known collectively as the Popular Mobilization Forces. The militias workalongside Iraqi troops and Kurdish militants, but the U.S. accuses them of being a proxy for growing Iranian influence in Iraq.

"Congratulations to brave people & Government of Iraq upon liberation of Mosul. When Iraqis join hands, no limits to what they can achieve," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted Sunday.

Iran's partnered militias, which are also officially sponsored by Baghdad, have been particularly active in the outskirts of Mosul and along Iraq's western border with Syria, where other forces supported by Iran are battling ISIS. After forming out of other jihadist groups amid the U.S. occupation of Iraq, ISIS spread to Syria in 2013, taking advantage of a civil war between the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and various insurgents. Faced with a nationwide rebellion, the Syrian military was forced to retreat from a number of major cities, but has since been able to secure a large part of the country thanks to a Russian intervention in 2015 and pro-government militias, many of which are directly supported by Iran.

Trump took a much more tolerant stance toward Assad than his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, but authorized the first intentional U.S. attack on the Syrian militaryin April after accusing the Syrian government of conducting an alleged chemical weapons attacks against civilians. Assad and his Russian ally, President Vladimir Putin, vehemently denied the role of the Syrian government in the attacks, and the incident led to a falling out between Washington and Moscow over Syria. After Trump and Putin pledged closer cooperation during their meeting at the G-20 summit in Germany Friday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson maintained that the U.S. would ultimately pursue a policy of regime change in Syria. Russia has also pledged to protect its Syrian ally, which offered Iraq congratulations Monday and pledged to work with its neighbor to completely eradicate ISIS influence from their countries, according to the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency.

A Kurdish fighter from the People's Protection Units (YPG) fires his rifle at fighters of the Islamic state militant group as he runs across a street in Raqqa, Syria, July 3, 2017. YPG and other militant groups of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are closing in on ISIS's other main city as the Russia-backed Syrian army and its allies retake large swathes of the countryside. Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

With ISIS's self-proclaimed caliphate having effectively crumbled in Iraq, most of the group's remaining fighters are now in Syria. There, the U.S. and Russia are engaged in twoseparate campaigns to defeat the militants. Having rejected the Syrian government, which considers U.S. military presence illegal on Syrian soil, and having distanced itself from much of the Syrian opposition, which has become increasingly dominated by hardline Sunni Muslim groups, Washington has turned to the Syrian Democratic Forces, a majority-Kurd coalition of fighters. Russia has continued to stick by the Syrian military. Echoing the U.S., Russia said Monday "a smashing blow" had been delivered to ISIS with Iraq's victory in Mosul, but credited the U.S. only with the extensive casualties caused by airstrikes.

"Liberation of Mosul has become possible thanks to the courage and persistence of the Iraqi military, peoples militias and Kurdish Peshmerga units. It has proved that the government and the people of friendly Iraq can confront terrorist threats through pooled efforts," Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement, according to the state-run TASS Russian News Agency.

"At the same time, it cannot but be noted that a heavy price has been paid for Mosuls liberation. According to various sources, losses of the Iraqi military amounted to some 30,000 men. About 7,000 Mosul residents were killed during the liberation operation, both as a result of actions by Islamic State militants and in airstrikes of the US-led anti-IS coalition. Nearly a million of Mosul resident (900,000) became refugees," the ministry added, using an alternative acronym for ISIS.

See the original post:
US, Iran, Syria and Russia Finally Agree: Iraq's Victory Over ISIS Praised Around the World - Newsweek