24 Feb 2016

Make Monsanto Pay

Vandana Shiva

Monsanto is in the news again. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), the country’s antitrust regulator, has recently said that it suspects a Monsanto joint venture abused its dominant position as a supplier of genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds in India and has issued an order citing prima facie violation of Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, to be investigated by CCI’s director-general.
Monsanto also faces cases brought by state governments and domestic seed manufacturers, for the astronomical royalty it charges. In previous cases, Monsanto defended itself by saying that it was “trait fees” (for using its technology in cotton hybrids) and not royalty.
Fact is that Monsanto has viewed the laws of our land as mere hurdles in its way to swindle India and our farmers. On March 10, 1995, Mahyco (Monsanto-Mahyco) brought 100 grams of cotton seeds, containing the MON531-Bt gene, into India without the approval of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).
Eager to establish a monopoly in India based on the smuggled MON531 gene, Monsanto-Mahyco started large scale, multi-centric, open field trials of Bt cotton in 40 locations spread across nine states, again without GEAC approval.
Article (7) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, states: “No person shall import, export, transport, manufacture, process, use or sell any hazardous microorganisms or genetically engineered organisms/substances or cells except with the approval of the GEAC.” GMO traits, once released into the environment, cannot be contained or recalled.
Genetically engineered cotton from the trials was sold in open markets. In some states, the trial fields were replanted the very next season with wheat, turmeric and groundnut, violating Para-9 of the Biosafety Guidelines (1994) on “post-harvest handling of the transgenic plants” according to which the fields on which GMO trials were conducted should have been left fallow for at least one year.
In face of these blatant violations of Indian laws and the risks of genetic pollution India faced, the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India against Monsanto and Mahyco in 1999, for their violations of the 1989 rules for the use of GMOs under the Environmental Protection Act.
India’s laws, rightly, do not permit patents on seeds and in agriculture. This has always been a problem for Monsanto and, through the US administration, it has attempted to pressure India into changing her robust intellectual property regime since the World Trade Organisation came into existence, and continues to do so today.
Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech (MMB) Ltd collected royalties for Bt cotton by going outside the law and charging “technology fees” and “trait fee” to the tune of $900 million from marginal Indian farmers, crushing them with debt.
In 2006, out of the Rs 1,600 per 450 gram package of Bt cotton seed (Rs 3,555.55/kg), almost 80 per cent (Rs 1,250) was charged by MMB as “trait fee”. In stark contrast, before Monsanto destroyed alternative sources of seed (including local hybrid seed supply) through unfair business practices, local seeds used to cost farmers Rs 5-9/kg.
In response to the unfair pricing, the government of Andhra Pradesh filed a complaint with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) against MMB, pointing out that Monsanto was charging Andhra Pradesh farmers nine times what it was charging US farmers for the same seeds. MMB said the royalty it charged reflected its research and development costs for Bt cotton, admitting that they were charging royalty to Indian farmers.
Monsanto’s ruthlessness is central to the crisis Indian farmers are facing. Farmers leveraged their land holdings to buy Bt cotton seeds and the chemicals it demanded, but the golden promise of higher yield and reduced pesticide use failed to deliver.
Of the 300,000 farmer suicides in India since Monsanto smuggled the Bt gene into India in 1995, 84 per cent, almost 252,000, are directly attributed to Monsanto’s Bt cotton.
While the Government of India is suing Monsanto, the government of Maharashtra has signed an MoU with Monsanto to set up the biggest seed hub in the country in Buldana, announced at “Make in India Week”. How can a corporation breaking India, taking the lives of Indian farmers, destroying our agriculture and food security, and violating our laws be rewarded with the “Make in India” label?
For arrogantly breaking Indian laws and corrupting our regulatory systems, Monsanto must be held accountable. For the failure of Bt cotton, Monsanto must be made to pay damages to the farmers and seed companies that have had to pay “technology fees” for a failed technology.
The land that our farmers have lost to the agents selling Monsanto seeds and chemicals must be returned to the farmers’ families. All the illegal royalty collected from our farmers and India’s seed companies must be returned to India.
With its flagship product failing across the country year after year, and the dimming prospects of the super-profits the company has become used to, why would Monsanto make a large investment in Vidarbha unless it is sure of continued monopoly?
The technical expert committee has recommended that Herbicide Tolerance (Ht) and GM varieties of crops for which India is the centre of diversity, not be allowed in India. Is Monsanto counting on the GEAC approving Bayer’s herbicide-tolerant terminator mustard in contempt of the recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee? Allowing Bayer’s Ht terminator mustard will open the floodgates for herbicide tolerant crops, worsening India’s agrarian crisis and debilitating India’s food security.
Herbicide tolerance, which goes hand in hand with Monsanto’s Glyphosate based RoundUp herbicide, has failed across the world at controlling weeds, creating super weeds. Glyphosate, classified by the World Health Organisation as a carcinogen, is already being used across India and we are seeing an explosion of cancers in villages where Glyphosate is used. If we allow another failed technology and its associated poisons to further destroy India’s rural economy, and allow extraction of profits from Indian farmers, we will fail our nation and India’s future generations.

22 Feb 2016

Apply for Lagos State Undergraduate Scholarship 2016

Brief description: Application is open for Lagos State Undergraduate Scholarship Award 2016 for students in tertiary institutions in Nigeria
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at Nigerian tertiary institutions
About Scholarship: The Lagos State Scholarship Board is the agency in charge of scholarship, bursary and other related matters within the state. It grants Scholarship awards to deserving indigenes in various tertiary institutions for full time studies in order to assist these students financially.
Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified
Scholarship Type: Undergraduate studies
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
  1. All applicants must have gained full time admission into an accredited Nigerian tertiary Institution.
  2. All undergraduate applicants:
  • Where CGPA scale is 7.0 (e.g University of Ibadan) he /she must possess a minimum of 4.6/7.0
  • Where CGPA scale is 5.0 (e.g University of Lagos) he /she must possess a minimum of 3.5/5.0
  • Where CGPA scale is 4.0 (e.g polytechnics and colleges of education) he /she must possess a Minimum of 3.0/4.0
  • Where applicant is a medical student in 200L,  option i, ii and iii applies
  • Where applicant is a medical student in 300L and above a minimum of Credit is required in their result
  1. All applicants must be in their second year or above
  2. All applicants must have completed LASRRA Registration
  3. All applicants must have a signed letter of identification from their respective Oba
  4. All applicants must have a signed letter of identification from their respective local government
  5. All applicants must purchase a Scholarship application form. (Payment of N2,000.00 for Local Scholarship) through the Office of Special Adviser onEducation, Block 5, 3rd Floor, Alausa Secretariat.
  6. All applicants must upload clear scanned copies of all documents to ascertain the genuineness of their claims. Documents like:

  • Admission Letter
  • Valid ID Card
  • Letter of identification from Oba
  • Letter of identification from Local Government
  • SSCE result
  • Lagos State Resident Registration Agency(LASSRA) registration card
  • Passport Photograph (clear background not older than three months)
  • Progress report from school stating results clearly
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Not specified
Duration of Scholarship: Not specified
Eligible Countries: Lagos state indigenes
To be taken at (country): Nigerian tertiary institutions in and out of Lagos state
Application Deadline: 1 April 2016
Offered annually? Yes
How to Apply
All applicants are required to make a Payment of N2,000.00 for Local Scholarship through the Office of Special Adviser on Education, Alausa Secretariat.
Then take the treasury receipt to the Lagos State Scholarship Board to secure their secret voucher pins for online application. Application will not be processed without evidence of treasury receipt.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors: Lagos State Scholarship Board
Important Notes: Application can only be submitted online from the link above.

Apply for Lagos State Postgraduate Scholarship 2016

Brief description: Application is open for Lagos State Postgraduate Scholarship Award for Masters and Doctorate studies 2016/2017
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at Nigerian tertiary institutions
About Scholarship: The Lagos State Scholarship Board is the agency in charge of scholarship, bursary and other related matters within the state. It grants Scholarship awards to deserving indigenes in various tertiary institutions for full time studies in order to assist these students financially.
Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified
Scholarship Type: Postgraduate studies
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
  1. All applicants must have gained full time admission into an accredited Nigerian tertiary Institution for postgraduate studies (Masters or Doctorate).
  2. All Post-graduate applicants:
  • Where CGPA scale is 7.0 (e.g University of Ibadan) he /she must possess a minimum of 4.6/7.0
  • Where CGPA scale is 5.0 (e.g University of Lagos) he /she must possess a minimum of 3.5/5.0
  1. All applicants must be in their first year or above
  2. All applicants must have completed LASRRA Registration
  3. All applicants must have a signed letter of identification from their respective Oba
  4. All applicants must have a signed letter of identification from their respective local government
  5. All applicants must purchase a Scholarship application form. (Payment of N2,000.00 for Local Scholarship) throughthe Office of Special Adviser onEducation, Block 5, 3rd Floor, Alausa Secretariat.
  6. All applicants must upload clear scanned copies of all documents to ascertain the genuineness of their claims. Documents like:

  • Admission Letter
  • Valid ID Card
  • Letter of identification from Oba
  • Letter of identification from Local Government
  • SSCE result
  • Lagos State Resident Registration Agency(LASSRA) registration card
  • Passport Photograph (clear background not older than three months)
  • Progress report from school stating results clearly
  1. Applicant must participate in a written test conducted by Dragnet Solutions Limited in conjunction with Lagos State Scholarship Board.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Not specified
Duration of Scholarship: Not specified
Eligible Countries: Lagosians
To be taken at (country): Nigerian tertiary institutions in and out of Lagos state
Application Deadline: 1 April 2016
Offered annually? Yes
How to Apply
All applicants are required to make a Payment of N2,000.00 for Local Scholarship through the Office of Special Adviser on Education, Alausa Secretariat.
Then take the treasury receipt to the Lagos State Scholarship Board to secure their secret voucher pins for online application. Application will not be processed without evidence of treasury receipt.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors: Lagos State Scholarship Board
Important Notes: Application can only be submitted online from the link above.

Federal Government Scholarship for Nigerian Undergraduate, Masters and PhD (Bilateral Educational Agreement) 2016/2017 -Overseas

Brief description: The Federal Scholarship Board by the Federal Ministry of Education of Nigeria is offering the 2016/2017 Bilateral Educational Agreement (BEA) Scholarship Awards for Undergraduate, Masters and PhD students to study Overseas
Accepted Subject Areas?
• Undergraduate level – Engineering, Geology, Agriculture, Sciences, Mathematics, Languages, Environmental Sciences, Sports, Law, Social Sciences, Biotechnology, Architecture, Medicine (very limited), etc; and
• Postgraduate level (Masters Degree and Ph.D) in all fields.
About the Federal Scholarship
The Honourable Minister of Education, is hereby inviting interested and qualified Nigerians to participate in the 2016/2017 Nomination Interview for Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA) Scholarship Awards for:
• Undergraduate (UG) studies tenable in Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Serbia, Hungary, Egypt, Turkey, Cuba, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, Macedonia; and
• Postgraduate (PG) studies tenable in Russia (for those whose first degrees were obtained from Russia), China, Hungary, Serbia, Turkey, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, e.t.c.
Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified
Scholarship Type: The Awards are for Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) studies.Federal Scholarship Board
Eligibility Criteria
• Undergraduate Scholarship:
  • All applicants for undergraduate degree courses must possess a minimum qualification of Five (5) Distinctions (As & Bs) in the Senior Secoundary School Certificate, WAEC (May/June) only in the subjects relevant to their fields of study including English Language and Mathematics.
  • Certificates should not be more than Two (2) years old (2014 & 2015).
  • Age limit is from 18 to 20 years.
• Postgraduate Scholarship:
  • All applicants must hold a First Degree with at least 2nd Class Upper Division.
  • The applicants who are previous recipients of Foreign Awards must have completed at least two (2) years post qualification or employment practice in Nigeria.
  • All applicants must have completed N.Y.S.C.
  • Age limit is 35 years for Masters and 40 years for Ph.D.

• Since the BEA countries are non-English speaking, applicants should be prepared to undertake a mandatory one year foreign languare of the country of choice which will be the standard medium of instruction; and
• All applicants for Hungarian Scholarship must visit the website: www.stipendumhungaricum.hu.
Number of Scholarships: Several
What are the benefits?
The participating countries are responsible for the tuition and accommodation, while Nigeria government takes care of supplement, warm clothing, health insurance, research grant where applicable and take off.
How long will sponsorship last? The duration of the scholarship offer ranges from 4- 9 years depending on the level of study and the country.
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Russia, China, Morocco, Turkey, Algeria, Romania, Serbia, Japan, Ukraine, Cuba, Greece, Czech Republic, Syria, Macedonia, Mexico, Egypt, Tunisia etc.
Application Deadline: The 2016/2017 BEA interview is dates from 7th -10th March 2016across the six geopolitical zones

Offered annually? Yes
Venue of Interview:
All eligible applicants are to report for interview at the venues scheduled for their respective Zones of origin for proper identification. Two sets of the Printed Completed application forms are usually submitted at the various interview centres with the following attachments:
  • Two sets of Photocopies of Educational Certificates and Testimonials of previous schools attended with the originals for sighting;
  • One certificate is accepted i.e WAEC of May/June only; • Statement of results must be confirmed by WAEC and forwarded to the Director/Secretary, Federal Scholarship Board, Abuja;
  • Two copies of Birth certificate
  • State of Origin/LGA certificate duly signed, stamped and dated;
  • Four (4) passport sized coloured photographs on white background;
  • Academic transcripts and NYSC certificates will be required from applicants for Postgraduate Studies.
How to Apply
Candidates nominated and finally selected by the awarding BEA countries will be required to submit to Federal Scholarship Board the following:
  • Photocopies of Authenticated academic certificates;
  • Data page of current International passport, and
  • Specified Medical Reports & Police clearance certificate.
Visit the scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors
The federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry Of Education, through the Federal Scholarship Board (FSB), Plot 245 Samuel Ademulegun Street Central Business District, Abuja

Pak's Nuclear 'Normality' through External Deals: Chasing a Chimera

Manpreet Sethi


Several recent writings have recommended how Pakistan could and should be accommodated into the nuclear mainstream. Mark Fitzpatrick, a non-proliferation analyst at the IISS, London, had advocated this through his Adelphi paper entitled “Overcoming Pakistan’s Nuclear Dangers” in 2014. More recently in 2015, Toby Dalton and Michael Krepon made a similar case in a Carnegie publication entitled "A Normal Nuclear Pakistan." 

Interestingly, Pakistan’s military and diplomatic elite have been demanding the same ever since India earned itself a nuclear cooperation agreement with the USA and an exceptionalisation from the NSG. This din reached a crescendo in October 2015 just before PM Sharif was to visit Washington. US newspapers hinted at the possibility of a US-Pak nuclear deal as a means to get Pakistan to limit expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Though nothing came out of this then, Pakistan continues to voice the demand. On 12 February 2016, Pak foreign secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry, lamented that a "discriminatory approach has impacted strategic stability" and argued that as a "legitimate and normal nuclear power with legitimate needs for nuclear energy," Pakistan too was entitled to a deal with US.

 As is evident from the expressions used by Western analysts and Pakistani officials, both seem to emphasise the adjective "normal" nuclear state for Pakistan. But there is a huge difference in how they use it. While Pakistan claims that it already is one, writings from US think-tanks suggest that the country could and should be offered some external inducements to change its nuclear behaviour into becoming normal. This dichotomy in approach of both is where the dilemma lies. Pakistan believes it deserves a deal while the West contends that it is offering a favour in exchange for a set of conditions. 

Dalton and Krepon have identified five conditions for such an offer. These include shifting declaratory policy from “full spectrum” to “strategic” deterrence; committing to a recessed deterrence posture and limiting production of short-range delivery vehicles and tactical nuclear weapons; lifting Pakistan’s veto on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty negotiations and reducing or stopping fissile material production; separating civilian and military nuclear facilities; and signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty without waiting for India. The basic argument behind these demands is to put a halt to the Pakistani slide towards operationalisation of tactical nuclear weapons that, the West fears, would lead to a command and control nightmare, raising the dangers of nuclear terrorism, which are not lost on the US. 

Keeping the above in mind, the US is protecting its national interest by trying to find ways of curtailing the expansion of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. But the questions that need to be answered from a wider perspective are whether a Pakistan that believes all is fine with its nuclear behaviour and strategy can indeed be amenable to change through external inducements in the nuclear arena? Would an offer from the West change the basic drivers of Pakistan’s nuclear policy? Is it at all possible to 'positively shape' Pakistan’s nuclear posture by offering incentives from outside? 

The answer to each of these questions is in the negative because Pakistan’s nuclear posture is driven by exaggerated threat perceptions and a self-created paranoia, largely by the Army. Its nuclear strategy is premised on the projection of easy and early use of nuclear weapons, or nuclear brinksmanship or a sense of instability, including through show of battlefield use of nuclear weapons. At every opportunity, Pakistan officials do not forget to remind India and the 'concerned' West of its nuclear-armed status. All this, while Rawalpindi continues to uphold its support for terrorism beyond its own borders. Unless these drivers change, and that can only happen from within Pakistan, no influence from the outside can alter the country's nuclear posture. Therefore, to believe that offering a nuclear deal would placate Pakistan into becoming ‘normal’, is taking a rather shallow view of Pakistan’s deep-rooted security psyche. 

In fact, to do so is not even desirable since it is only likely to further postpone a much needed introspection by Pakistan's strategic community of the dangers created by its self-generated threat perceptions and sponsorship of terrorism. It could well embolden Pakistan, even make it more adventurous, seeking to push the envelope of its demands even further. The inability and unwillingness of the international community to deal with Pakistan’s past proliferation and ongoing nuclear brinkmanship with a firm hand, and instead consider offering it nuclear cooperation, contributes to the impression that countries with nuclear weapons can ‘get away with’ activities that may otherwise be considered unacceptable. International security will have to bear the consequences of this in the years to come as Pakistani behaviour is copied by others to brandish nuclear weapons as a potent bargaining chip to seek political concessions. 

Of course, the 'West' has the prerogative to grant or deny nuclear cooperation to a country based on its assessment of how this would serve its interest without violating own guidelines and international obligations. But to believe that such an offer could reorient Pakistan’s fast evolving force posture that boasts of a capability to build tactical nuclear weapons and refuses to allow negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, is certainly naive. Such a concession could most likely be interpreted and projected by Pakistani military elite as a victory of sorts and make them more risk prone, not less. This would only sustain the Army's predominance over its national security policy, including continued support to terror groups that in their mind serve a purpose. But as has been seen in the last few years, terrorists are quick to switch loyalties and cannot be straitjacketed into clear cut categories. The nuclear dangers, consequently, will only multiply. 

The only long-term solution lies in Pakistan’s reconsideration of its own threat perceptions. This propensity for harboring terrorism and using it to feed a paranoia from India cannot be changed from the outside. Pakistan has opted for a nuclear strategy that its Army considers best suited to its national interest. Therefore, its definition of national interests must change for its nuclear posture to be different. Outside inducements cannot influence this. 

To be fair, it is up to the people of Pakistan to choose their ‘normal’. It is their right and responsibility to understand the nuclear dangers they face and plan their own course correction. It has to be Pakistan’s choice to want to become a normal state, not a status that can be conferred or a condition that can be imposed from the outside by offering a nuclear deal. The West, or the rest, can only help Pakistan by offering to assist in building capacities to handle its myriad political, social and economic challenges. These are far bigger millstones around Islamabad’s neck than the imaginary phantoms that Rawalpindi conjures, essentially to sustain its own authority and influence in the domestic power structure. 

Pakistan’s well-wishers, within the country and beyond, must help reorient the national security discourse toward a broader normalisation of the state and its polity. Keeping it in good humour by bestowing goodies such as the nuclear deal or more F-16s and other conventional arms is not going to be helpful, neither to the people of Pakistan and nor to its neighbours. The only beneficiaries would be the small nuclear elite within Pakistan that has a narrow, warped view of the nation and its future. 

It is ironic that the country that was held out by the Harvard Development Advisory Group in the 1960s as a ‘model developing country’ with an average annual economic growth of 6 per cent has today degenerated into such a sad economic state. Much of this has to do with the country’s obsession with parity with India that leads to an over spending on defence, including on its nuclear weapons programme, while ignoring domestic economic growth and development. 

If things have to change, Pakistan will have to alter, first of all, its own sense of threat perceptions. It is a bit far-fetched to assume that a state that has shown such irresponsible behaviour and that yet refuses to accept its irresponsibility, nor change its behaviour, can be made normal by inducements. It is certainly like chasing a chimera of Pakistan's nuclear normality. And 'bestowing normalcy' through external sops in the absence of change will only make the prospect of real change dimmer, not brighter.

Mass shooting in Kalamazoo, Michigan leaves six dead

Joseph Lorenz

The United States woke up Sunday morning to news of yet another mass shooting, the 42nd of 2016, according to Mass Shooting Tracker. On Saturday night in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Jason Dalton, 45, shot eight people, killing six. The shootings occurred at three different sites.
The victims, who range in age from 14 to 74, were apparently chosen at random.
Dalton, a husband and father of two, had no criminal record or history of mental illness. He worked as an insurance adjuster, but also earned money driving for the ride-sharing company Uber. Investigators believe Dalton picked up and dropped off passengers in between the shooting rampage and was even looking for additional fares after killing the final victim of his nearly seven-hour shooting spree.
CNN affiliate WWMT interviewed a man who said he was a passenger in Dalton's car before the shootings started. “We got about a mile from my house, and he got a telephone call. After that call, he started driving erratically, running stop signs,” Matt Mellen told the affiliate. “We were kind of driving through medians, driving through the lawn, speeding along and then finally, once he came to a stop, I jumped out of the car and ran away.”
Mellen said he called the police, telling them, “He was surprisingly calm, I was freaking out.”
The victim of the first shooting, according to Michigan State Police, was a woman shot several times at 5:42 p.m. in an apartment complex parking lot. The woman, who was with her three children, is in serious condition but is expected to survive, according to CNN.
More than four hours later, a 53-year-old man and his 17-year-old son were killed at a Kia car dealership as they were looking at a car. Shortly afterward, Dalton pulled into the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant and opened fire on two vehicles, killing four others, ages 60 to 78, including a retired English teacher at Calhoun Community High School. A fifth victim, a 14-year-old in the passenger seat of one of the cars, is alive but in critical condition.
After two more hours, at approximately 12:40 a.m., police took Dalton into custody in downtown Kalamazoo without a conflict. Police described Dalton, who was carrying a semiautomatic handgun, as “even-tempered” at the time of the arrest.
Kalamazoo County Prosecutor Jeff Getting later told CNN, “These were very deliberate killings. This wasn't hurried in any way, shape or form. They're on video. We've watched the video with law enforcement. They were intentional, deliberate and—I don't want to say casually done—coldly done is what I want to say.”
The “ride-sharing company” confirmed Dalton was an Uber driver and said he had passed a background check. “We are horrified and heartbroken at the senseless violence in Kalamazoo,” Uber's chief security officer Joe Sullivan said to CNN in a statement. “We have reached out to the police to help with their investigation in any way that we can.”
Officials have provided no motive for the killings, which they describe as “senseless” and “shocking.” Local media referred to Dalton as an “average Joe.” Politicians at the local, state and national level have commenced the hand-wringing that inevitably follows a mass shooting and have already made ritualistic calls for stricter gun control and better mental health care.
No one in the media or political establishment dares or is even capable of conducting an examination of American society that would shed light on the reason why the US leads the world in such mass killings. While it is often the most psychologically fragile who snap, the regularity of these shootings points to the diseased character and dysfunction of American society as whole.
The political establishment, absorbed entirely with the enrichment of the financial and corporate elite, is impervious to the levels of social distress, which have worsened since the 2008 crash. The US has also been engaged in nearly two decades of endless wars that have coincided with the nonstop promotion of violence and the dehumanizing of the countless victims of American militarism. It is no surprise that such a poisoned atmosphere contributes to the outbreak of such violence in America.
Kalamazoo and the surrounding cities in southwestern Michigan have been hard hit by deindustrialization and deteriorating social conditions. Kalamazoo, which has a metro population of more than 300,000, had a poverty rate of 38.8 percent in 2011, putting it just below Flint (41.2 percent) and above Detroit (37.6 percent).
Between 1995 and 2010, the Kalamazoo area saw about half of its manufacturing jobs disappear, from more than 32,000 jobs to less than 18,000. A significant portion of these lost jobs were tied to the auto industry, which saw a brutal restructuring in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. The General Motors Stamping plant in Kalamazoo, which once employed 4,000 workers, closed in 1999 and the 2.2 million-square-foot space is now occupied with largely low-paying light industrial, warehouse and retail jobs.
Three of the shooting victims lived in neighboring Battle Creek. In the home of Kellogg’s and other cereal makers, 47 percent of the population, or 15,000 households, lack the means to pay for housing, child care, food and other basic necessities, according to a 2014 study on the working poor in Michigan.
West of Kalamazoo in Benton Harbor, the official poverty rate in the town of 10,000 residents is 48.8 percent and the median household income is only $18,208, compared to $48,411 for the state of Michigan as a whole. Appliance maker Whirlpool, which still has its headquarters in the town, has shut down virtually all of its manufacturing facilities. Many of the boarded up storefronts and ruined neighborhoods in the city, which was under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager from 2010 to 2013, look the same as they did in 2003 when two days of riots erupted over poverty and police violence.

More than 100 killed in ISIS suicide bombings in Syria

Niles Williamson

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed responsibility for multiple bomb blasts which ripped through residential neighborhoods in the Syrian cities of Homs and Damascus on Sunday, leaving more than 100 people dead and wounding hundreds of others.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, twin car bombs ripped through an Alawite-majority district loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, killing at least 67 people and wounded at least 100 others.
As many as four explosions were reported in southern Damascus near the Shiite Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque. At least 50 people were killed and 200 injured when ISIS militants detonated a car bomb and then set off explosive belts.
The devastating attacks came just hours after US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that an agreement had been reached with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for the “cessation of hostilities” in Syria, for the second time in less than two weeks.
“We have reached a provisional agreement, in principle, on the terms of the cessation of hostilities that could begin in the coming days,” Kerry told reporters in Amman, Jordan after speaking to Lavrov via telephone. He stated that US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin would speak in the coming days to discuss a way of implementing the deal.
Ominously, Kerry warned that the only alternative to a ceasefire agreement would be “the complete destruction of Syria itself.” He reiterated that the conflict would only end once Assad was removed from power, stating, “With Assad there, this war cannot and will not end.”
Earlier this month, the secretary of state had warned in an interview with the Washington Post of a “Plan B,” i.e., a dramatic escalation of US military operations, if Russia and Iran did not adhere to US dictates for a ceasefire.
The deadline for the implementation of a ceasefire, worked out more than a week ago between the American-led coalition and Russia in Munich, passed last Friday with no respite in fighting.
The five-year-old conflict has been fueled by the United States and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, with the aim of overthrowing Syrian President Assad, a key ally of Russia and Iran in the Middle East.
The CIA and intelligence agencies in Saudi Arabia and Turkey have funneled fighters, weaponry and money to support forces the Obama administration has defined as “moderate,” including the Al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front and the Islamist militia Ahrar al-Sham.
ISIS is itself a direct outgrowth of the bloody US regime-change operations in both Syria and Iraq, and has been used to justify daily bombing raids throughout Syria along with the deployment of US Special Forces.
As Kerry made clear in his statements on Sunday, ongoing US military operations in Syria, couched in terms of the so-called War on Terror and the fight against ISIS, are aimed ultimately at the ouster of Assad and the establishment of a pliant pro-Western puppet government.
The US and its allies have sought some sort of ceasefire agreement with Moscow to allow for its proxy forces to regroup, because Russian airstrikes in support of Assad’s military forces have been increasingly effective in driving back the rebel groups backed by the US and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks.
These developments increasingly threaten to bring the US and Russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, into direct conflict with one another on the ground and in the air in Syria.
In the last month, the Syrian army with Russian support, has been able to seize control of strategic portions of the northern city of Aleppo from rebel militias, including the al-Nusra Front, and cut off a key military supply route from Turkey.
In November, NATO member Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet along the Turkish-Syrian border in a deliberately provocative action.
In recent days, Turkish officials have been warning of plans to invade northern Syria, motivated by a desire to halt the advance of Syrian Kurdish forces, which have been consolidating their control over portions of northern Syria with US and Russian support.
On Saturday, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted that Turkey had the right to intervene militarily in Syria and elsewhere to defend itself from “terror organizations.”
Turkey has blamed the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) for a bombing attack last week in Ankara which killed 28 people, including 20 high-ranking soldiers.
According to Hurriyet, Erdogan made the remarks at a UNESCO meeting in the southern city of Gaziantep, just 60 miles north of Aleppo, stating, “Turkey has every right to conduct operations in Syria and the places where terror organizations are nested with regards to the struggle against the threats that Turkey faces.”
“No one can restrict Turkey’s right to self-defense in the face of terror acts that have targeted Turkey,” Erdogan warned.
Syrian society has been devastated by the imperialist stoked civil war over the last five years. The UN estimates that nearly 5 million Syrians have registered as refugees in neighboring countries, with millions more internally displaced.
According to a recent report released by the Syrian Center for Policy Research, since 2011 at least 470,000 people have been killed in Syria as a direct or indirect result of the fighting. The report found that 11.5 percent of the pre-war Syrian population has either been killed or wounded. Overall life expectancy has dropped from 70.5 years in 2010 to 55.4 years in 2015.
Eurostat estimates that more than 250,000 Syrians applied for asylum in Europe between 2014 and 2015. Over the last year thousands of asylum seekers, many of them Syrian, have drowned seeking to reach Europe by crossing either the Mediterranean Sea or the Aegean Sea, as part of the greatest refugee crisis since World War II.

War and the 2016 US elections

Joseph Kishore

Amidst the endless media commentary, debates and stump speeches by the major candidates for US president, there is virtually no discussion of the active preparations of the ruling class for an immense escalation of war following the elections in November.
The elections themselves are being held under conditions of expanding militarist violence all over the world. In the Middle East and North Africa, the Obama administration launches air strikes in Libya even as NATO-member Turkey and US-ally Saudi Arabia consider a ground invasion of Syria. A leading German newspaper recently commented that a Turkish invasion, resulting in a conflict with Russian forces backing the Syrian government, could quickly “mean ending a cold war [between the US and Russia] and starting a hot one.”
US denunciations of Russia’s role in Syria come amidst a relentless militarization of Eastern Europe in the two years since the Western-backed coup in Ukraine. The right-wing nationalist Baltic states and Poland are being armed and given a virtual blank check to stage actions against Russia with the knowledge that they will be backed by the US and NATO.
In East Asia, under the framework of the “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration is developing a network of military bases and alliances to encircle China, while denouncing Beijing for “militarizing” the region. The New York Times last week called on the US and its allies to continue “to ensure the free flow of navigation and to continue sending ships and planes across the sea,” a reference to the Obama administration’s provocative policy of sailing military vessels within territorial waters claimed by China.
The US escalations point inexorably in the direction of war with Russia or China, whether as the outcome of deliberate actions by American imperialism or the unplanned result of Washington’s ceaseless bullying and saber-rattling. Behind the scenes, the strategists of American imperialism are concerned that the gargantuan US military is insufficiently massive for the tasks set before it. Vast resources are to be poured into expanding the apparatus of destruction, and the reintroduction of the draft is being actively considered. Concrete war plans are being worked out at ruling-class think tanks and in Pentagon offices.
To prevent alerting the public to the catastrophic implications of these operations and block any public debate, the Obama administration is seeking to delay a full-scale military escalation until after Election Day.
The American ruling class has a long tradition of initiating major military operations shortly after an election. Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of the war.” Only a few months after his second inauguration, the United States declared war against Germany.
Franklin Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 on the promise that he would not send American soldiers into World War II, but by December 1941, the US was at war with both Germany and Japan.
Lyndon Johnson campaigned in 1964 as the “peace candidate” before vastly escalating US military operations in Southeast Asia soon after he was inaugurated. Richard Nixon claimed in 1968 to have a plan to end the Vietnam War. He followed his election with the bombing of Cambodia.
The 2000 elections were held just before the launching of the “war on terror.” In the 2002 mid-term elections, both the Democrats and Republicans agreed to exclude the impending war with Iraq from their campaigns. Four months after the elections, in March of 2003, Bush launched the invasion.
In the current election, the political establishment and the media are collaborating even more intensely to keep the ongoing military operations and those that are to come entirely off the agenda.
On the Sunday talk shows this past weekend, which featured Republican candidates Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, there was hardly any reference to US foreign policy. Aside from a brief reference by Trump to the possibility of “World War III” in Syria, none of the candidates spoke of the situation in Middle East or the risk of a conflict with Russia or China.
In the Democratic town hall event prior to last week’s Nevada caucuses, not a single question on war was asked of Sanders or Clinton.
The campaign has, of course, seen many statements from the candidates proclaiming their devotion to American imperialism. On the Republican side, Trump—the personification of all the filth and reaction built up during 15 years of the “war on terror”—has issued a series of fascistic calls for murder and aggression all over the world, and his rivals have followed suit. In his victory speech following the South Carolina primary Saturday, Trump proclaimed that under his presidency “we’re going to build our military so big, so good, so strong, so powerful that nobody is ever going to mess with us.”
On the Democratic side, to the extent that she has differentiated herself from Obama, Clinton has done so from the right, calling for a “no fly” zone in Syria that would quickly bring the US into a conflict with Russia.
As for the supposed “socialist” Bernie Sanders, he has proclaimed his support for the Obama administration’s war policy in the Middle East as well as other aggressive actions. In a Democratic Party debate earlier this month, Sanders denounced “Russia’s aggressive actions in the Crimea and in Ukraine” and declared his support for a policy of “beef[ing] up our troop level in that part of the world to tell Putin that his aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched.” To emphasize the point, he added, “We have to work with NATO to protect Eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression.”
In recent campaign events, Sanders has denounced “authoritarian Communist China.” Besides backing the administration’s policy in Syria and Obama’s extension of the US occupation of Afghanistan, he has endorsed the use of drones and Special Operations forces, at one point affirming that as president he would do “all of that and more.” He has insisted that the United States maintain the largest military in the world.
But on the detailed plans being worked out by the Pentagon and the CIA to massively escalate the wars in the Middle East and intensify the provocations and war preparations against Russia in Eastern Europe and against China in the South China Sea, nothing is said by any of the candidates of either party.
There is a conspiracy of silence. It includes not only the politicians of the two big business parties, but also the middle class organizations that were involved in the antiwar protests in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. These groups have long since integrated themselves into the Obama administration and lent their support to the operations of American imperialism. They are doing everything they can to oppose the development of a movement against war.
The working class and youth, overwhelmingly opposed to war, must not be caught unawares. The work of developing a political movement against war must proceed with extreme urgency.
Last week, the International Committee of the Fourth International published a crucial statement, “Socialism and the Fight Against War,” which reviews in detail the expanding maelstrom of imperialist violence and elaborates the political foundations for the building of a new anti-war movement based on the following principles:
• The struggle against war must be based on the working class, the great revolutionary force in society, uniting behind it all progressive elements in the population.
• The new anti-war movement must be anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital and put an end to the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war.
• The new anti-war movement must therefore, of necessity, be completely and unequivocally independent of, and hostile to, all political parties and organizations of the capitalist class.
• The new anti-war movement must, above all, be international, mobilizing the vast power of the working class in a unified global struggle against imperialism.
The WSWS urges all of our readers, in the United States and internationally, to carefully study this statement, discuss it with your coworkers, and contact the Socialist Equality Party today to help build a socialist, internationalist and revolutionary movement of the working class against war.

21 Feb 2016

Should Europe Impose Sanctions on the Maldives?

Richard Howitt


One key test of democracy in countries where it has only recently emerged is based on how far the rights of the political opposition are fully respected. There is a temptation for governments to dismantle the tools that enabled them to be elected in fledgling democracies, to use newly-acquired power to hold on to that power. In countries where there has been conflict - real and political - there is further fuel to exact reprisals against political opponents.

In small nations, it is highly personalised too. Such is the case of the Maldives. World famous for its luxury holidays, the Maldives has become notorious for abuse of democratic and human rights.

A thirty-year dictatorship ended in the country with the first democratic transition of power in 2008, only for its newly elected president to be removed in what he alleged was a coup four years later, but where anti-democratic claims exist on both sides.

Today, human rights groups point to what they call a large number of political prisoners; opposition parties allege large-scale corruption; security forces prevent rallies and political campaigning by the opposition parties and any attempt to publicly criticise the government makes the attempter subject to arrest and intimidation.

The same human rights groups also accuse the international community of pressing local parties to accept the inquiry commission's findings that allowed a return to elections after 2012 but of failing to press on for the implementation of fundamental police and judicial reforms contained in the same report.

With the situation deteriorating in the period since, in 2015, the European Parliament voted to support moves towards targeted sanctions against political and business figures responsible for the abuses, while the Commonwealth appointed a Ministerial Action Group, which may suggest moves towards its own ultimate sanction of possible suspension.

The European Parliament's standing delegation with South Asia visited the Maldives last week. Polarisation in the country is personalised around the treatment of the former President Mohamed Nasheed, who was arrested by his successors for illegally ordering the detention of a judge and later seeing that the charge converted to terrorism, and subsequent conviction to thirteen years in prison. Conceding to international pressure, Nasheed was recently flown to London for medical treatment. 

The Delegation was the first of the international observers to be able to publicly inspect the prison conditions in which he is being held. The "special protection quarters" inside the prison were clean and with basic comforts, but were still far from the Maldivian foreign minister's outlandish claim that he "had access to his own swimming pool."

A separate meeting with Nasheed's legal team yielded first-hand evidence of how defence lawyers had been given insufficient time to prepare the case; of defence witnesses unable to be called; and of deep 'conflicts of interest' in the court - for instance, the judge and prosecutor also acted as witnesses in the same case.

The challenge for Europe and others internationally, is to raise these concerns without appearing to be partisan towards the former president and running the risk of alienating the incumbent government, whom we most hope will listen.

The Delegation also raised high profile cases of alleged political prisoners, such as those of former Vice-President Ahmed Adeeb; Col (retd) Mohamed Nazim; and the apparent lack of a credible investigation in the disappearance of journalist Ahmed Rilwan Abdullah who is still missing.

Incumbent Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen made a speech telling foreigners to mind their own business just hours after telling the aforementioned visiting Delegation that he would "follow the trail of evidence in corruption cases, wherever it leads."

Candid admissions during informal exchanges by the members of parliament from the governing party that "we are only doing to the opposition what they did to us," suggests that the roots of the country's problems do not lie with one person or party, but with the political maturity inside this young nation. However, the wealth of the tourist market and the integral part it plays within the country's politics mean the threat of sanctions may be one of the few actions that can have real impact.

Given the rising Saudi and Chinese influence, and the island nation's notorious distinction of being the source of the highest number of foreign fighters per capita to the Islamic State (IS) in Syria, the Maldives is not a country Europe should disengage with.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that its senior political and business figures do not want their foreign travel banned or their foreign bank accounts frozen, even more than genuinely those of us in Europe reluctantly consider deterring our tourists from enjoying the islands' exotic charms.

Already, the EU has sent an Italian judge to assess the country's legal system, which may lead to joint action between ourselves and the Maldives to address the fundamental judicial flaws that beset the country.

Later this month, the Commonwealth Ministers will produce their report and the European Parliament and a UN Assistant Secretary-General will visit the islands, in a fresh attempt to kick-start inter-party talks that can seek to overcome the current crisis.

Such concerted international pressure has already succeeded in getting one political prisoner free, least temporarily.

The same pressure must be continued - the threat of sanctions included - to permanently ensure that democracy is not lost in the whole country.