Poland’s Patriot Act: PiS government proposes new anti-terrorism law

Dorota Niemitz

Seizing on the terrorist attacks in Brussels on March 22, the Polish government is rapidly moving to introduce a reactionary anti-terrorism law that drastically limits basic democratic rights. Although Poland has not seen any major terrorist attack, the authorities present the stepped-up security regulations as a necessary move to insure the safety of Polish citizens in the face of the supposed inadequacy of the European Union’s anti-terrorist measures.

The conservative government that took power last October has been working on the new anti-terrorism bill since the Paris attacks of November 2015, but the tragic events in Brussels served as a pretext to speed it up and launch the most vicious attack on democratic rights in Poland’s modern history.

The Ministry of the Interior originally announced its intention to introduce the new law on Twitter and during a TV press conference on March 24. But in order to prevent a public debate, a detailed draft was not published until April 21.

The new legislation must, according to the government, be implemented before two large events take place in Poland: the NATO summit in Warsaw on July 8-9 and the Catholic Church’s World Youth Days in Krakow on July 27-31, where 2 million pilgrims and Pope Francis are expected to attend. According to Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak, the government plans to deploy an extra 13,000 police, border patrols and other troops to provide security during both international events.

The head of the security agencies, Mariusz Kamiński, stated: “You can all see what is happening in the world, how terrorism affects all people. At the moment the terrorists are targeting regular citizens, and we must draw the far-reaching conclusions from this. The Polish state cannot be powerless in the face of contemporary threats.”

The new anti-terrorism law is part of a systematic attack on democratic rights. The PiS government has gagged the Constitutional Court, which might rule its provisions unconstitutional, merged the functions of the minister of justice with those of the attorney general and granted the police extended rights to conduct phone and Internet spying. The new law is yet another step towards creating the framework for a police state.

The proposed law grants massive powers to the Internal Security Agency (ABW), which is designated as the main coordinator of the government’s anti-terrorist policy. It allows for extended domestic spying, search and seizure, arrest without trial, and expulsion of foreign citizens. It regulates and increases cooperation between all 11 government security agencies and allows for the use of the armed force domestically.

The law also allows for the banning of mass public events and gatherings under conditions of a heightened terrorist alert or a terrorist event. Borders can be temporarily closed for up to seven days. The border patrol can be assisted by the military, which is allowed to use firearms. The legal term “terrorist event” is not clearly defined and can be interpreted very broadly, encompassing people who “cause unrest” or seek to “blackmail the government”. Any protest or strike could be included in this category.

People suspected of terrorist activities can be detained for up to 14 days without any charges brought against them (currently the limit is 48 hours), supposedly to allow the security services the necessary time to gather evidence—a provision incompatible with Article 41, Section 3 of the Constitution. A special register with persons suspected of any ties with terrorist organisations and computer hackers will be created.

The police and special forces are also granted rights to search premises and detain people at night (currently such actions are prohibited between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.). The ABW can also request to immediately block any phone and Internet connection at any given area for up to 30 days (longer with a court order).

An ID will be required to purchase any pre-paid phone cards and pre-paid phones. The ABW will also have the authority to audit and test the country’s major information technology systems, including breaking through their security codes.

“In order to recognise, prevent and fight dangers and crimes of a terrorist nature”, the ABW will be able to freely access public registers of 15 key state and local institutions, such as social security (PESEL), motor vehicles (CEPiK), the national crime register (KRK), all ministries including the ministry of foreign affairs (consular and visa records), the border patrol, local real estate registers, and records of various financial institutions, as well as public surveillance records. With a court order, the agency will be allowed to obtain information on private bank accounts, investments and insurance records now covered under bank secrecy.

Areas recognised as potential terrorist targets shall be extended to churches, shopping malls, sports arenas and stadiums, hotels, conference and music halls, as well as other places where people gather. Owners of the above-mentioned facilities will be required to provide the ABW with detailed maps and emergency plans for the premises. If they fail to provide the emergency plans, they shall be subject to a fine of 50,000 zł (about €12,000).

The Ministry of Defence can designate professional solders to join the ABW forces. If the police forces prove insufficient, armed forces may be used to aid them in case of a heightened terrorist alert. Within the framework of the anti-terrorist action, the ABW, police, border patrol and armed forces can shoot to kill.

The anti-terrorism law targets foreigners and immigrants in particular. Foreigners considered to pose a threat to national security will be immediately expelled without any due process. At the ABW’s request, any foreigner living or entering Poland can be subjected to surveillance for up to three months without a court order. This includes undercover audio and video taping, bugging non-public premises, accessing private electronic and phone communications as well as any postal correspondence or packages.

The ABW, police and border patrol will have the right to fingerprint and photograph any foreigner suspected of illegal entry, an intention to illegally enter the territory of Poland, failing to provide proper identification, or terrorist training or activity.

The terrorist attacks in Brussels are also being used to stir up anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments. The Brussels attacks come as a convenient pretext for the Polish government to flat-out reject the previously agreed EU immigration quota. Prime Minister Beata Szydło announced last month that she did not see any possibility of refugees coming to Poland at this time. “We do not agree with thousands of migrants coming to Europe only to improve their living conditions. Among them there are also terrorists”, she added.

Blurring the distinction between refugees from war zones, the victims of imperialist terror, and potential terrorists is repellent propaganda aimed at legitimising NATO’s predatory wars in the Middle East, limiting the influx of refugees and dividing the working class along racial and religious lines.

In response to heavy criticism from human rights groups and legal experts, the justice minister (and the attorney general in one), Zbigniew Ziobro, said: “Light-hearted people who talk about human rights forget about the rights of the victims of terrorism. Special services must have the right to conduct surveillance.”

“If we want to feel safe in our homeland, unfortunately we must agree to the fact that some of our traditional freedoms shall be temporarily suspended”, said PiS parliamentary delegate Jacek Sasin. “This bill is a minimum for the police and security agencies to prevent events that, unfortunately, once again took place in Europe. The authorities must have tools to track the movement of those who want to threaten our security”, he said.

The opposition to the PiS government around the liberal Civic Platform (PO) and the Nowoczesna (Modern) party criticised the speed with which the legislation is being introduced and announced plans to oppose some of its measures, but agreed with the essential content of the bill calling it “necessary”.

“Poland’s security is a key issue—we offer our help and expertise to straighten it out,” said the head of PO, Grzegorz Schetyna. “The bill should have been implemented a long time ago”, proclaimed the head of Nowoczesna, Ryszard Petru: “If it is good, we will support it.”

While calling the draft “unacceptable in the free world”, PO focuses on some of the most controversial measures only, such as the extended surveillance, the abridgment of freedom of assembly or rights to anonymity while purchasing pre-paid cards, at the same time shamefully rubber-stamping the most reactionary of all measures implemented by the PiS administration to date, measures that go even further than the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

The assertion that terrorist attacks can be prevented by extending the powers of the security agencies is cynical propaganda aimed at covering up the real purpose of such methods: suppression of any opposition to the authoritarian rule of the government at home. It is not terrorist attacks that are to be prevented, but anticipated working class unrest due to growing social inequality, poverty wages and worsening living standards.

The PiS government is aware of its weakness, as it has no wide public support; therefore it feels it must turn to authoritarian methods. The so-called war on terror is in fact a war against Poland’s own constitution and people. The anti-terrorism law is to go into effect on June 1, 2016.

Acting East: Securing the India-Myanmar Border

Angshuman Choudhury


Almost a year before 20 soldiers of the Indian Army's 6th Dogra Regiment were killed in a brutal offensive by Naga-Manipuri militants along the India-Myanmar border in Manipur's Chandel district, the Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj announced a decisive move from India's earlier ‘Look East' to a new ‘Act East’ design for Southeast Asia. The assailants were understood to be operating freely across the Indian border with Myanmar - a country that is set to serve as the springboard for India’s entry into Southeast Asia. 

In this context, is it possible to sustain a long-term relationship with Southeast Asia without first securing the 1640km-long unfenced India-Myanmar border? Can India's Northeast accrue the benefits of the upgraded ‘Act East’ approach without a secure politico-military climate of its own? 
 
The Look East Policy (LEP), originally conceived in 1991, was re-branded as the 'Act East Policy' (AEP) in 2014 in an attempt to adopt a more proactive foreign policy towards India's Southeast Asian neighbours. Focus is to be laid on building people-to-people connectivity, with India’s Northeast and Myanmar serving as the core nodal points for access to the tiger economies of Southeast Asia. While Myanmar is viewed as a proximal partner in improving overland connectivity with the rest of Southeast Asia, Northeast India is meant to serve as a key 'land bridge' to the Greater Sub-Mekong Region. Both these waypoints also share a common cultural heritage, making it conducive for India to forge a long-lasting bilateral relationship. 

Ground RealitiesOut of the several connectivity projects in the pipeline, the trilateral India-Myanmar-Thailand highway is of prime importance. Proposed to run from Moreh (Manipur) to Mae Sot (Thailand) via Mandalay (Myanmar), the highway aims at establishing a direct vehicular link to Southeast Asia to facilitate greater ease of civilian transport and commercial trade. However, the highway passes through the Sagaing Division in west Myanmar – a hotbed for insurgent groups from Northeast India. In fact, the point of origin for the highway (Moreh) falls in Chandel district of Manipur, a highly volatile area contiguous to Myanmar that has witnessed a spate of violent insurgent attacks in the last two years. 

Another overland linkage in the form of a Delhi-Hanoi rail link is still stalled in its first stage within Manipur, owing to the threat posed by regular incidents of abductions, extortion and illegal tax imposition by rebel groups. The border routes also overlie on a larger transnational network for arms and drugs trafficking along the threshold of the infamous Myanmar-Laos-Thailand ‘Golden Triangle’. Therefore, opening up India’s eastern borders before plugging these critical contraband gateways can backfire by perpetuating regional militancy.

Security Design: Aspects and GapsIndia signed a ‘legal assistance pact’ with Myanmar in 2010 that allows transfer of Indian insurgents from Myanmar to India contingent on mutual agreement. UPA-II also signed a MoU with the Myanmarese government in May 2014 on joint border patrolling and information-sharing. The BJP government too bilaterally discussed critical security issues with Myanmar during the first meeting of the India-Myanmar Joint Consultative Committee in July 2015. During this time, the Indo-Myanmar Regional Border Committee comprising of army and paramilitary officials from both countries also met in Manipur to discuss joint border action. 

However, the Indian state appears unclear on the specific security design to secure the border – whether to continue with paramilitary protection or switch to the army. There have been no joint patrolling exercises along the border, contrary to what existing bilateral agreements specify. Furthermore, the 'hot pursuit' cross-border raid by the Indian Army last year (the details of which are still not publicly available) exposes critical communication gaps between the two governments insofar as intel-sharing is concerned. This gap needs to be closed with more intimate and transparent diplomacy. Thus, the lapse in the security blueprint for India and Myanmar is largely in implementing existing policy, rather than introducing new ones. Beyond providing a ‘framework for action’, the existing arrangements have not achieved much, and militant groups continue to thrive along the border with considerable impunity.

Way Forward 
India must imperatively draw up a well-defined inland security pact with Myanmar that stipulates a clear and coherent strategy to contain border militancy. The ideal precursory approach would be to cut-off vital supply lines for the militant camps and degrade their resource pool by plugging contraband routes. The offensive design must fully incorporate Myanmarese security forces given the latter's familiarity with the local topography. Also, focus must be laid on neutralising core insurgent infrastructure like camps housing the top-rung of militant leaderships rather than peripheral camps. Most crucially, a regular monitoring and periodic review mechanism must also be created to ensure effective implementation of the counter-insurgency blueprint.

The Indian government must make positive use of the change of guard at Naypyidaw. The coming of the National League for Democracy (NLD) to power can usher in an era of transparent and committed diplomacy, which could reverse the bilateral lapses and shortcomings that India faced with the previous government. Thus, this seems to be a good time to consolidate the Act East Policy and ensure sustainable security for the eastern border corridors.

Toying with China’s Demons: The Dos and the Don’ts

Bhavna Singh

It would be China’s worst nightmare come true if two of its most explosive domestic trouble-makers were to turn into a united menace. The Tibetans and the Uyghurs have for long battled against the repressive policies of the state in their struggle for autonomy and cultural preservation, albeit separately. In a rather exceptional fit of courage, the Indian government issued a visa to Isa Dolkun, which would have allowed the leaders of these two movements to meet on Indian soil - only to withdraw it two days later in an even more embarrassing turn of events. India definitely wanted to project that it will not kowtow to the rules set by other international players and would protect its national interests at all costs. However, India appears to have played the Uyghur card quite prematurely and to its disadvantage.

For one, neither the Uyghurs nor the Tibetans have much in common in their struggle against the Chinese state. In conversations with the Tibetan leadership-in-exile (2011), it was obvious that they wanted to differentiate their non-violent struggle from the violent struggle of the Uyghurs, since that is their raison detre for international recognition and support, which makes it difficult to reach common ground between the two. It is not sure whether the Tibetan leadership has revised its stance in recent times as without the non-violent argument its own rationale and legacy could come to be questioned. So this could merely end up as a figurative gesture suggesting common talks between the two parties instead of something substantive actually materialising out of it. Unless of course the Uyghurs have decided to learn a lesson in democracy and peace from the Tibetans and turn their violent protests into a non-violent struggle. The sad part for India is that China already “knows” this. 

Secondly, the fact that China has already managed to register Isa Dolkun as a terrorist on the UN-Interpol list will only make it easier for China to make a case that India is supporting ‘anti-China’ activities from its soil. By which means it could legitimately put on hold all the diplomatic overtures that have so far been made: on the border row as well as in the military and technological fields. Third, the recent Sino-Indian bonhomie on the economic front, which had more to India’s advantage since China was offering to complete various projects at a more competitive price than offered by most Western countries, would be poorly affected by the turn of the events. India should deeply consider the factor that the West is no longer sharing technologies to the extent it was doing previously, making China the better option, though more disturbing in the face of the US$ 48.68 billion trade deficit that India has with China. India should therefore make some efforts to the contrary or at least woo the West for better investment. 

Moreover, the entire discourse surrounding the granting of the visa was itself completely flawed. While some officials were quick to declare that it was a tit-for-tat for China’s “stonewall” to declare Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, the visa had actually been granted much prior to that incident. The Indian establishment could have easily let the Uyhgur leader pass if not for the ‘upping the ante’ argument. Again, the withdrawal of the visa was cited for completely meek reasons: “That India was not aware of Isa Dolkun’s status as a terrorist on the Interpol.” This reason could have easily been brought to the front and face-saving measures implemented once the deed had actually been done. Other reasons that cvould have been cited: it was simply for “academic or democratic concerns” or it was meant to “help the Chinese state by making the Uyghur struggle less violent”- just the same kind of cover-up that the Chinese tell India about the South China Sea and various other things they do. 

In addition, the Indian establishment should have really pondered what could have been the outcome of this kind of coalescence between the Dalai Lama and the Uyghur leaders. China has often objected (previously) to the meeting of these two parties (Uyghur and Tibetan leaders) elsewhere around the globe as well as in the mainland, so it is no big deal if India is doing the same. China’s response to the Indian gesture would have obviously depended on to what extent it perceived this move as a ‘provocation’, which was not much since the issue did not even warrant local coverage in the Chinese media, or perhaps the Chinese knew that India would not take the risk. It is only hoped that the Indian establishment deliberates more cautiously before getting into any further foot-in-mouth situations and learn some tricks in deception and the art of “Chinese balderdash” to protect its own national interests.

Endeavour Postgraduate Scholarships in Australia for International Students

Australian Gov’tMasters/PhD Degree

Deadline: 30 June 2016 (annual)
Study in:  Australia
Course starts 2017

Brief description:

The Endeavour Postgraduate Scholarship provides financial support for international applicants to undertake a postgraduate qualification at a Masters or PhD level either by coursework or research in any field in Australia for up to four years.

Host Institution(s):

Universities or Higher Educations Institutions in Australia.

Level/Field(s) of Study:

Masters or PhD level either by coursework or research in any field of study

Number of Awards:

Not specified.

Target group:

Americas: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (People’s Republic), Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea – South), Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam.

The Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago.

Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France (including Reunion), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland).

Middle East: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Pacific: Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated states), Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand* (including Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna.

Scholarship value/inclusions/duration:

The scholarship value is up to $272,500 (PhD) and $140,500 (Masters). It includes travel allowance ($AUD 3,000), establishment allowance ($AUD 4,000), monthly stipend ($AUD 3,000; up to maximum programme duration on a pro-rata basis).  Health and travel insurance will also be provided.

Endeavour Scholarship recipients will also receive tuition fees paid up to the maximum study/research duration on a pro-rata basis. Tuition includes student service and amenities fees.

The duration of the scholarship is up to 2 years for a Masters and up to 4 years for a PhD.

Eligibility:

To be eligible to receive an Endeavour Postgraduate Scholarship, applicants must:

•  be aged 18 years or over at the commencement of their programme

•  be a citizen and/or permanent resident of a participating country (see above)

•  commence their proposed programme after 1 January 2017 and no later than 30 November 2017. Applicants who have already commenced or will commence their intended programme prior to 2017 are not eligible to apply

•  provide all relevant supporting documentation

• not currently hold or have completed, since 1 January 2015, an Australian Government sponsored scholarship and/or fellowship (directly administered to recipients by the Australian Government)

•  not apply for a category in which they have already completed an Endeavour Scholarship or Fellowship.

Application instructions:

As part of the eligibility requirements, international Endeavour Postgraduate Scholarship applicants must attach a formal admission letter from their proposed Australian institution. A conditional admission letter will be accepted at the time of application. Commencement must be for the 2017 academic year.

Applications are submitted through the Endeavour Online (EOL) system. Applications will  close at 11.59 pm (Australian Eastern Standard Time) on 30 June 2016.

It is important to read the 2017 Application Guidelines and visit the official website (link found below) for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Website:

Official Scholarship Website: https://internationaleducation.gov.au/Endeavour%20program/Scholarships-and-Fellowships/Pages/default.aspx

Nigeria LNG Overseas Postgraduate Scholarship 2016

Application Deadline: 19th June, 2016.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Scholarships are available in the following 5 UK Universities: University of Aberdeen, University of Cranfield, University of Leeds, University of Strathclyde, and University of Liverpool.

Brief description: Nigeria LNG Limited (NLNG) invites applications from qualified candidates for the NLNG Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme for entry into Masters Programmes in the United Kingdom in September 2016.

Eligible Field of Study: Courses covered by this scheme include Environmental Studies,Engineering, Management, Accountancy, Economics, Information Technology, Geology, Banking, Law and Medicine.

About Scholarship

This scheme was launched in October 2012 and is being managed by the British Council. The first 10 beneficiaries and second 13 beneficiaries left to the United Kingdom for their studies in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

The first and second sets of beneficiaries have completed their studies and returned to Nigeria. The 2015 set of 15 beneficiaries has commenced their programmes in various UK universities.

Scholarship Offered Since: 2012

Scholarship Type: Masters degree

Eligibility Criteria: Prospective beneficiaries must –

• Have a provisional admission from select UK institutions to study any of the following disciplines: Engineering, Geosciences, Environmental Sciences, Management Sciences, Information Technology, Law, Medicine
• Possess a minimum of 2nd Class Upper degree in a relevant field of study
• Have completed the NYSC programme
• Be no more than 30 years of age
• Be Nigerian nationals resident in Nigeria
• Provide identification documents from their LGAs
• Possess an international passport valid for travel at least one year from September 2016
• Provide evidence that they are available to travel in September 2016 if selected
• Not be a spouse, child nor ward of staff of Nigeria LNG Limited

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is valued at between $60,000 and $69,000, depending on the course,

Duration of Scholarship: Tenable for programmes in top academic institutions in the UK

Deadline: 19th June, 2016

How to Apply

If you are having issues with the online registration form

1. Username must be all CAPS
   2. Password must contain, CAPITAL LETTER, small letter, num3ric, and any of these(-.,/*).

Visit Scholarship Webpage and click on Apply here for 2016 PG Scholarship

Scholarship Provider: Nigeria LNG Limited

Important Notes: All requested documents must be attached. Only shortlisted applicants shall be invited for the selection interview. Applicants are therefore advised to be on the lookout for the short list on the NLNG website.

The Return of the Coup in Latin America

Manuel E. Yepe

Venezuela and Brazil are the scenes of a new form of coup d’état that would set the continent’s political calendar back to its worst times. Meanwhile, in Argentina, the brutal model for the demolition of democracy is set forward by the continental oligarchic right and the hegemonic forces of US imperialism who wish to impose their model in the region.

As we can see in the previews that test the memory of the peoples in the continent, it is difficult to accept that the new types of coups are actually softer and more covert than those which Latin America suffered for so long.

What has been shown so far in Argentina is no less cruel, in terms of contempt for the masses, than the coups carried out by the bloodthirsty dictatorships that sprouted in time of Operation Condor.

In Venezuela the president of the opposition majority in the National Assembly, Henry Ramos, openly declares that in view of the severity of the economic crisis, he fails to see Maduro concluding his term and adds they should put an end to Nicolas Maduro’s legitimate government within six months. Such statements did not compel the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, to formulate even the mildest rejection to such a coup-like declaration. This indicates they are returning to the era of open and brutal coups in the backyard of the United States of America.

Meanwhile, in Argentina, the newly-elected president, Mauricio Macri, moves forward the implementation of his “democratic model” with a brutal demolition of all the advances the nation had made after the collapse it suffered as a result of the neo-liberal economic and political crisis from which it had been rescued by the consecutive popular governments of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

Argentinean writer, journalist, and researcher Stella Calloni, explains that the current coup in Argentina began the same day Macri took office. He is an extreme right businessman who, since 2007 (according to Wikileaks) offered his services to the US embassy in Buenos Aires.

“The coup offensive began with decrees that allowed for the intervention of institutions and absolutely illegal measures, such as the appointment by decree of two judges to the Supreme Court. All economic measures favor the powerful and mark a path of exclusion for the common people,” says Calloni.

Violating the constitution and the laws, and ruling by Necessity and Urgency Decrees(NUDs) since December 2015, Macri took a road that evidently seeks to deliver the country to the global hegemonic power and the destruction of a work that had earned Argentina worldwide admiration and respect. He is delivering the country to the sinister designs of the International Monetary Fund and other agencies, banks and foreign institutions. All his economic actions favor the powerful and mark a path of exclusion for the population”.

“The negative opposition in Congress is part of the ongoing coup the US and its local puppets are carrying out against Venezuela,” Calloni says.

While the United States and its network of partners and local employees –with applause from the hegemonic power– support Macri’s unconstitutional decrees, in Venezuela, the decree of “economic emergency” signed by President Nicolas Maduro, was rejected by the legislative opposition with the acquiescence of the same power.

Never before was the right more willing to violate the Constitution and call to sedition, warned former Venezuelan Vice-President and journalist Jose Vicente Rangel. “Seldom in our country had a coup been announced so clearly and at the same time so elusively; the option would be the presidential recall, but this option –within our constitution– is only tangentially alluded to.”

According to Rangel, the opposition sails in two rivers by affirming, on the one hand, that within six months Nicolas Maduro will leave –by peaceful and constitutional means–Miraflores Palace (seat of government) and, on the other, that they will not even wait that long to oust the Venezuelan president.

“The right has grown presumptuous after its legislative victory of last December 6. But they still remember the failed coup of 2002: a resounding failure that made them switch to peaceful methods –as the ones they are apparently trying to use now– to overthrow the socialist power, But neither the soft blows, the carnival costumes used to confuse, or the violent coups can occur with impunity,” concludes José Vicente Rangel.

The 28 Pages And Ties Between The United States And Saudi Arabia

Chandra Muzaffar

There is a powerful case for de-classifying the “28 pages” of the Report of the Joint Inquiry of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate into 9-11 --- regarded as one of the United States’ most sensitive documents --- which has been kept under wraps since 2003. The families of the 9-11 victims are demanding that the 28 pages be made public. A number of prominent present and past legislators are making the same plea. In fact, there is a Bill before the US House of Representatives requesting the White House to reveal the document. Well-known public figures and several NGOs in the US have been campaigning for the release of the 28 pages for some time now.

Justice for the families of the 9-11 victims demands that the 28 pages be de-classified immediately. Non-disclosure means that the deep pain of not knowing the whole truth about the 9-11 operation will continue to cause anguish to the bereaved families. As Terry Strada, the national co- chair of the 9-11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrrorism put it at a media conference on Capitol hill on 7 January 2015, “ When former President George W. Bush classified the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry he effectively protected the people who gave financial and logistical aid to at least some of the 19 hijackers while they were here in this country ( the US). He effectively denied the 9-11 victims and survivors, and the American people, the truth about who was behind the worst attack on American soil. By hiding the truth about who financed 9-11, the guilty parties have gone unpunished, free to continue financing terrorist organizations, and, as a consequence, we have witnessed the creation of branches of al-Qaeda, like ISIS, grow at an alarming rate.”

I am hoping that the release of the 28 pages may persuade the American people to put pressure on the US government to reveal much more about 9-11 than what is currently known. Was there a link between the financiers of the 9-11 operation and intelligence networks in various countries who may have had their own agendas which the hijackers and their immediate backers may not even have been aware of ? Is the War on Terror, launched in the wake of 9-11 by Bush and the neo-cons, and the various acts of terrorism associated with Al-Qaeda, ISIS ( or Daesh) and other such outfits since then, part of the same complex narrative whose real purpose is to perpetuate the US drive for global hegemony ?

There are powerful forces who do not want the American people or the citizens of the world to connect all the dots that will tell the real story about 9-11. They are against the release of the 28 pages. The government of Saudi Arabia for instance --- since Saudi citizens are allegedly implicated in the financing of 9-11 in the 28 pages --- has threatened to sell off 750 billion in US Treasury securities and other assets if the US Congress passes the Bill before it. President Obama himself has made it clear that he is against any potential legal action targeting Saudi citizens.

Regardless of how the 28 pages saga unfolds in the coming months, Saudi-US ties appear to be undergoing a change. Blind protection of Saudi interests by the US Congress or the White House may be more difficult to come by in the future. The stand adopted by Obama on the Iran nuclear deal , which incensed Saudi rulers, is an indication that the US leadership no longer interprets threats and dangers in West Asia through Saudi lenses. In a recent interview with The Atlantic Obama rejected the idea that Iran is the source of all the problems of West Asia. Less dependence upon Saudi oil may have contributed to this change on the part of the US leadership. There may be two other more compelling reasons. Saudi association with terrorism and its hidebound conservatism,widely discussed more in the Euopean than the US media -- has had some impact upon US elite thinking. The US, it seems, does not want to be weighed down by the Saudi baggage. Equally important, some US foreign policy analysts realize that the pattern of power in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) is changing and Iran is emerging as an influential actor with a decisive role in not only Syria and Iraq but also in Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain, among other states. It makes some sense for a hegemonic power operating in WANA to adjust to this reality.

Nonetheless, the US –Saudi bond will remain for a long time to come. Saudi Arabia purchases arms on a massive scale from Western powers and counts upon the aura of their military prowess to preserve the House of Saud. The US, on the other hand, views its special relationship with Riyadh as a sort of insurance for the “ security” of Israel. And the security of that state is paramount to Washington as it is to London and Paris.

But then is a reset also in the offing in the relations between certain Western powers and Israel? That is a subject for a different occasion.

Meddlesome Empire: Obama And Client Britain’s EU Referendum

Binoy Kampmark

Good to see that history, if it does not possess historical cunning, as Hegel rather foolishly observed, has, at the very least, some humour. US President Barack Obama has been busy making it his business to make sure that Britain remains in the European Union after the referendum elections of June. The urging has all the meaning of a Wall Street plea. If Britain leaves, there will be instability. A world of chaos will ensue.

Obama in imperial mode has been some sight. Armed with words of condescension, he has treated Britons in a fashion they are rarely used to: being lectured as subjects in need of a good intellectual thrashing. For years, the nostalgic establishment Briton has become the supposedly sagacious backer of US power in various parts of the planet. The US has been assured that it can count on vassal insurance when Washington’s more bizarre imperial failures come to light.

The mood from Obama on Friday was, however, not so breezy and confident. He had one target in mind: Brexit, and the consequences that might arise from it. The Vote Leavers’ campaign favouring Britain’s exit from EU torpor and pseudo-tyranny took a considerable battering.

Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian observed that the Vote Leavers premise of finding that other symbolically appropriate wife – the US of the “Anglosphere”, rather than the more problematic European Continentals – was shattered. The Obama White House“spelled out that America had no intention of forming some new, closer relationship with Brexited Britain.”

Should Britain, he suggested in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, decide to exit the troubled bosom of Europe, it would place the country “in the back of the queue” when coming to forging a new trade deal with the US. (This, on its own, might not be such a bad thing, given the nasties that lurk within the current trade proposals.)

Then came the treading upon an article of faith: Britain’s incurable obsession with the Second World War. Obama decided to issue a reminder to his hosts on the US gaze upon Europe – and a Europe free of internal squabbles. “The tens of thousands of Americans who rest in Europe’s cemeteries are a silent testament to just how intertwined our prospect and security truly are.”

The papers were full of scornful reproach, though they tended to centre on opinions favouring a departure. Those wanting to leave Europe were a mix of fury and desperation, while those urging a stay vote were happy to allow Obama much leg, and fist room. What is at stake in the debate is not a truly sovereign Britain, so much as who is the best overlord in the business.

Former Tory cabinet minister Liam Fox, for one, wished that Obama consider British views on the subject for a change. He proved so keen to force the point he managed to gather a hundred MP signatures for a letter to the US ambassador to the UK urging the White House to keep its nose out of Britannia’s sacred business. The hegemon’s views on the subject would have to be silenced.

The US, he argued, would never permit a foreign court to overrule the decision of Congress. “The president is, of course, welcome to his view when the US has an open border with Mexico, a supreme court in Toronto and the US budget set by a pan-American committee.” This otherwise meaningless distinction did shore up one vital point: a foreign power, fraternal, brutal and intrusive, was showing its hand in the domestic affairs of a client state.

The noisy anti-EU leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, abandoned any sense of compunction altogether. “Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been, won’t be in office for much longer, and I hope will be replaced by somebody rather more sensible when it comes to trading relationships with this country.”

The Telegraph ran with a dominant headline about the president’s “woeful ignorance” in the damage the EU is said to be doing to Britain’s security. Naturally, that allegation came straight from Penny Mordaunt, whose brief on the subject of keeping Obama at bay was made crystal clear during the president’s visit. As Armed Forces minister, Mordaunt has little time for European institutional functions, seeing devils across the continent that need bottling.

Mordaunt’s political pedigree on this point should be noted. Having been reared by experience working for George W. Bush, whose grasp of security issues was always shaky at best, her propensity to see dangers everywhere starts making political sense. It is reactionary to the highest degree, a condition that sees enemies as viral phenomena and liberties as abstractions to be regarded with suspicion.

The European Court of Justice, for instance, had an alarming tendency to throw the book of laws at the ability of the US and Britain to share intelligence (read, pinching it from others). Bulk-sharing of intelligence remains an ideological point of contention, never mind the fact that the actual nature of such indiscriminate gathering undermines cardinal principles of efficiency.

Obama’s view that the EU was actually a vehicle for magnifying British influence was dismissed sheer geopolitical fiction. “Unfortunately,” signed Mordaunt, “this opinion betrays a woeful ignorance of the practical reality of the EU’s impact on our security, and the interests of the UK and the US.”

The storm of disagreement with the current White House approach continued with views that Obama had confused the virtues of “collective action and defence through Nato with the integration-at-all-costs-and-damn-the-consequences ideology that too often motivates the EU.”

What has emerged on this presidential tour is a list of political realities. Imperial centres will lecture their irresponsible satellites; hidden power will eventually manifest itself in speech and warning, and the only thing left, irrespective of which side of the debate one endorses, is that Britain is being roasted by the prong of the EU and the strategic thrust of the United States. Either way, a truly sovereign Britain is hardly likely to eventuate.

Increasing suicide rate in Australia highlights social crisis

Mary Beadnell

An Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) report, Causes of Death Australia, 2014, released last month, revealed a sharply rising suicide rate over the past decade, with steep increases among children and young women.

The media barely mentioned the report, and it was quickly buried by the parties of the political establishment—Liberal-National, Labor and Greens. That is because the trend points to a worsening human toll, above all among young people, from the mounting social crisis and declining prospects for youth.

Nationally, there were 2,864 deaths from intentional self-harm in 2014—2,160 men and 704 women. The total was up from about 2,100 in 2005, making suicide the 13th leading cause of all deaths. Suicides occurred at a rate of 12 per 100,000 people in 2014—up by 20 percent from about 10 per 100,000 in 2005.

According to the ABS data, the impact of these deaths is even greater when measured in terms of years of potential life lost, precisely because of the young age of many of the victims. Intentional self-harm deaths accounted for 97,066 years of potential life lost, the highest of all leading causes of death in 2014.

While heart disease, dementia, stroke, lung cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases were the top five biggest causes of death overall, among people 15–44 years of age, suicide was the greatest killer. This is a damning indictment of an economic and social system based on corporate profit, which offers no future for many young people.

Most of the suicide victims—75 percent—were male. Tragically, among male teenagers and men aged between 15 and 34, about a third of all deaths were due to intentional self-harm. For those aged 15–19, nearly 36 percent of all deaths resulted from suicide.

The sharpest rises, however, have occurred among girls and women. In recent years the rate of suicide among young females, aged between 10 and 29, has risen to almost the same levels as among males. More than a quarter of the female deaths between those ages were attributed to intentional self-harm. According to Suicide Prevention Australia, the suicide rate among young women has increased by 10 percent per year over the past three years.

That so many young men and women, in what should be the primes of their lives, feel there is little to look forward to indicates deteriorating social conditions in Australia, despite the myth of an exceptional “lucky country” leading to rising social tensions and problems.

Disturbingly, increasing numbers of children are also killing themselves. In 2013, the ABS reported that suicide was the leading cause of death of children between 5 and 17 years of age. In 2009, 9.9 percent of all deaths of children this age were due to suicide. By 2013, this proportion had almost doubled to 19.3 percent.

The rates of suicide per 100,000 children remained low—2.5—compared to the overall population rate of 10.9 in 2013, but the rise was stark.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Northern Territory (NT) reported the worst rate of child deaths due to suicide, with 12.7 deaths per 100,000. Because the NT has the highest proportion of indigenous people among Australia’s states and territories, this indicates a terrible impact on Aboriginal people, who are among the most oppressed layers of the working class.

While the interaction between suicide, mental health problems and economic and social stresses, such as worsening job prospects, is complex, there is mounting evidence of a link between suicide and unemployment.

After compiling a series of reports and research documents, the Australian Institute of Male Health Studies found that unemployed males were around 4.6 times more likely to take their own lives than employed males.

A global study last year concluded that one-fifth of all suicides were linked to unemployment—about 45,000 people each year took their own lives because they became unemployed. This study, published on the Lancet medical journal’s psychiatry web site, suggested an association between the 2008 economic crisis, rising jobless rates and increased rates of suicide.

Young jobseekers in Australia are under intensifying pressure in looking for work. As at August 2015, nearly 290,000 young people were officially unemployed—over 50 percent, or 100,000 people, more than at the start of the global financial breakdown in 2008.

There is growing job insecurity. Mass layoffs in mines, steelworks, car factories and other basic industries have left more than 1.5 million workers unemployed or underemployed—wanting more hours—even according to the understated official figures. As a result, young people and working-class households are under acute stress, competing for jobs, trying to obtain educational qualifications and pay bills.

In response to the economic crisis, successive federal and state governments, Liberal-National and Labor, have imposed austerity measures. These have included cuts to mental health programs and welfare benefits—especially for sole parents, disabled workers and the unemployed.

Decades of under-funding have left mental health services unable to assist many people suffering distress. In a recent report, titled “Mental health services reach the tipping point in Australian acute hospitals,” the Medical Journal of Australia noted that Australia ranked 26th of the 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for hospital psychiatric beds per 100,000 population. In 2013, Australia had 29 fewer beds per 100,000 than the OECD average.

Funding for community-based care, allocated to non-government service providers through competitive tender processes, has been slashed also over the past decade, with long periods of uncertainty between funding rounds.

One result is that in 2011, Australia had the third highest readmission rate among the OECD countries for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia—over 15 percent were readmitted to hospital within 30 days—and the fourth highest unplanned readmission rate (15 percent) for patients with bipolar disorder.

The underlying link between suicide and periods of economic breakdown was illustrated by an earlier report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, “Suicide and hospitalised self-harm in Australia, Trends and analysis.” It found that the highest rates of suicide for men recorded in Australia—30 deaths per 100,000—were in 1930 and 1931, during the Great Depression. Unemployment and mental ill health were cited as the two major contributing factors.

It is not surprising that the young and working class people are the most affected again today. Parents in jobs are having to work longer hours, cut back on recreational activities and spend less time with their children. Household debt levels are the highest in the world and young people are also burdened with large debts from university or college fees.

Eleven thousand jobs threatened at British Home Stores

Jean Shaoul

British Home Stores (BHS), which has debts worth £1.3 billion including a £571 million pension deficit, filed for administration Monday morning.

The 11,000 staff at the 164 stores, who were only told late Sunday evening, stand to lose not only their jobs but at least 10 percent of their pensions, as BHS hands over its commitments to the tax-payer-backed Pension Protection Fund. Around 8,000 who have already retired will see their pensions capped. The store’s collapse leaves taxpayers with unpaid VAT and other taxes, as well as the cost of redundancy and payments to BHS workers.

While BHS is in talks with Sports Direct to take over some of its stores, it will only do so without taking on the pension deficit.

BHS is the largest high street brand to fold since Woolworths, which started out around the same time as BHS, more than 80 years ago, and failed in 2008.

Business analysts have focused on BHS’s failure to keep up with the times and its outdated image. But this is a complete distortion of the truth. It is aimed at deflecting workers’ well-justified anger over the demise of yet another well-known corporation whose assets, built up by generations of workers, have been salted away or squandered by owners. Yet again, pension obligations are to be transferred to the taxpayer, while the corporate heads’ own tax obligations are wiped out, courtesy of complex debt-financed transactions and off-shore tax havens.

BHS’s collapse reflects the utter parasitism and financial skulduggery of Britain’s ruling class. Corporate bosses have proved themselves entirely unfit and incapable of running industry, trade or services in a way that satisfies the needs of their workforce, customers or society at large. In this, they are aided and abetted by government, regulators, bankers, a compliant media and trade union leaders. While workers lose their jobs and pensions, and the taxpayer foots the bill, those at the top never have to account for anything.

BHS was bought for £200 million in 2000 by billionaire Philip Green, knighted by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2006 for “services to the retail industry.” A review of his tenure at BHS gives some indication of what these services consist of.

According to business consultancy Opus Restructuring, BHS made a tiny taxable profit over the 15 years of Green’s ownership of just £78 million, on a turnover of £11 billion. The reasons are not hard to fathom. His “business model” involved loading the company with debt payable to Green’s other companies, from whom BHS also purchased services, and using BHS’s assets to secure the loans. At the same time, he funnelled money out of BHS in the form of dividends to his wife, who resides in Monaco for tax purposes, thereby avoiding UK tax.

Around £807 million was taken from the company and funnelled to one or other of Green’s companies or family. This included £252 million paid to the parent group, Arcadia Group, which owns other well-known high street stores and concessions, for “management charges”—£141 million for ground rent, a feudal relic of Britain's archaic land ownership arrangements, and £414 million in dividends to Green's wife, who is the owner of the investment fund that owns the Arcadia Group.

In 2005, Green famously paid his wife £1.2 billion via a loan taken out by Arcadia, thereby reducing Arcadia’s corporation tax liability, as interest charges on the loan were tax-deductible.

A company controlled by Green provided BHS with a £19.5 million subordinated bond, earning nearly £10 million in interest payments. The list goes on.

His treatment of the Arcadia Group’s workforce, both in Britain and his suppliers overseas, attracted the attention of numerous anti-sweatshop groups such as Labour Behind the Label, No Sweat and People & Planet. In 2007, Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times alleged that his firm used overseas sweatshops where workers in Mauritius were paid pitiful wages. In 2010, TV Channel 4’s Dispatches programme alleged he was using factories in Britain that paid workers less than half the legal minimum wage.

Arcadia starved BHS of investment funds, leaving the stores shabby and its online services limited. While BHS’s pension fund was in surplus when Green bought the company in 2000, and had risen to £12.2 million in 2002, BHS refused to fund it adequately following the 2008 financial crash, with the result that by the time Green sold BHS last year, the scheme was massively in deficit.

In August 2010, Conservative prime minister David Cameron found that all of this made Green eminently suitable to chair a government-commissioned review of government spending. Two months later, Green’s “Efficiency Review” duly reported that if the government were a business it would fail, claiming that it wasted money on empty buildings, lazy contracts and wasteful purchasing procedures, and recommended further centralisation of government procurement to drive down costs.

In March 2015, after he had bled BHS dry, Green sold it—laden with debt and pension liabilities—for £1, while providing loans to the new owners and holding onto some of the assets as security.

Such was the state of BHS that only Retail Acquisitions Ltd, a financially dubious outfit of private investors, would touch it. Retail Acquisitions was an unknown entity, headed by Dominic Chappell, a former racing driver with no retail experience who had twice been declared bankrupt and once become personally insolvent via an individual voluntary arrangement. Chappell is linked to Clarberry Investments, an offshore company based in Panama, which he said was only set up to pursue what turned out to be a failed bid to buy a Swiss retail chain.

Despite promises to turn round BHS, the situation went from bad to worse. Last December, when the pension trustees asked for increased payments to make good the £225.6 million deficit that has now risen to £571 million, BHS refused, claiming it could not afford it.

Last month, it staved off the threat of bankruptcy by negotiating a rent reduction, selling off its property portfolio, and agreeing to a £60 million loan from private equity firm Gordon Brothers. To no avail. The property sale achieved less than expected, and the loan was ultimately refused after Green refused to relax his charge on the assets.

The trade unions have stood by for years as all this happened, without lifting a finger to defend the workforce. As the situation became ever more desperate, USDAW, the shop workers’ union, said it was “seeking urgent clarification from the company” and meekly begged BHS to begin a dialogue “at this difficult and worrying time for staff.”

The pensions’ scandal has turned the spotlight on Green, who ranks 29 in the Sunday Times’s rich list, with calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood and be summoned before the parliamentary Work and Pensions Committee. The Pensions Regulator is believed to be in talks with Green to get him to increase his paltry offer of £80 million towards the pension deficit.

Green’s attitude to all of this is one of utter contempt. The Daily Mail reported one of Green’s friends as saying, “This is all bull***t. … Frank Field [who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee] is behaving like a complete a***hole, and Philip has no intention of appearing before his stupid committee.”