15 Sept 2016

100 Jim Ovia Scholarships for Nigerian Students 2016

Application Deadline: Opens today 15th September 2016 to 15th November 2016 | 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Nigerian citizens
To be taken at (country): Nigerian universities
Eligible Field of Study: All courses offered at Nigerian universities
About Scholarship: The Jim Ovia Scholarships was founded since 1998. It is fully funded by Mr. Jim Ovia to provide financial aid to outstanding Nigeria youths. The scholarship was previously known as the MUSTE scholarship. Since October 2010, Mr. Ovia has invested over 100 Million Naira in the program to support 1500 beneficiaries and counting.
In establishing the Jim Ovia Scholarships, Mr. Ovia hoped to create a network of future leaders within Nigeria who can compete globally with their peers, bring new ideas, creativity and are committed to improving the lives and circumstances of people in their respective communities.
Over time it is expected that the Jim Ovia Scholarship beneficiaries will become leaders in helping to address challenges related to health, technology, and finance, all areas in which the foundation is deeply engaged.
Scholarship Offered Since: 1998
Scholarship Type: undergraduate and graduate degrees
Eligibility
The scholarship is open to all potential students of Nigerian citizenship. One hundred (100) awardees are selected each year from a pool of eligible applicants.
Selection Criteria
Scholarships are awarded on the basis of personal intellectual ability, leadership capability and a desire to use their knowledge to contribute to society throughout Nigeria by providing service to their community and applying their talent and knowledge to improve the lives of others.
Number of Scholarships: The scheme offers an average of 100 opportunities each year for new applicants while renewing applicants are supported annually, conditional on meeting all eligible requirements of the scholarship
Value of Scholarship: Scholarship covers tuition fee and maintenance allowances.
Duration of Scholarship: for the period of the program
How to Apply
  • Go to jimoviafoundation.org. Click on ‘LOG IN’ or ‘REGISTER NOW’ at top right hand corner of the homepage
  • Create a new account or login with your existing credentials if you already have a Jim Ovia Scholar Account
  • Between September 15 and November 15 when the scholarship application form becomes available, you can begin your application. Ensure to fill out all the data completely and accurately on your application.
Application Requirement
  • Completed online application
  • Valid Government ID (e.g. International passport, Voter’s Card, National ID or Driver’s License). The only exception will be for minors below the age of 18 years who are unable to apply for a government ID. In which case, a birth certificate will be accepted in lieu of a government ID for such minors.
  • An official original letter (not photocopied) from your school/Head of Department stating the following: – Your full-name – Course Title – Department of Study – CGPA – Gender – Matriculation number OR Newly matriculated who have not yet received a matriculation number or school ID must provide a provisional admission letter to their institution of study.
  • Original Secondary School Certificate (WAEC or NECO)
  • Original JAMB certificate
  • A valid student ID for your host institution  (University/College)
  • A passport photograph
Scholarship Provider: Jim Ovia Foundation

Assad’s Death Warrant

Mike Whitney


“Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.”
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria, Politico
The conflict in Syria is not a war in the conventional sense of the word. It is a regime change operation, just like Libya and Iraq were regime change operations.
The main driver of the conflict is the country that’s toppled more than 50 sovereign governments since the end of World War 2.  (See: Bill Blum here.) We’re talking about the United States of course.
Washington is the hands-down regime change champion, no one else even comes close. That being the case, one might assume that the American people would notice the pattern of intervention, see through the propaganda and assign blame accordingly. But that never  seems to happen and it probably won’t happen here either. No matter how compelling the evidence may be, the brainwashed American people always believe their government is doing the right thing.
But the United States is not doing the right thing in Syria. Arming, training and funding Islamic extremists — that have killed half a million people, displaced 7 million more and turned the country into an uninhabitable wastelands –is not the right thing. It is the wrong thing, the immoral thing. And the US is involved in this conflict for all the wrong reasons, the foremost of which is gas. The US wants to install a puppet regime in Damascus so it can secure pipeline corridors in the East, oversee the transport of vital energy reserves from Qatar to the EU, and make sure that those reserves continue to be denominated in US Dollars that are recycled into US Treasuries and US financial assets. This is the basic recipe for maintaining US dominance in the Middle East and for extending America’s imperial grip on global power into the future.
The war in Syria did not begin when the government of Bashar al Assad cracked down on protestors in the spring of 2011. That version of events is obfuscating hogwash.  The war began in 2009, when Assad rejected a Qatari plan to transport gas from Qatar to the EU via Syria. As Robert F Kennedy Jr. explains in his excellent article “Syria: Another pipeline War”:
“The $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey….would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey… The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would have given the Sunni Kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America’s closest ally in the Arab world. ….
In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally….
Assad further enraged the Gulf’s Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline” running from Iran’s side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran’s influence in the Mid-East and the world…”
Naturally, the Saudis, Qataris, Turks and Americans were furious at Assad, but what could they do? How could they prevent him from choosing his own business partners and using his own sovereign territory to transport gas to market?
What they could do is what any good Mafia Don would do; break a few legs and steal whatever he wanted. In this particular situation, Washington and its scheming allies decided to launch a clandestine proxy-war against Damascus, kill or depose Assad, and make damn sure the western oil giants nabbed the future pipeline contracts and controlled the flow of energy to Europe. That was the plan at least. Here’s more from Kennedy:
“Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria.
Repeat: “the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline”, he signed his own death warrant. That single act was the catalyst for the US aggression that transformed a bustling, five thousand-year old civilization into a desolate Falluja-like moonscape overflowing with homicidal fanatics that were recruited, groomed and deployed by the various allied intelligence agencies.
But what’s particularly interesting about this story is that the US attempted a nearly-identical plan 60 years earlier during the Eisenhower administration. Here’s another clip from the Kennedy piece:
“During the 1950′s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers … mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism — which CIA Director Allan Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism….
The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949 — barely a year after the agency’s creation…. Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. (so)… the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime…..
(CIA agent Rocky) Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1956 with $3 million in Syrian pounds to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Kuwaiti’s democratically elected secularist regime….
But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA’s bribery attempts to the Ba’athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy taking Stone prisoner. Following harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession to his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA’s aborted attempt to overthrow Syria’s legitimate government….(Then) Syria purged all politicians sympathetic to the U.S. and executed them for treason.” (Politico)
See how history is repeating itself? It’s like the CIA was too lazy to even write a new script, they just dusted off the old one and hired new actors.
Fortunately, Assad –with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and the Russian Airforce– has fended off the effort to oust him and install a US-stooge. This should not be taken as a ringing endorsement of Assad as a leader, but of the principal that global security depends on basic protections of national sovereignty, and that the cornerstone of international law has to be a rejection of unprovoked aggression whether the hostilities are executed by one’s own military or by armed proxies that are used to achieve the same strategic objectives while invoking  plausible deniability. The fact is, there is no difference between Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Obama’s invasion of Syria. The moral, ethical and legal issues are the same, the only difference is that Obama has been more successful in confusing the American people about what is really going on.
And what’s going on is regime change: “Assad must go”. That’s been the administration’s mantra from the get go. Obama and Co are trying to overthrow a democratically-elected secular regime that refuses to bow to Washington’s demands to provide access to pipeline corridors that will further strengthen US dominance in the region.  That’s what’s really going on behind the ISIS distraction and the “Assad is a brutal dictator” distraction and the “war-weary civilians in Aleppo” distraction. Washington doesn’t care about any of those things. What Washington cares about is oil, power and money. How can anyone be confused about that by now?  Kennedy summed it up like this:
“We must recognize the Syrian conflict is a war over control of resources indistinguishable from the myriad clandestine and undeclared oil wars we have been fighting in the Mid-East for 65 years. And only when we see this conflict as a proxy war over a pipeline do events become comprehensible.”
That says it all, don’t you think?

Monsanto And The Poisonous Cartel Of GMOs In India

Vandana Shiva


India is steeped in a synthesized controversy created by Monsanto on the first GMO crop supposedly approved for commercialization. Engaged in litigation on many fronts, Monsanto is trying to subvert India’s patent laws: Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right ActEssential Commodities Act and Competition Act. It is behaving as if there is no Parliament, no democracy, no sovereign laws in India to which it is subject. Or it simply doesn’t have any regard for them.
In another theatre, Monsanto and Bayer are merging. They were one as MoBay (MonsantoBayer), part of the poison cartel of I.G. Farben. The controlling stakes of both corporations lie with the same private equity firms. The expertise of these firms is in war. I.G. Farben, Adolf Hitler’s economic powerhouse and pre-war Germany’s highest foreign exchange earner, was also a foreign intelligence operation. Hermann Schmitz was president of I.G. Farben, Schmitz’s nephew Max Ilgner was a director of I.G. Farben, while Max’s brother Rudolph Ilgner ran the New York arm as vice-president of Chemnyco.
Paul Warburg, brother of Max Warburg (board of directors, Farben Aufsichtsrat), founded the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Max Warburg and Hermann Schmitz played a central role in the Farben empire. Other “guiding hands” of Farben Vorstand included Carl Bosch, Fritz ter Meer, Kurt Oppenheim and George von Schnitzler. Each of them was adjudged a “war criminal” after World War II, except Paul Warburg.
Monsanto and Bayer have a long history. They made explosives and lethally poisonous gases using shared technologies and sold them to both sides in the two world wars. The same war chemicals were bought by the Allied and Axis powers, from the same manufacturers, with money borrowed from the same bank.
MoBay supplied ingredients for Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. Around 20 million gallons of MoBay defoliants and herbicides were sprayed over South Vietnam. Children are still being born with birth defects, adults have chronic illnesses and cancers, due to their exposure to MoBay’s chemicals. Monsanto and Bayer’s cross-licensed Agent Orange resistance has also been cross-developed for decades. Wars were fought, lives lost, nations carved into holy lands — with artificial boundaries that suit colonization and resource grab — while Bayer and Monsanto sold chemicals as bombs and poisons and their brothers provided the loans to buy those bombs.
More recently, Bayer CropScience AG and Monsanto are believed to have entered into a long-term business relationship. This gives Monsanto and Bayer free access to each other’s herbicide and paired herbicide resistance technology. Through cross-licensing agreements, mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become the I.G. Farben of today, with Monsanto in the cockpit.
The global chemical and GMO industry—Bayer, Dow Agro, DuPont Pioneer, Mahyco, Monsanto and Syngenta—have come together to form the Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII) to try and become bigger bullies in this assault on India’s farmers, environment and democratically-framed laws that protect the public and the national interest. This is in addition to Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises (ABLE), which tried to challenge India’s seed price control order issued under the Essential Commodities Act in the Karnataka high court. The case was dismissed.
The new group is not “seed industry;” they produce no seeds. They try to stretch patents on chemicals to claim ownership on seeds, even in countries where patents on seeds and plants are not allowed. This is the case in India, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and many other countries.
All Monsanto cases in India are related to Monsanto un-scientifically, illegally and illegitimately claiming patents on seed, in contempt of India’s laws, and trying to collect royalties from the Indian seed industry and farmers. The FSII is an “I.G. Farben 100-Year Family Reunion,” a coming together of independent and autonomous entities.
The Farben family chemical cartel was responsible for exterminating people in concentration camps. It embodies a century of ecocide and genocide, carried out in the name of scientific experimentation and innovation. Today, the poison cartel is wearing G-Engineering clothes and citing the mantra of “innovation” ad nauseam. Hitler’s concentration camps were an “innovation” in killing; and almost a century later, the Farben family is carrying out the same extermination—silently, globally and efficiently.
Monsanto’s “innovation” of collecting illegal royalties and pushing Indian farmers to suicide is also an innovation in killing without liability, indirectly. Just because there is a new way to kill doesn’t make killing right. “Innovation,” like every human activity, has limits—set by ethics, justice, democracy, the rights of people and of nature.
I.G. Farben was tried in Nuremberg. We have national laws to protect people, their right to life and public health, and the environment. India’s biosafety and patent laws and the Plant Variety Act are designed to regulate greedy owners of corporations with a history of crimes against nature and humanity.
Industry is getting ready to push its next “gene,” the GMO mustard (DMH-11). The GMO mustard, being promoted as a public sector “innovation,” is based on barnase/barstar/gene system to create male-sterile plants and a bar gene for glufosinate resistance. In 2002, Pro-Agro’s (Bayer) application for approval of commercial planting of GM mustard based on the same system was turned down.
Although banned in India, Bayer finds ways to sell glufosinate illegally to Assam’s tea gardens and the apple orchards of Himachal Pradesh. Sales agents show the sale of glufosinate under the “others” category to avoid regulation. These chemicals are finding their way into the bodies of our children without government approval. Essentially, all key patents related to the bar gene are held by Bayer Crop Science, which acquired Aventis Cropscience, which itself was created out of the genetic engineering divisions of Schering, Rhone Poulenc and Hoechst. Then Bayer acquired Plant Genetic Systems and entered into cooperation agreement with Evogene, which has patents on genome mapping.
Before any approval is granted to genetically-engineered mustard, the issue of limits to patentability needs to be resolved on the basis of Indian laws and patents on plants and seeds and methods of agriculture must not be allowed. Deepak Pental, a retired professor and GMO-Operative, will not commercialize GMO mustard seed. His officers at Bayer/Monsanto/MoBay will.
Given our experience with GMO cotton, The Ministry of Environment & Forests is considering the option of putting in place guidelines for socio-economic assessment to judge proposed GMO varieties on the basis of factors such as the economy, health, environment, society and culture.
At the core of socio-economic assessment is the issue of monopolies and cartels, and their impact on small farmers. Even though patents on seeds are not allowed, for more than a decade and a half, Monsanto has extracted illegal royalties from Indian farmers, trapping them in debt and triggering an epidemic of farmers’ suicides. Monsanto’s war on India’s foot soldiers—farmers—is a war being waged by the Farben family, on our Earth family.

An Asteroid Called “Peak Oil” – The Real Cause Of The Growing Social Inequality In The US

Ugo Bardi


In a recent article on the Huffington Post, Stan Sorscher reports the graph above and asks the question of what could have happened in the early 1970s that changed everything. Impressive, but what caused this “something” that happened in the early 1970s? According to Sorscher,
X marks the spot. In this case, “X” is our choice of national values. We abandoned traditional American values that built a great and prosperous nation.  
Unfortunately, this is a classic case of an explanation that doesn’t explain anything. Why did the American people decide to abandon traditional American values just at that specific moment in time?
In reality, the turning point of that time has been known for a long time. The first to notice it were Harry Bluestone and Bennet Harrison with their 1988 book “The Great U-turn: Corporate Restructuring And The Polarizing Of America.” They noted that a lot of economic parameters had completely reversed their historical trends in the early 1970s, including the overall inequality measured in terms of the Gini coefficient. For nearly a century, the US society had been moving toward a higher degree of equality. From the early 1970s, the trend changed direction, bringing the US to an inequality level similar to that of the average South-American countries.
So, what was that “something” that changed everything in the early 1970s? Nobody really knows for sure, but at least there was a major measurable change that took place in 1970: peak oil in the US. (image below, from Wikipedia).
It was a true asteroid that hit the US economy and that changed a lot of things. Possibly the most important change was that the US ceased to be an oil exporter and became an oil importer. That change was “user transparent,” in the sense that the Americans who were filling up the tanks of their cars didn’t know where the oil that had produced their gasoline was coming from (and mostly didn’t even care). But the change implied a major transfer of capital from the US to foreign producers, while a large part of it returned to the US in the form of investments. It was the “petrodollar recycling” phenomenon that mainly affected the financial system; all that money never really trickled down to the poorer sections of the US society. That may well explain the increasing inequality trend that started in the early 1970s.
But, if the oil peak of 1970 explains the inequality trends, shouldn’t the new reversal of the trend – the “shale oil revolution” change everything again? Perhaps surprisingly, there is some evidence that this may be the case
The data from the World Bank indicate that the Gini coefficient for the US has peaked in 2006 and has remained constant, or slightly declining, ever since. Again, that makes some sense; one wouldn’t have expected a return to the low inequality values of the 1960s since the great shale oil boom didn’t transform the US into an oil exporter. At present, with the recent peaking of the Bakken field, it looks like that the good times of half a century ago will never return.
All this would require a lot of work to be better quantified and proven. But it is not a surprise that our life depends so much and so deeply on the production of that vital black liquid that we call “crude oil”. And with the probable downturn of the US production that seems to be starting right now, we are going to see more, and more radical, changes in our society. What these changes will be, we have to see, but it is hard to think that they will be for better equality.

24 Countries Must Share Their Surplus Farmland With 2 Billion Others

Anandi Sharan

Even the most ardent capitalists/imperialists know that they and their predecessors have destroyed earth. For this reason alone the material conditions are right for those forces to self-destruct. After this happy event, – to which we are all of course joyously contributing by every means possible, – the world’s forests and coasts and other natural landscapes will be handed over to the 1 billion indigenous people and fishermen. In many places the process is well under way.But it is expected that unless we do something about the rest of us, 80% of us will be living in cities by 2030. If our human population is 7.4 billion today, and 1 billion are in forests and along coasts, that means 5.12 billion of us might be in cities. Of course that would be mean certain extinction of most of the human race and most flora and fauna; – city life without commercial energy is unthinkable and commercial energy is the death of earth.
Evacuate the cities
Thus the present 3 billion city people must evacuate the cities and join with the 3.4 billion existing farmers, and do permaculture. This involves an enormous social upheaval; but one which we are in any case already setting in motion. Organic, regenerative, ecologically sustainable permaculture saves soils, climate and oceans and gives other species a chance. Hopefully the world’s new revolutionary governments outlaw commercial energy and ban capitalist corporations and war, and the new associations of rural independent producers will slow down runaway climate change.
But is there enough farmland? Yes. 24 countries have enough farmland to accommodate an extra 2 billion people from countries where there is not enough farmland or where temperatures have made human life impossible.
The average area of farmland per person in the world is 0.2 hectares. Assuming that the present world average is the right amount of farmland per person, of the 206 countries for which there are statistics, there is one country that could accommodate ten times more people than it does at the moment: Australia. It can increase its population from 23.5 to 235 million. Kazakhstan can accommodate nine times more to 150 million, Canada 7 times more to 233 million, Argentina five times more to 197 million, Niger 4 times more to 80 million,  Russian Federation four times more to 614, Lithuania four times to 11 million and Ukraine four times more to 163 million. Paraguay, Uruguay, Latvia, Belarus, Guyana and Moldova could accommodate three times more. United States, Estonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Denmark, Bolivia and Finland could accommodate twice as many people as they have at present.So these 24 countries that today have a population of 0.75 billion people could open their borders to share their farmland and provide a permaculture life for 2 billion more people.
A second group of 51 countries have more than the average farmland per person but less than double the average. This list of countries is Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, France, The Gambia, Greece, Guinea, Iceland, Ireland, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Libya, Macedonia-FYR, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Poland, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These 51 countries presently have a population of 1.15 billion people. The people of these countries can plan that they will feed, clothe and house themselves and live in harmony with forest species, forest people and coastal people and all living things. They must curb their population growth so that no more forests or wetlands or other natural ecosystems are taken over for farming, and all farming must be permaculture.
1 billion people will move from just five countries
Of the remaining 6.4-0.75-1.15 = 4.5 billion of us, 3.3 billion live in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh. If the people in these five countries are to live in dignity, everything must change. Currently around half of all Indians are stunted, a euphemism for a condition worse than what Indians were in under Churchill. It is a shameful national calamity. Bangladesh has four times less farmland than the world’s average but not so many are starving. Pakistanis are in terrible problems. Chinese people can expect for conditions to only get worse environmentally and ecologically until they get better. And Indonesians are terribly poor. Thus to relieve the pressure on their all too scarce farmland these five countries will certainly send 1 billion people to Australia, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Russia and Canada and other places.
1 billion people are moving from countries that have been bombed or have become uninhabitable due to temperature rise
Iraq, parts of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries in West Asia and North Africa will certainly send the other 1 billion to the other 24 countries that have farmland to spare. These desperate countries have less than the world’s average farmland per person and temperatures are soaring and making it impossible for humans and many other flora and fauna to live there. Refugees from countries that had enough farmland but which the USA destroyed such as Syria, Libya,Yemen, Palestine and others must also be given new homes and new farmland. Finally many Western Europeans and North Africans will move because they don’t have enough farmland. Eastern Russia is already now encouraging anyone to come there and farm.  Niger will accommodate others.
Outlaw Commercial Energy, Give Forests, Coasts and Natural Landscapes to 1 billion Indigenous People; and Give the Balance 6.4 billion of Us 0.2 Hectares of Farmland Each!
An international conference must be held and decisions taken. Commercial energy including oil, coal, gas and nuclear and renewable energy (unless it is animal or hand-made water or solar power) must be outlawed to prevent further accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People moving to new homes must be given food and accommodation along the way.  If groups of ten or twenty people move together we will feel less lonely and can plan together for a new future and deal with governments with confidence.
At least 3 billion people world-wide are struggling for right to farmland within their countries
If you are someone who doesn’t have land, join with others and demand land in one of the countries that has land to spare. If you are in a country that has enough farmland but the land is unfairly distributed, do not cooperate with the present system but demand land tenure of 0.2 ha per person in your family. If you are a forest person or a fisherman or woman, demand that others leave your forest or wetland or coastal area or other natural landscape this instant. We really must implement this human and flora and fauna survival plan a.s.a.p.

Libyan Intervention Was Based On Wrong Assumptions; David Cameron Is Ultimately Responsible

Vivek Kumar Srivastava

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in UK has directly indicted the former PM David Cameron in allowing the collapse of Libya as an organized nation state and to throw it into chaos and also to assist the Islamic State to proliferate in the region and beyond.
The report shows that in big and successful democracies- how the administration is run, how the politicians behave whom the people repose faith and how the false democracy is sustained and genuine democratic values are put on the shelves. The failure of the government of David Cameron is so disappointing that the questions will be raised on the effective functioning of the political-administrative structure of the colonial masters as Chilcot report has already indicted Tony Blair for his unsought decision of invading Iraq which led to birth of the terrorist groups like IS showing inadequate understanding of the local conditions by the decision making system; the current report also stresses that faults at the decision-making process furthered the growth of the IS.
The report stresses that intelligence failure was overpowering and the political leadership did not have capabilities to appreciate the ground realities of the Libyan land and the people, the ‘Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate. Former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Richards of Herstmonceux confirmed that intelligence on the composition of the rebel militias was not “as good as one would wish.” He observed that “We found it quite difficult to get the sort of information you would expect us to get.”
The report explicitly states that ‘We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed. It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.’
The report clearly highlights the drift in the UK’s Libya policy in which Cameron played a role unexpected of him. He infarct went with US as a mute spectator, perhaps he was either incapable to understand the Libyan dynamics and the after impact of such illogical decisions or he was just on show as a devoted follower of US, a fact which has been in existence since the end of second world war that UK has lost its capacity to fashion its independent foreign policy; what so ever be the reason behind such naive foreign policy but one fact is self evident that Cameron failed to control the events developing in Libya. The report indicts him saying that ‘when the then Prime Minister David Cameron sought and received parliamentary approval for military intervention in Libya on 21 March 2011, he assured the House of Commons that the object of the intervention was not regime change. In April 2011, however, he signed a joint letter with United States President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy setting out their collective pursuit of “a future without Gaddafi”. The UK’s intervention in Libya was reactive and did not comprise action in pursuit of a strategic objective. This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into a policy of regime change by military means (and) Political options were available if the UK Government had adhered to the spirit of Resolution 1973, implemented its original campaign plan and influenced its coalition allies to pause military action when Benghazi was secured in March 2011. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya. If political engagement had been unsuccessful, the UK and its coalition allies would not have lost anything. Instead, the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention. In particular, we saw no evidence that it tried to exploit former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s contacts and influence with the Gaddafi regime.’ Report also emphasizes that there was no serious efforts to contain the proliferation of lethal weapons after the downfall of the regime of Gaddafi, an action which David Cameron should have initiated without delay. ‘The international community’s inability to secure weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime fuelled instability in Libya and enabled and increased terrorism across North and West Africa and the Middle East. The UK Government correctly identified the need to secure weapons immediately after the 2011 Libyan civil war, but it and its international partners took insufficient action to achieve that objective.’
The report highlighted the immoral role of government, first making the military intervention, second not helping adequately the post regime reconstruction of the Libya; ‘because the UK along with France led the military intervention, it had a particular responsibility to support Libyan economic and political reconstruction, which became an impossible task because of the failure to establish security on the ground.’
The consequences of such ill devised polices are uncountable;, Libya at present is politically unstable, the local conflicts exist, innocents die, education- health system is shattered, the daily life is full of burdens and pains, the question of the personal and family safety is always in air and in mind of every citizen of the country.
The major lesson which the big military powers have to learn is that intervention in Iraq and Libya has brought more problems than the then regimes produced. These interventions need to be studied as the case studies in foreign policy making and in the development of proper understanding of the global politics. There is no gainsaying the fact that ill conceived policy making is root cause of all the problems in MENA.

Monsanto And Bayer: Why Food And Agriculture Just Took A Turn For The Worse

Colin Todhunter

News broke this week that Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer. The new company would control more than 25 per cent of the global supply of commercial seeds and pesticides. Bayer’s crop chemicals business is the world’s second largest after Syngenta, and Monsanto is the leading commercial seeds business.
Monsanto held a 26 per cent market share of all seeds sold in 2011. Bayer (mainly a pharmaceuticals company) sells 17 per cent of the world’s total agrochemicals and also has a comparatively small seeds sector. If competition authorities pass the deal, the combined company would be the globe’s largest seller of both seeds and agrochemicals.
The deal marks a trend towards consolidation in the industry with Dow and DuPont having agreed to merge and Swiss seed/pesticide giant Syngenta merging with ChemChina, a Chinese government concern.
The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector, down from six – Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. Prior to the mergers, these six firms controlled 60 per cent of commercial seed and more than 75 per cent of agrochemical markets.
Alarm bells are ringing with the European Commission putting its approval of the Dow-DuPont deal temporarily on hold, and the US Senate Judiciary Committee is about to hold hearings on the deal due to concerns about consolidation in the industry, which has resulted in increased seed and pesticide prices.
In response to the Monsanto-Bayer merger, US National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued the following statement:
“Consolidation of this magnitude cannot be the standard for agriculture, nor should we allow it to determine the landscape for our future. The merger between Bayer and Monsanto marks the fifth major deal in agriculture in the last year… For the last several days, our family farm and ranch members have been on Capitol Hill asking Members of Congress to conduct hearings to review the staggering amount of pending merger deals in agriculture today. We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies. We are pleased that next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will be reviewing the alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America… all mergers, including this recent Bayer/Monsanto deal, [should] be put under the magnifying glass of the committee and the U.S. Department of Justice.”
For all the rhetoric that we often hear about ‘the market’ and large corporations offering choice to farmers and consumers, the evidence is restriction of choice and the squeezing out of competitors. Over the years, for instance, Monsanto has bought up dozens of competitors to become the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds with seed prices having risen dramatically.
Consolidation and monopoly in any sector should be of concern to everyone. But the fact that the large agribusiness conglomerates specialise in a globalised, industrial-scale, chemical-intensive model of farming that is adversely affecting what we eat should have us very concerned. Do we want this system to be intensified even further just because their business models depend on it?
Farmers are increasingly reliant on patented corporate seeds, whether non-GM hybrid seeds or GM, and the chemical inputs designed to be used with them. Monsanto seed traits are now in 80 per cent of corn and more than 90 per cent of soybeans grown in the US. It comes as little surprise then that people in the US now consume a largely corn-based diet: a less diverse diet than in the past, which is high in calorific value, but low in health-promoting, nutrient dense food. This health-damaging ‘American obesity diet’ and the agricultural practices underpinning is now a global phenomenon.
By its very nature, the capitalist economic model that corporate agriculture is attached to demands expansion, market capture and profit growth. And, it must be accepted that it does bring certain benefits to those farmers who have remained in agriculture (if not for the 330 farmers who leave their land every week, according to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service).
But in the US, ‘success’ in agriculture depends on over $51 billion of taxpayer handouts to over a 10-year period to keep the gravy train on track for a particular system of agriculture designed to maintain corporate agribusiness profit margins. And such ‘success’ fails to factor in all of the external social, health and environmental costs that mean this type of model is ultimately unsustainable. It is easy to spin failure as success when the parameters are narrowly defined.
Moreover, the exporting of the Green Revolution paradigm throughout the globe has been a boon to transnational seed and agrochemical manufacturers, which have benefited from undermining a healthy, sustainable indigenous agriculture and transforming it into a profitable enterprise for global capital.
And not just profitable for global capital – but its company managers too. For example, a few months ago, according to Reuters, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant could receive more than $70 million if Monsanto were to be taken over by Bayer. At the time, Monsanto said it was open to engaging in further negotiations with Bayer after turning down its $62 billion bid. The report shows how Grant’s exposure to shares and options meant he had an incentive to hold out for the highest possible sale price, which would not only be in the interests of shareholders but also increase the value of his holdings. Other senior figures within Monsanto would also walk away with massive financial gains.
These corporate managers belong to a global agribusiness sector whose major companies rank among the Fortune 500 corporations. These companies are high-rollers in a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production whereby huge company profits are directly linked to the worldwide eradication of the small farm – the bedrock of global food production,  bad food and poor healthinequitable, rigged trade, environmental devastation, mono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity, the destruction of rural communities, ecocidedegraded soilwater scarcity and drought, destructive and inappropriate models of development and farmers who live a knife-edge existence and for whom debt has become a fact of life.
A handful of powerful and politically connected corporations are determining what is grown, how it is to be grown, what needs to be done to grow it, who grows it and what ends up on the plate. And despite PR platitudes about the GMO/chemical-intensive model just being part of a wider mix of farming practices designed to feed humanity, from India to Africa indigenous models of agriculture are being squeezed out (through false argument and deception) as corporate imperialism puts pay to notions of food sovereignty.
We should be highly concerned about a food system increasingly dominated by companies that have a history (see this on Monsanto and this on Bayer) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in bribery, cover-ups, monopolistic practices and what should be considered as crimes against humanity?
Despite the likes of Hugh Grant saying the Monsanto-Bayer merger will be good for farmers and “broader society”, most of all it will be good for shareholders and taxpayer-subsidised, state-assisted company profit. That’s the type of hegemonic rhetoric that’s been used down the ages to disguise the true nature of power and its beneficiaries.
It’s not so much the Monsanto-Bayer deal is a move in the wrong direction (which it is), but increasing consolidation is to be expected given the trend in many key sectors toward monopoly capitalism or just plain cartelism, whichever way you choose to look at it. It’s the system of industrialised, capital-intensive agriculture wedded to powerful players whose interests lie in perpetuating and extending their neoliberal economic model that is the real problem.
“We have justified the demise of family farms, decay of rural communities, pollution of the rural environment, and degradation of soil health as being necessary… The problems we are facing today are the consequence of too many people… pursuing their narrow self-interests without considering the consequence of their actions on the rest of society and the future of humanity.” Professor John Ikerd, ‘Healthy Soils, Healthy People
So what is the solution? We could start here.

China Overtaking India in Maldives

Anjelina Patrick


The amendment allowing land holdings in the Maldives by foreign entities might contribute to the strong hold of the Chinese in the India Ocean Region (IOR) due to its huge investment in infrastructure development. These have the potential to alter the geopolitical calculations in the IOR, especially for India. 

Change in Land Amendment
 
The Maldives, since 2014 has gained strategic salience in light of the Chinese infrastructure development after the visit of  Xi Jinping, the First Chinese President to visit Maldives. 
 
More worryingly for India it is the swiftness by which the Maldivian government has passed the constitutional amendment allowing foreign nations or entities to own land if the total volume of investment excesses USD 1 billion, previously foreign entities could only lease the land for 99 years.  Given the disparities in the spending power of China and India this will certainly play into China’s hands, it must also be noted that the Maldivian government owes 70 per cent of its external debt to China. Abdullah Yameen, current Maldivian President, has been stating that the amendment will boast the Male economy, contrary to what the former President, Mohamad Nasheed asserted about it leading to foreign non-commercial logistical installations in the island.

The exploitation of land ownership rights may also hinder the sovereignty of a country, and while  land grabs are difficult to contemplate in the 21st century, newer and more sophisticated ways of control come about as a result of monopsony. Since India cannot afford to spend on commercially unviable infrastructure projects that show no signs of profitability in the future, Maldives' attempts at playing regional powers off against each other plays into the Chinese monopsony. The Maldivian government is stating that the new law will work in the best interests of the Maldivian citizens by attracting large scale investment, leading to development.

Loss of Contract
 
New Delhi is concerned about the contracts to the Chinese, the first being an expansion of the Male airport worth USD 800 million and second being the tentative victory of a Chinese consortium to build the Gadhoo port, in the Southern Atolls.

The Male Airport contract, initially given to an Indian company, GMR Group, for build-operate was cancelled in 2012 due to a change in the government (earlier headed by President Mohamed Waheed).This was surprising given the contract represented the single largest foreign investment in the Maldives. International arbitration held that the cancellation had been wrongful and awarded crippling damages to GMR worth USD 300 million. Coinciding with the tribunals’ award, it was shortly announced that the Chinese Beijing Urban Construction Group (BUCG) had won the contract to complete the stalled project as build-only. This will exacerbate the land owning situation. Significantly there have been reports that Chinese companies might get the contract for the new commercial port on Gadhoo Island on a build-operate model. 

It can be seen that two different parameters have been adopted in infrastructure investments and such ad hoc shifting of norms from build-operate to a build-only have been done with extreme lack of transparency and public study on the cost benefits. The tussle between the GMR Group and the Maldivian Government had initially started because of the underperforming revenues of the airport. China is footing most of the costs of this resurrected airport expansion plan at a much higher layout than the previous plans which failed to deliver. 

Awarding of the contract to China also highlights the vast spending power and project management skills of Chinese companies compared to Indian ones. Needless to say that in any direct competition between India and China in mega projects, China has a track record of timely and effective delivery contrasted with India’s abysmal performance on the score.
 
India's Concern
 
This brings out several areas of concerns as may be deduced that the current President Yameen’s government is more pro-China indicative of a shift in the Maldivian posture towards India.

As can be seen from the case of Gwadar (Pakistan) and Hambantota (Sri Lanka) China has a track record of building maritime infrastructure in the Indian Ocean for commercial gains; however a lack of commercial viability has then been used by the Chinese to expand their naval presence. These ports are now increasingly used by high threat Chinese power projection vessels such as nuclear submarines. The Gadhoo island port would be another example; while the Maldives is not known to be a commercial hub its economic zone seems unable to sustain such a large port. On the other hand the Maldives is one of the closest islands to the highly secretive US base in Diego Garcia and the Chinese pattern of deploying nuclear submarines in Hambantota to keep tabs on India may be replicated. The Chinese Embassy in Maldives maintains that such allegations of construction in Gadhoo are "completely false."

To conclude it is observed that the Maldivian shift towards China is not only in accordance with its national interest but more importantly due to the pro-Chinese Yameen government. This is highly threatening for India as a huge influx of infrastructural investment by the Chinese in Maldives is more military oriented than economic and in the coming days India might lose its foot hold in Maldives thereby hindering the current geopolitical balance of power in the IOR.

Salvadoran ex-president flees corruption charges for Nicaragua

Andrea Lobo

On September 6, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua granted political asylum to former Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes (2009-2014) of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation (FMLN) party, his current partner and three sons. The state newspaper La Gaceta reported that the “ex-president of our sister Republic of El Salvador” argued that “he considered his life and physical integrity and those of his family to be in danger, for fighting on behalf of democracy, peace, justice, and human rights, along with his political affiliation.”
In an interview on September 8 with the Sandinista Channel 4, Funes stated: “Being in El Salvador, and going and coming here to Managua, I received information from people very close to powerful economic groups in the country [El Salvador], where they sent me the message that they would not tire in their efforts to see me in jail and if possible see me dead.”
He explained that this alleged threat is connected to his administration having “investigated 152 corruption cases… accusing former functionaries of past ARENA [far-right] governments and mostly business people tied to wealthy families in the country.” Out of these, only two cases led to judicial processes, including that against ex-President Francisco Flores (1999-2004) for stealing $10 million donated by the Taiwanese government as assistance for the 2001 earthquake victims and for the National Police.
A 2014 investigation carried out by the Salvadoran online newspaper El Faro found that ARENA was not the intended recipient of the money, but that the party transferred the money to Costa Rica and distributed it among several regional divisions and campaign committees. The criminal proceeding was ended after Flores’s death in January of this year.
Funes complained in the interview that “the civil proceeding was kept [open], but the prosecutor is doing absolutely nothing to find out where the resources went and who the main beneficiaries could be.”
Only two weeks after Flores’ death, the Salvadoran Supreme Court gave the green light to begin the criminal investigation against Funes on five charges: “crimes of embezzlement, illicit negotiations, misuse of funds, illicit enrichment and influence-trafficking.” These are related to more than $700,000 worth of unjustified income and expenses. The court found that Funes spent over $54,000 shopping in luxury stores between 2011 and 2013, including $10,000 spent in a designer shoe store in Miami.
The former president stated in the interview that he is “ideologically identified with the current government in El Salvador and with that in Nicaragua”. Funes also declared that he is not guilty, but that if found guilty, he would not go to jail and would only have to return the funds.
Even though he also denies his participation, his administration sponsored a 14-month truce between gangs that led to a 41 percent drop in the homicide rate between 2012 and 2013. The truce came to a halt under pressure from the US government and Salvadoran elites. Last year, the homicide rate climbed to 103 per 100,000 inhabitants, bringing the country back to civil war-level violence.
The accusation of “illicit negotiations” against Funes is being used to legitimize the current FMLN-led intensification of the “iron fist” policies against gangs and buildup of the repressive apparatus—isolation of alleged gang members in prisons, new elite military and police forces, authorized extrajudicial killings and death squad activity of the state forces.
During his time in office, Funes built closer bonds with Washington and established partnerships with far-right figures like former ARENA President Antonio Saca (2004-2009), who is also accused of illicit enrichment involving over $6 million.
When pressured by the US State Department, Funes turned General David Munguía and later General Atilio Benítez into ministers of Security and Justice. Together with the FMLN members in Congress, he allowed the far-right and military to take control of the security and justice apparatus. This continues today, facilitating the penetration of organized crime into the armed forces and state.
The US embassy and several members of the US Congress have participated in the selection of judicial cases, including those initiated under the Funes administration, and have given full support to all “anti-crime” and “anti-corruption” efforts led by the current top prosecutor, Douglas Meléndez.
Last May, Meléndez ordered the arrests of several state workers and lower-rank officials for participating in the 2012 truce, and threatened, “Those thinking about a new truce should not do so. We will not allow this to happen.”
The US imperialist use of the judicial and security authorities as levers to discipline its client regimes has a long history in Latin America, and is currently behind the “anti-impunity” international commissions in Guatemala and Honduras. These and similar efforts in El Salvador are being sponsored by “international cooperation” funds from the UN and directly from the US government.
The Salvadoran Supreme Court ruling in July to stop amnesty on crimes committed during the Civil War (1980-1992) is also part of this continued pressure on leaders of both ARENA and FMLN that were involved during the war. The FMLN vice-president, Óscar Ortiz—considered the de-facto head of state given President Sanchéz Cerén’s medical condition—said the court ruling would create “a scene of chaos, vengeance, and violence,” while party leaders called it a “coup attempt”.
The Central American University (UCA) protested in an editorial column: “A lot of people made poor by social injustice believed in the FMLN because its language suggested a greater concern over human dignity. But, attitudes like that of the vice-president make one doubt whether that concern still exists within the party.”
An August 31 press release by the US embassy in San Salvador stated: “In our interactions we have been clear that it’s important to demonstrate that a firm political will exists to combat corruption. We believe that this point is key in building a more stable and prosperous El Salvador.”
The investigations against Funes have already led to at least 10 raids, along with judicial orders to make public his travel logs and finances from during his mandate. The state prosecutor’s office stated that even with Funes in Nicaragua, “investigations against him will not stop.”
Ultimately, if these forces are now going after them, Funes and FMLN only have themselves to blame, forming a bourgeois nationalist government and competing for greater privileges and shares of profit from the super exploitation of the impoverished Salvadoran working class.
The claims of innocence are not the only inconsistent part of Funes’ story. He had been living in Nicaragua for three months as a “consultant,” allegedly planning to “reside” in the country, presumably indefinitely, had no arrest warrant against him and was already receiving protection. Moreover, the FMLN’s national secretary, Medardo González, disclosed that the party had instructed Funes to go to Nicaragua to avoid possible arrest. The FMLN President Sánchez has also pledged support for Funes.
The request for asylum and expedited approval by the Ortega government in Nicaragua are a political move to respond to the US judicial and media offensives against both governments.
The Obama administration mouthpiece, the New York Times, got the message, and focused on attacking Ortega, claiming he “threatened ... to undermine the early efforts to curb corruption by El Salvador’s attorney general, Douglas Meléndez…”
The Times also quoted right-wing academics criticizing Ortega’s “authoritarian tendencies” and, again, his “effort to discredit the process, to discredit the attorney general.”
These claims match those expressed by the Times editorial board on August 4 that Ortega and his wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo, “intend to establish an authoritarian dynasty”. They conclude the opinion piece with a grave warning used historically by the US government: “The course of Mr. Ortega’s own political history should serve as reminder that overthrowing a government can be the citizen’s response when all other avenues for dissent are shut.”
Given the 2009 US-backed military coup in neighboring Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, and subsequent repression and killings of the opposition, this severe threat is directed against workers and youth in Nicaragua.
While Ortega’s administration has in fact sabotaged the opposition’s electoral coalition prior to the November elections, US imperialism has no qualms about supporting authoritarian and dynastic regimes. Underlying the broader anti-Ortega campaign is the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” coming into direct conflict with Ortega’s military and economic ties with Russia and China, including the 50 tanks recently bought from Russia and the plans to build a $50 billion interoceanic canal by a Chinese firm.
“Daniel (Ortega) is trying to do a favor to Sánchez and Funes, but it will have a cost, because the perception will be there that he is a fugitive from justice,” claims Aguirre Sacasa, a former right-wing foreign minister, who calls the decision “bad business.” While the US government and corporate media continue to exploit this “cost”, the Sandinistas and FMLN are using their corrupt unity as a lever to seek a better deal with US capitalism. Aguirre has praised Ortega’s “political astuteness” and his efforts to improve “the perception of the business climate in our country,” but has warned that his provocative attitude towards the US “will ruin what has been built in this important aspect.”
In El Salvador, the FMLN leader Medardo González announced that the party’s leadership will meet with representatives of the US embassy to discuss the party’s concerns over “disrespectful encroachment” by US authorities in corruption cases.
With poverty and public debt on the rise, and the closing of channels of political and economic support from Venezuela and other “left turn” governments in South America, the bourgeois nationalist FMLN in El Salvador and FSLN in Nicaragua will continue to defend their own privileges by moving toward greater repression and austerity in the interests of US imperialism and their local oligarchies.