15 Nov 2016

Magnitude 7.8 earthquake hits New Zealand

John Braddock

Thousands of people have been left isolated and two died in a 7.8-magnitude earthquake that hit New Zealand just after midnight Monday. The third most powerful quake in the past century, and just 15 kilometres deep, it was centred near the rural township of Culverden in the South Island. More than 400 aftershocks, some over magnitude 6, were registered throughout the south and in wide areas of the North Island, into Tuesday.
Tsunami warnings were issued for the eastern seaboard and waves of up to 2 metres struck overnight. The fishing and tourism township of Kaikoura was the worst affected, with water and sewage systems down. State Highway 1, which connects the town with Christchurch and the inter-island ferry terminal in Picton, has been cut in both directions. Military helicopters were mobilised to assess damage around the town. A landslip temporarily blocked the nearby Clarence River, which, when breached, caused a large wall of water to rush downstream.
Emergency services confirmed one death at an historic homestead in Kaikoura. Relatives of the family reported having trouble contacting emergency services due to congested phone lines and power cuts. A second person died of a heart attack at a property in Mt Lyford. The navy ship HMNZS Canterbury is being sent to evacuate 1,100 stranded tourists from Kaikoura on Wednesday, while the Chinese government chartered a helicopter to get Chinese nationals out of the stricken town.
An estimated 100,000 landslides have hit the northern Canterbury and southern Marlborough regions. Large tracts of State Highway 1 are blocked and remote areas of the South Island are cut off. The town of Waiau, close to the earthquake’s epicentre, has been isolated by slips and road damage. Power poles are down, large cracks are visible in the roads, bricks have fallen from the sides of many houses and chimneys have fallen from buildings.
Rural fire chief Richard McNamara said a number of vehicles were stuck on State Highway 1, after road and rail tunnels were blocked by slips. Rail services throughout the South Island and lower North Island were cancelled, some indefinitely. Cook Strait ferry sailings between the two main islands were cancelled Monday, as well as many long-distance bus services. Power is out in many areas.
Roads on the East Coast remain closed following massive slips and it could be weeks before they are ready to reopen. Freight remains stalled until roads and rail lines are cleared. Road Transport Forum chief executive Ken Shirley said there will be “severe disruption” to freight. “The weeks ahead are a worry. Logistics these days is governed by the just-in-time ethos,” Shirley said. “For a lot of these fast moving consumer goods, a couple of days will mean there will be shortages.”
There are risks a major aftershock could trigger more slips, as happened during the aftermath of the 2011 earthquakes.
On the North Island, the capital city, Wellington, was badly shaken. The central city was virtually deserted on Monday after residents were warned to stay away and engineering inspections carried out. The TSB Arena sports venue and Bank of NZ Centre sustained damage. There is major damage to the CentrePort wharves and the ferry terminal.
Shipping workers were forced to flee the Kings Wharf freight terminal, after cracks began appearing and water spurted from beneath them. “It was just panic stations,” one worker told media. “Water was coming up from the wharf. We had about five seconds to evacuate.” He and seven workers ran out and huddled for protection in case glass or debris fell from nearby buildings. Liquefaction appeared in reclaimed land between the city and the inner harbour.
Schools from North Canterbury to Wellington were told to remain shut until damage can be assessed, disrupting national exams.
A worker from the Taylor Prestons meatworks near Wellington told the WSWS that upon arriving onsite Monday morning, kill chain workers walked out due to their concerns over industrial safety and their families’ safety at home.
The Red Cross predicted a huge humanitarian challenge, saying dozens of its volunteers were struggling to get to affected regions . St John has activated its National Crisis Coordination Centre and has set up local Emergency Operation Centres in the South Island.
A state of emergency has been declared in the upper South Island. Speaking from parliament’s civil defence bunker, Prime Minister John Key said all 16 regions had activated civil defence requirements.
An incoming severe weather system was predicated to bring 140 kmph (87mph) gale force winds and heavy rain to hit Wellington and other areas on Monday evening, sparking fears the weather could exacerbate damage.
The causes of the quake appear to have been complex. The US Geological Survey said it was a result of an “oblique-reverse” fault that occurs when two tectonic plates are moving toward one another, and after enough tension is built up, one slips up over the other, releasing the tension. The epicentre of the quake was close to the Hope Fault, one of the major faults that mark the boundary between the Pacific and Australian Plates. In the area there is a maze of fault lines, some of which were responsible for the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 that devastated Christchurch, causing 185 deaths.
Visiting Kaikoura on Monday, Key tried to strike an encouraging note. “I know from the Christchurch earthquakes how much it undermines people’s confidence, but I want to reassure people that there will be support there,” he said. Key said the cost of the quake is expected “run into billions of dollars,” but claimed New Zealand is in “great shape” to meet any costs from the quakes.
In fact, questions are already being asked about the implications for insurance claims in the wake of widespread anger over the performance of the government’s Earthquake Commission (EQC) and private insurance companies following the Christchurch quakes. Five years on, entire suburbs have been abandoned and large areas of the central city remain rubble-strewn. A quake on February 14 this year produced further destruction, resulting in more than 2,000 claims.
The ruin of the lives of tens of thousands of residents has been caused by the government and corporate response, not the earthquakes themselves. Approximately 5,000 home owners are still waiting for insurers to settle claims. Many people have been living in overcrowded, badly damaged or makeshift housing for half a decade, leading to health problems from dampness and mould. Due to substandard workmanship, EQC has been forced to re-examine at least 5,500 of its repair jobs.
The day before the official 2011 anniversary last February, almost 1,000 people protested in the city, demanding an external review of the handling of insurance claims by the EQC. The protesters also called for an official deadline by which insurance companies would have to settle claims.

Fighting continues in eastern Ukraine

Jason Melanovski 

Cease-fire violations in eastern Ukraine have been consistently increasing in the recent period, according to monitors with the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE). On November 8 alone, the organization reported that “1,450 explosions and almost 200 projectiles (including 122 that were rocket-assisted)” were recorded in the Donetsk province, the center of a pro-Russian separatist movement. Cease-fire violations have continued in neighboring Luhansk province as well. Several Ukrainian soldiers were killed while fighting in Donetsk in October, said the country’s minister of Defense.
Earlier in the month, separatist leader Arseny Pavlov was assassinated in eastern Ukraine after a bomb was set off in the hallway of a building in which he resided in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. Pavlov led Sparta Battalion, which had been fighting the NATO-backed Kiev-forces since 2014.
Pavlov had survived several previous attempts on his life, including in June of 2016, when a car bomb exploded as he was leaving a trauma center. A Russian citizen by birth, Pavlov was infamous for a recording released in April 2015 in which he bragged about killing 15 prisoners of war from Ukrainian government forces.
His assassination has escalated tensions in the region, where a peace accord known as Minsk II is supposed to be in effect. The head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, told reporters, “As I understand, [Ukrainian President] Petro Poroshenko violated the ceasefire and declared war on us.” The Ukrainian government claims that Pavlov was killed by those within his inner-circle or a rival separatist militia over control of the black market in separatist-controlled areas.
The assassination took place just as both the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic were preparing to hold local elections. The contests, which were scheduled to take place on November 6, have been denounced by Kiev as “illegal” and a violation of the Minsk II protocols. They were ultimately halted by DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko a week prior to their scheduled date, most likely under pressure from Russia.
The Kiev regime’s opposition to any sort of democratic local elections in eastern Ukraine stems from its fear that they would cement the region’s status as an independent entity. The issue of the elections was a main point of conflict in talks between Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who met in Berlin along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande for over five hours last week.
During the talks Poroshenko reportedly shouted angrily at Putin over Putin’s insistence that the elections go ahead on November 6. No serious agreements to end the war were made, and further talks are scheduled to be held later in November. A “roadmap” for peace in Ukraine is planned to be released by the end of this month.
Meanwhile, social and economic conditions in the rest of the country continue to deteriorate. The country’s $17.5 billion worth of loan agreements with the IMF have entailed the imposition of a harsh regime of austerity and severe price hikes for essential items such as gas, electricity, water and food. As a result, 24.3 percent of the country now lives in poverty according to the UN Development Program. Over 5 million Ukrainians must rely on state subsidies to pay their heating bills, subsidies which will continue to be cut as the country tries to meet IMF-stipulated budget limits.
Facing these conditions, tens of thousands of Ukrainians throughout the country are choosing to uproot their lives and leave. In addition to the already 1.7 million displaced by the war, over 100,000 Ukrainians left the country between January and August of this year.
Recent polling by the research group Rating showed that 30 percent of Ukrainians want to leave the country permanently to live abroad and 40 percent want to leave for work. Among the main groups wishing to leave the country include “residents from western and central regions, men, young people, and those with a level of education and income.”
The main reasons for wishing to leave the country are firstly “hope for better living conditions” and secondly to “secure a better future for their children.”

Swedish authorities finally question Julian Assange after six years

Robert Stevens

On Monday morning, Sweden’s deputy chief prosecutor Ingred Isgren arrived at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to question WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange.
Isgren interviewed Assange in relation to bogus “minor rape” allegations. The interrogation is expected to last up to three days. This is the first time Swedish prosecutors have questioned Assange regarding the allegations, despite having every opportunity to do so since December 2010.
Swedish director of public prosecutions Marianne Ny insisted for years that Assange return to Sweden to be questioned even though the Swedish authorities have interviewed dozens of people in the UK over the last five years—even transferring an entire Stockholm court to Rwanda for war crimes proceedings in 2012.
Ny maintained, with no evidence, that having to conduct the questioning of Assange outside of Sweden would, as her spokeswoman said recently, “affect the quality of the interview.”
There is nothing impartial in what Assange’s Swedish prosecutors are up to. The Guardian noted yesterday, “Sources close to the Swedish investigation told the Guardian that a further reason for Ny’s insistence on interviewing Assange in Sweden was she was confident that she could secure an indictment and would therefore be able to arrest and charge Assange immediately.”
Speaking to the BBC, Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson said were he to go to Sweden, he risked, as the United Nations’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) also pointed out, losing his Ecuadorean asylum status. She added, “Sweden refused to provide assurances against onward extradition to the United States.”
Assange correctly fears that once in Sweden, he would be extradited to the US where a grand jury, empanelled by the Obama administration in 2010, is ready to bring a sealed indictment against him.
Assange’s persecution originates in the response of the Obama administration to the publication by WikiLeaks in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of secret documents relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan leaked by Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Pressure was put on US allies, including Sweden, which had been a centre of WikiLeaks operations, to do whatever they could to counteract Assange’s activities.
The British state is intimately involved in the frame-up of Assange and has instructed police to arrest him the moment he sets foot outside the Ecuadorean Embassy.
More than six years have passed since Assange was in Sweden, during a trip in which the offences are alleged to have been committed. At the time, Assange freely presented himself to the police and was found to have nothing to answer for. A leading prosecutor threw out the allegations as unsound before Swedish authorities resuscitated them later, in 2010.
In December 2010, Assange was detained in London under an arbitrary European Arrest Warrant (EAW). He has been in detention ever since—in prison and then under house arrest. For the last four years, Assange has remained in the Ecuadorean Embassy, which granted him diplomatic asylum in June 2012, after he was denied his basic democratic rights at the hands of the British legal system. In the embassy, Assange is confined to a tiny room and has no access to sunlight, with his health declining as a result. He has been denied access to basic health care.
Assange suffers this intolerable situation despite, to this day, never having been charged by Sweden with a single crime. Indeed, he has been incarcerated for so long that last year Sweden was forced to drop three of four of the allegations because a five-year statute of limitations expired.
Under the provisions of international legal assistance and the agreement reached by Sweden and Ecuador, the questioning session is being attended by Isgren and Swedish police inspector Cecilia Redell. However, the interrogation is being conducted by an Ecuadorean prosecutor who is asking Assange questions already submitted by Sweden. Isgren and Redell are allowed to ask for clarification of Assange’s responses. They will not be allowed any follow-up questions. It is reported that, subject to Assange’s agreement, the investigators intend to take a DNA sample.
According to reports, Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelson, who was not allowed to be present at the interrogation, had concerns about the interview having to be translated into Swedish, saying this could lead to misunderstandings. He added that the interview “seems to be the only way to bring the case forward and we demand that the pre-investigation is dropped immediately thereafter.”
Assange’s answers will be transcribed and sent to the Swedish authorities. The Press Association said a statement on behalf of the Swedish prosecutors noted that the investigation would remain confidential. It reported, “Therefore, the prosecutors cannot provide information concerning details of the investigation after the interview.”
The Swedish authorities, in league with those in Britain and the United States, are blatantly flouting international law in their vindictive pursuit of Assange. In May, a Swedish court reaffirmed the EAW and explicitly rejected the conclusion UNWGAD that Assange has been arbitrarily detained, in violation of international human rights conventions.
In September, the Swedish Appeal Court upheld the EAW against Assange.
So vindictive are the Swedish authorities towards Assange that last month he was even denied the right to attend the funeral of WikiLeaks director Gavin MacFadyen. MacFadyen, a US journalist, died in London on October 22. Assange described the decision as “callous.”
The US Democratic Party has been at the forefront of attacks on WikiLeaks and Assange, even claiming that he is an ally of the Russian regime of Vladimir Putin and a stooge of President-elect Donald Trump.
Assange and WikiLeaks are being slandered in order to conceal the devastating indictment of the Democrats contained in WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of internal Democratic National Committee (DNC) e-mails. These exposed the methods that the Democratic Party utilises to raise funds, dole out privileges and cover up its dirty dealings.
The camp of defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sought to deflect any questions regarding the support and assurances she gave to Wall Street bankers or the corrupt operations of her campaign, as revealed in the e-mail, by claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that the material released by WikiLeaks had been hacked by the Russian government and therefore could not be trusted.
In October, in a blatant attempt to silence WikiLeaks, Assange had his Internet connection in the embassy cut off. The Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks’ charge that Ecuador had ordered the severing of Assange’s Internet connection, under pressure from the US government.

One million protestors in Seoul demand Korean president resign

Ben McGrath

Another mass protest occurred in Seoul on Saturday as the streets were filled with hundreds of thousands of people denouncing President Park Geun-hye and demanding she resign. It was the largest demonstration since June 1987, when military dictator Chun Doo-hwan was forced to allow open presidential elections at the end of his term in office.
All factions of the South Korean political establishment are maneuvering to find a way to get Park out of office in order to head off the deep-seated social discontent that is the root cause of the mass opposition to President Park.
While no formal charges have been levelled against Park, she has been accused of allowing a personal confidante, Choi Soon-sil, to decide policy matters. Choi, who held no actual position in the government, ran a suspected slush fund for Park.
Protest organizers estimate there were one million people at Gwanghwamun Square, while the more conservative police estimate was 260,000. Many held signs reading or chanted, “Step down Park Geun-hye!” and “You are surrounded! Park Geun-hye, come out and surrender!”
The protests have remained peaceful though upwards of 25,000 police officers were stationed alongside water cannons and walls of police buses to prevent marchers from moving toward Cheongwadae, the presidential residence.
Like previous protests, a wide range of people participated, from students in school uniforms to parents with their young children, retirees and an estimated 150,000 unionised workers. Foreign workers have had a presence at each of the protests, an indication of the international character of Seoul and the broad impact that the scandal has had on non-Korean workers.
Tens of thousands also gathered in cities around the country, including 35,000 in Busan, 10,000 in Gwangju, and 5,000 in Jeju. Park is expected to make a third public address on the matter soon.
Another demonstration in Seoul is planned for November 26. The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions, the country’s largest union federations, have threatened a general strike if Park does not resign.
Student Lee Hyeon-a, 16, told the Korea Herald on Saturday: “I am participating in a rally for the first time. I am taking this opportunity to take more interest in politics so that my voice matters in the society.”
Lee Gi-beom, a 20-year-old student at Kwangwoon University, stated: “I feel this may be similar to the democratic uprising in the 1980s. A historic moment. This scandal has just reinforced the fact that the government is incompetent. It has definitely raised anger among youth.”
The anger felt by people throughout South Korea, and in Korean communities abroad where protests have occurred, is understandable. But the scandal surrounding Park is not the result of incompetence or even corruption itself. It is the South Korean ruling class’ response to the deepening economic crisis. Neither the ruling Saenuri Party nor the opposition Minjoo Party of Korea (MPK or Democratic Party), the People’s Party, or minor Justice Party have any answers to declining economic conditions and rising unemployment.
Saturday’s rally was organized by approximately 1,500 civic groups, many with ties to the MPK, whose leadership took part in the rally. “If President Park continues to ignore the people’s demands and orders, the Democratic Party will stage a full-blown campaign for the ousting of the administration,” said MPK leader Choo Mi-ae. Presidential hopefuls in next year’s election, Moon Jae-in and Seoul mayor Park Won-soon, were also present.
Investigators in the Choi Soon-sil case expect to question Park on Tuesday or Wednesday and will ask about her involvement in pressuring corporations to donate money to Mir and K-Sports, two nonprofits run by Choi. Park has been accused of using the money as a slush fund for her retirement. An Jong-beom, a former presidential secretary, told prosecutors the two foundations were set up on the president’s “direct orders.” Park has been summoned as a witness, not a suspect.
On Sunday, 80 Saenuri lawmakers and leaders, led by the party’s anti-Park faction, called for the disbanding of the party as a way of deflecting public anger from the conservatives. Parties in South Korea are often renamed or reorganized in the wake of scandals, protests or electoral debacles.
Kim Mu-seong, a leading conservative who is opposed to Park, called for impeachment, saying: “The reason why it is so hard to address the problem is because the president is standing at the center of a constitutional violation, as opposed to protecting the constitution. The people’s cries yesterday were their judgment on the president.”
Impeachment requires two-thirds approval of the National Assembly. While the opposition controls 165 seats out of 300, at least 30 Saenuri lawmakers would be needed.
Some within the MPK have called for Park’s resignation, but the party has not formally demanded Park’s impeachment. For all the bluster at Saturday’s demonstration, the opposition previously sought to provide Park with a way out that left her as president. Last week, the MPK demanded Park accept a so-called neutral cabinet, with a prime minister selected by the National Assembly. The president would lose a great deal of power, but remain in office.
Many from both the conservatives and opposition have also demanded that Park leave the Saenuri Party.
Now, however, the MPK is calling for a plan to provide Park with a peaceful means of resignation. The People’s Party and Justice Party have been more forceful in calling for Park’s removal and are demanding Park’s impeachment. The Justice Party postures as a left-wing alternative to the MPK.
The deep-seated popular anger against Park is not the result of one scandal. Park’s administration has dealt with a series of issues since she came to office, all of which have generated hostility toward her. These include the involvement of South Korea’s intelligence agency, the National Intelligence Service, in the election that brought her to office; the mishandling of the sinking of the Sewol ferry in 2014, killing mostly high school students; attacks on political parties and unions; labor casualization; deployment of a US anti-ballistic missile system; and mass layoffs in the ship building and shipping industries.
None of the issues facing the working class or youth in South Korea will be solved if Park steps down or is removed from office. All the opposition parties, as well as the anti-Park faction in the ruling party, are diverting the widespread discontent in the hope of shoring up their own support bases ahead of next year’s presidential election.
Regardless of who wins the election, the winner will continue to push through the demands of big business and Washington.

Polish bourgeoisie divided over US election

Dorota Niemitz & Clara Weiss

The responses of the right-wing government and the liberal opposition in Poland to the US election have revealed sharp differences within the country’s ruling elites over foreign policy. Like other right-wing governments and movements in Europe, the ultra-nationalist ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) has welcomed the election of the right-wing businessman, whereas the country’s liberal press reacted to the news of Donald Trump becoming the 45th US president with disbelief and panic.
The stark contrast in the reaction of the two bourgeois camps has brought to the fore the differences between the liberals around the Civic Platform (PO) and the ruling conservative PiS. Under both the government of the PO and the PiS, Poland has been a key ally of Washington in Europe and has stood at the forefront of the NATO military build-up against Russia.
However, the establishment around the PO wishes to see Poland tied to the Franco-German alliance within the EU, in addition to maintaining close cooperation with Washington. By contrast, the bourgeois layers gathering behind PiS believe they could profit more from aligning themselves only with the US and trying to exploit the crisis within the EU, particularly following the Brexit vote, to strengthen Poland’s position in opposition to Berlin’s increasing hegemony in the EU.
While individual pro-PiS commentators voiced concern over a possible rapprochement between Washington and Moscow under Trump, the tenor of politicians of the PiS and pro-government media outlets has been to endorse Trump and hope for an even closer military cooperation between the US and Poland.
Polish President Andrzej Duda rushed to congratulate the US president-elect by tweeting “My warmest congratulations to Donald Trump. I am confident US-PL bonds will remain as close & strong as ever. Hopefully even stronger.” Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz, who maintains close ties to various fascistic organizations, said similarly: “Polish-American relations will not only continue to be very good, they will be even better.”
The Polish minister of foreign affairs, Witold Waszczykowski, stated on Polish national television that he had “accepted the news with hopes for the US to correct its foreign policy by becoming even more explicit and determined.” When asked what he thought of Trump’s statement that under his leadership America would not necessarily come to the aid of a NATO ally (like Poland) under attack, he said: “Poland does not need to be afraid. Trump has met with the Polish community in the United States several times and has noticed the role of Poland in protecting the flank of NATO. His criticism of NATO will not affect Poland. We’ll want to get a confirmation that the allied decisions regarding our national security will be implemented.”
The pro-PiS daily Gazeta Polska ridiculed the “hysteria” of the liberal media worldwide, comparing the victory of Trump to that of PiS in the 2015 elections. “They use scare tactics against Trump the same way they used them against PiS,” the newspaper journalists declared, expressing their hope for allegedly pro-Polish Newt Gingrich to join Trump’s cabinet. “If the Republicans want to appeal to the subsequent generations of their electorate, they will have to abandon their centrist policies and turn more sharply to the right,” they demanded. For these mouthpieces of the authoritarian PiS, the Republican Party under George W. Bush, which waged endless imperialistic wars and attacks on the democratic rights of US citizens, was not “right” enough.
The conservative Rzeczpospolita announced Hillary Clinton’s failure to be “the defeat of Western elites” and wrote that “if Trump succeeds, America will come out of this stronger than ever before … we need to keep our fingers crossed for the new president.”
In stark contrast to the reaction of the government and its media, liberal commentators have reacted with shock and dismay to Trump’s election.
Like significant sections of the ruling elites in Europe, the Polish liberal bourgeoisie is also concerned about the growing political instability in the United States, its single most important partner in the foreign arena. Thus, Polityka featured an article headlined “The Divided United States of America,” in which the long battle for the White House has exposed the state of permanent chaos of the American system of rule as well as deep animosities between the opposing political camps.
However, the central fear of Poland’s liberal opposition is that the policies of a Trump administration will serve to further isolate Poland in Europe, and endanger the country’s national interest and war preparations against Russia. In contrast to PiS, the PO government had pursued a course in which it combined close cooperation with the US with an attempt to form an alliance with both Berlin and Paris. Under the PiS government, relations between Warsaw on the one hand, and Brussels and Berlin on the other, have significantly deteriorated.
In the run-up to the elections, liberal outlets that are close to Poland’s main opposition party Civic Platform (PO), such as Newsweek Polska and Polityka ,had joined the anti-Russian campaign of the Democratic Party against Trump, warning that the Republican candidate would represent a Kremlin stooge in the White House, endorsing full-heartedly the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Following the elections, the pro-PO newspaper Wyborcza, warned its readers that “Putin will propose a new Yalta to Trump.” At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin agreed on a division of Europe into “spheres of influence,” with Central and Eastern Europe being assigned to the Soviet sphere.
For the Polish bourgeoisie, the conference has historically formed an important reference point for the whipping up of anti-communism, but also the fear that its imperialist allies in the West might strike a deal with the Kremlin at the expense of the interests of the Eastern European bourgeoisie. Fanning those fears, Wyborcza wrote: “Trump’s victory is the worst news since the war in Iraq, maybe even since Yalta.” The liberal Polityka declared: “Trump has won and Russia has reasons to be happy.”
Just days before the elections, the front page of Newsweek Polska, which is close to the opposition party PO, featured a photo collage of a half-face Donald Trump, half-face the leader of the conservative PiS, Jarosław Kaczyński. The cover posed the question: “Has the world gone mad?” Of the election results, the weekly wrote, “This is not good news for NATO and Europe.” Further, Newsweek Polska wrote: “The victory of Trump is a gigantic success for Kaczyński and PiS, but only on the level of internal party politics. This success, however, comes at a price of geopolitical catastrophe for Poland and the entire region. Even if, in response to Trump’s victory, the core of Europe will quickly begin to integrate, we are not part of it anymore.”
Liberal pro-EU politicians have seized on the elections as a case in point for a “turn back towards Europe.” Thus, the former minister of foreign affairs, Radek Sikorski (PO), tweeted: “With USA likely going introvert and transactional, the European Union is more precious than ever. Needs leadership in reform more than ever.” Sikorski urged the PiS government to re-evaluate its foreign and domestic policy before it’s too late, arguing: “The victory of Trump will give wings to European nationalists, but it can bury the European Union. The new president will not be interested in Poland, and that’s bad news.”
The most cowardly, vassal-like response to the new representative of the American ruling class came from the discredited former president of Poland and former Solidarity leader, Lech Wałęsa. Wałęsa, who had just recently declared his official loyalty to PO, asked the EU for help in removing the democratically elected PiS government from power and for EU sanctions on Poland.
In a move that traced the shift of the Democratic Party from viciously attacking Trump to endorsing him as president-elect, Wałęsa, who just days before the elections declared Trump to be unfit for office and a threat, sent his cordial greetings to the US president-elect. Posting a picture of the two of them, Wałęsa wrote on Facebook:
“I am glad that Mr. Trump remembers our conversation that took place in his club in Florida back in 2010. Apparently after our meeting he thought: ‘If it was possible for a worker to overthrow communism and become the president of Poland, why a millionaire could not become a president of the United States?’ As you can see, my story was an inspiration for him to act. As you all know I always root for changes if they lead to something positive. … I keep my fingers crossed for the success of the reforms in America.”

Battle for Mosul: Prospects for the Immediate Future

Ranjit Gupta



On 17 October 2016, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Abadi announced the commencement of the battle for Mosul. He also said that except for the Iraqi army, police and security forces, “no others will be allowed to enter Mosul;” Iraqi troops have agreed to stay out of Kurdish territory and the Peshmerga have promised they will not enter Mosul. However, the Iraqi government has little political clout or military capability to enforce this eminently desirable restraining measure in respect of non-state groups. Unexpectedly, rapid advances have been made despite Islamic State (IS) fighters putting up fierce resistance. The IS being defeated and Mosul and Nineveh Provinces being recaptured is now a certainty. Though this would mark the welcome end of a savagery infused and blood soaked episode, it is distinctly possible that another, and longer term, unhappy episode in this northern Iraqi region could begin. 

The assault on Mosul is led by the Iraqi army, police and special forces, supported by the Kurdish Peshmerga and backed by US coalition led air strikes and special forces. Additionally, Sunni militias, many trained by/proxies of Turkey, and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) or Hashd al-Shaabi, composed of approximately 40 predominantly Shia militia groups many of which have close ties to Iran, are also involved, but outside Mosul. Once the common enemy – the IS – is removed from the scene, the centrifugal and competing forces of sectarianism and separatism will inevitably come to the fore. In fact, this may well start happening while the fight against the IS is still underway, even potentially risking an abortion of a successful outcome of the battle. 

Given the deserved ill-repute of the PMF for vengeance attacks on Sunni populations of towns liberated from the IS earlier, it would be a miracle if clashes do not occur between them and others involved in the assault. In early November, they took control of key points on the highway between Mosul and the IS capital Raqqa in Syria and are seeking to take over the strategic town of Tel Afar, near the Syrian border, which is populated mainly by Sunni Turkmens; this could prompt Turkish intervention against them. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other Turkish leaders have made it clear that they will protect the Turkmen community and other Sunni populations in the battle theatre wherever needed. 

Turkey’s unambiguously stated intent of intrusive involvement is an ominous portent. Brazenly rejecting the Iraqi government's repeated demands for removal of its forces from Iraqi territory and despite the Iraqi government’s categorical opposition, Erdogan has insisted that Turkey, with 2,000 well-armed and equipped troops stationed near Bashiqa, only 8 kms northeast of Mosul, and more troops and armour in other border regions and just across the border, must and will be involved in the battle for Mosul and must be at the table to decide Mosul’s future since Mosul and Kirkuk, indeed the whole of Nineveh province, are “part of our [Turkey’s] soul,” (incorporated into Iraq, established in 1920, only in 1923/26). Reopening the issue almost a century later, Erdogan has said that "Insistence on (the 1923 borders) is the greatest injustice that can be done to the state and the nation…If everything is changing in the world of today, we cannot consider adherence to the treaty of 1923 a success.” 

On 07 November 2016, the Kurdish Peshmerga won back control of Bashiqa from the IS. Despite having cordial political and particularly strong economic relations with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), the Turkish foreign minister very recently said that “If there is a threat to Turkey from Iraq, we will use all our resources and rights, including a ground operation…We aren't saying this to Iraqis alone, but to the United States and all coalition nations, (and) to the northern Iraqi government” (Kurdish Regional Government). 

A century-long struggle for independence for the Kurds may be nearing a turning point. Having enjoyed de facto self-governance for over a decade, they will not easily let go of this new opportunity, keeping in mind its particularly significant role in the fight against the IS. The Iraqi Kurds are savouring a sense of empowerment and self-confidence as never before. In a February 2016 interview to the German newspaper ‘Bild’, KRG President Masoud Barzani, inter alia, said that Iraqi Kurds have been waiting for independence “for too long…..We are not Arabs, we are our own Kurdish nation... If the people of Kurdistan are waiting for someone else to present the right of self-determination as a gift, independence will never be obtained. That right exists and the people of Kurdistan must demand it and put it into motion. The time has long been ripe for it, but we are currently concentrating on the fight against Daesh; as soon as Mosul is liberated, Kurds will meet with ’partners in Baghdad’ and talk about our independence.” If pursued excessively assertively, new conflicts could arise. 

The question of who will control/govern Mosul will immediately arise. No plans have been announced, partly because this could unravel the coalition seeking to liberate it. Shia-Sunni clashes and atrocities on different minorities are almost inevitable. Then, almost inevitably, the PMF and the Sunni forces trained by Turkey will also almost certainly enter the fray and in the context of increasing mayhem, direct Turkish intervention is a very distinct possibility and this in turn could bring in other countervailing foreign intervention.

Oil rich Kirkuk is a city that has been particularly hotly contested between the Kurds and the Iraqi central government for decades. The defeat of the IS will reopen the issue of Kurdish control of Kirkuk – the Kurdish Peshmega had taken over after 12 June 2014, when the Iraqi army fled following the success of the IS’ 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Once the dust settles in Mosul, the central government will seek to reclaim disputed territories and/or recently Kurdish-occupied areas (see map) and Kirkuk in particular – all of which the Kurd leadership has no intentions of withdrawing from. Thus, another conflict is in the making. 

Iraq’s misfortunes are unlikely to end with the defeat of the IS.

Trump's Trade Scenarios: Implications for India

Amita Batra



The year 2016 has sprung many a surprise, not the least of which has been the outcome of the US presidential elections. The economic policy stance of the president-elect Donald Trump has been evident in his oft-repeated ‘inward-looking’/isolationist pronouncements in the course of the election campaign. These though, have not been substantiated with any policy detail for a serious analysis. Much commentary therefore remains in the realm of speculation. There is, however, no doubt that the globalisation engendered inequities have been at the heart of Trump’s economic policy declarations. Expectations of a reversal of some of the earlier trade agreements and policies may therefore not be entirely misplaced. 

If the expression of an aversion to trade as reflected in the pre-election speeches was to turn into reality then it is possible that the largest trading economy becomes more protectionist in its trade policy. The core elements of trade policy as specified in the course of the election campaign include imposition of higher tariffs on imports from China and Mexico specifically, and a general increase in tariffs otherwise. Mega regional trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will in all likelihood not be taken forward. Trade agreements in general seen as instruments of unfair concessions breeding inequities may also be subject to re-negotiation; the intention of building a wall between the US and Mexico being most symptomatic of this impending trend. There have also been indications of a US pull-out from the multi-lateral rule making trade organisation, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), in case there is any resistance to its imposition of protectionist policies. Other stated intentions have been with regard to changes in immigration policies with a more restrictive visa regime. The broad objective of the policy changes being bringing manufacturing back to the US, greater employment and hence greater prosperity, and in the process, recovery of losses in global trade for the US economy, in particular vis-à-vis the Chinese economy.  

As has been predicted by many analysts already, any attempt by the US economy towards the use of protectionist instruments will be countered by retaliatory measures by other economies, including China, with the likely impact being serious in terms of not just the initiation of a trade war with China but that of applying brakes to international trade in general. The WTO has already expressed concern at the slowdown of world trade in 2016 as the pace of growth has been slower than that of the global economy, unlike the trend over the last decade and a half. The US being the world’s largest importer with a share of almost 14 per cent in world imports, the imposition of higher tariffs will naturally be detrimental to world trade. In addition, the US economy may not gain as the attempt to push domestic manufacturing may imply higher costs and inefficient production, as long established comparative advantages will be altered in the process. While aimed at some, costs of the re-adjustment may be spread across to other economies as well. India, for example, will find it difficult for its ‘make in India’ programme to yield substantive benefits in such an adverse global trade environment. Higher tariff walls will be detrimental to manufacturing exports. As the largest export market for India with a share of 15 per cent in India’s total exports in 2015-16, higher tariffs in the US may prove to be a difficult hurdle for India to surmount and to convert its potential comparative advantage through the ‘make in India’ initiative into higher exports. 

The US is also a major destination for India’s IT, ITeS and BPO services exports. Together, these accounted for US$ 82 billion-worth of exports in the financial year ending in March 2015, according to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data. If Trump, again as per the campaign rhetoric against immigrants, decides to adopt a restrictive H-1B visa regime, India’s existing comparative advantage in the services sector would be diluted. 

The pull- out from the mega regional trade agreement, the TPP, may have multiple effects on the Asia Pacific trade architecture. It is likely that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, which is seen as an alternative trade configuration to the TPP for the Asian economies, including India, may now emerge as the main trade agreement for regional economies. The higher trade standards (WTO plus) of the TPP, it is possible, will now be sought in the RCEP by those economies that are members of both the RCEP and TPP. India, with its persistent stance of differentiated tariff liberalisation offers to the RCEP economies, may then find negotiations more difficult. In the absence of the US-led agreement from the region, there may even be the possibility of China acquiring a pre-eminent position not just in the RCEP but also in the Asia Pacific region, to the extent of pushing forward its own proposal of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). In fact, in the absence of the US counter, the China-led FTAAP - first proposed in the 2014 APEC meeting -may even become the lead trade configuration in the Asia Pacific region. India may have to rethink its strategy for participation in the regional trade architecture if this APEC members’ configuration gains traction in the near term. India is not yet a member of the APEC.  

A possible alternative, though, to accepting Chinese leadership in global and/or regional trade deals, would be a return to the multilateral system and the rise of the WTO, where it may be difficult for China to emerge as the dominant player. This may even be a favourable outcome for India, a longstanding WTO loyalist. But for this, the WTO needs to reassert itself as the international body that deals with trade issues in a more inclusive manner. Given the dragging of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) now for a decade and a half, this seems like a humongous task. But if developing country coalitions comprising the more dynamic economies could pave the way, this may just be the time for a resurrection of the WTO and the DDA. And, India could actually take the lead in this process. 

Donald Trump and China: A Contest for Primacy

Srikanth Kondapalli


The dramatic win of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the US at the hustings has caught many a nation by surprise given the critical outreach of the country in the economic, political, strategic and military spheres of the world. 

Trump’s foreign policies after assuming office from January 2017 have become major debating points in terms of their impact on the rest of the world. While Trump made several disparaging remarks during the heat of the election campaign, in the last three decades, there is a definite trend in the US of a huge chasm between electoral-time barbs and criticism of other countries, and the pragmatic policies followed while in office. If this trend continues, predictable outcomes in US foreign policy towards the rest of the world may be witnessed.

Traditionally, US foreign policy has veered between isolationism till World War II, and off-shore balancing through the hundreds of naval bases and facilities globally through controlled engagement policies or a mix of the latter policies. With over US$18 trillion in gross domestic product and by heading the 'new economy' of information and communications technologies, apart from its cutting edge military forces, US policies influence every nook and corner of the Earth, although interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have dented this US profile.
Trump has promised to make the US great again. He has also been critical of its uneven and costly relations with allies, and mounting trade deficits with China and its currency manipulation policies. If Trump expands cooperative relations with Russia as promised during the elections – thus making radical departures in US policy that has so far stressed further isolation in the backdrop of developments in Crimea – then China is likely to face US' wrath in the coming years. 

More significantly, China has been challenging US' primacy in all the three new security domains – cyber, space, and maritime. This would constrain Trump’s plan to make the US great in the decades to come. While Trump may not flag the Democratic Party’s obsession with human rights violations in China, China’s contestation of US primacy in global and regional affairs is likely to be the flashpoint between the two in the coming years. Domestically, the new leadership in China since 2012 has jettisoned Deng Xiaoping’s policy of “keeping a low profile” and has instead had been following a policy to “accomplish something” -  which is protecting China’s interests abroad. 

Despite his isolationist streak, Trump understands that China’s advances globally and regionally came at the cost of the US and Russia playing one against the other. Thus China became a swing state in the later part of the Cold War by aligning with the US and contributing to the disintegration of the then Soviet Union. Also, by joining the US-led globalisation process China became the largest trading country, displacing the US and its allies. By staying neutral in the Georgian and Crimean crises, China forced Russia to veer towards Beijing in the light of mounting European sanctions. Trump’s approach towards Russia thus will alter geo-strategic equations and expose Chinese vulnerabilities.

Trump is also aware that China has been attempting to force the US out of Asia since the USS Impeccable was shooed away from the South China Sea in 2009. Comments made by the Chinese President at the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) summit in May 2014 on Asian countries looking after their own security rubbed the US the wrong way. Weaning the Philippines and Malaysia away from the US camp has further curtailed US manoeuvrability in the South China Sea. Beijing's free trade policies vis-à-vis Australia, New Zealand, East Asia and other regions has added momentum towards the nudging of the US from these regions. 

China unsuccessfully sold the US the idea of a “new type of major power” relationship at the Sunnylands meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping in June 2013, even as it denied a similar status to Japan and India. China is nudging the US to acknowledge Beijing’s 'equal' status with the US – a point Trump will find unpalatable in the coming years. 

As a businessperson, Trump also noted in the election campaign the acute asymmetry in US' trade relations with China. Of the more than half a trillion in trade with China, Beijing has a surplus of nearly US$400 billion with the US. China, with its tight control over Renminbi valuation, artificially kept it as low as over 40 per cent, despite the International Monetary Fund (IMF) accommodating it as a part of the global basket of currency in December 2015. This is hurting the US economy, as Trump noted during the election campaign. 

Despite reaching out to Trump soon after the election results were known and despite the outwardly calm, China’s leadership is wary of the unchartered course of its relations with the US under the new presidency. Soon after the election results, while President-elect Trump made statements regarding the pursuit of pragmatic policies during his tenure, including being even in his policies with other countries, China is a concerned country.

14 Nov 2016

World Health Organisation (WHO) Internship Programme 2017

Application Deadline: 28th February, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All countries
To be taken at (country): WHO regional and out-posted offices (AfricaAmericasEuropeEastern MediterraneanSouth-East Asia, and Western Pacific)
About the Award: Participants include both students and young professionals from different cultural, academic, as well as geographic backgrounds with a common interest: a motivation to pursue a career in supporting public health. Interns/volunteers come from the region of the Africa, and Asia. WHO had interns from Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Saudi Arabia, Romania, Turkey, Japan, Jamaica to name a few. They are from various academic backgrounds, from international politics, political sciences, computer sciences, marketing finances, biology, journalism and public health, to political communications and video editing.
Group photo with Dr Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General, and summer interns August 2015.
Type: Internship
Eligibility: 
  • You are at least twenty years of age on the date of application;
  • you are enrolled in a course of study at a university or equivalent institution leading to a formal qualification (graduate or postgraduate) (applicants who have already graduated may also qualify for consideration provided that they start the internship within six months after completion of their formal qualification);
  • you have completed three years of full-time studies at a university or equivalent institution prior to commencing (bachelor’s level or equivalent) the assignment;
  • you possess a first degree in a public health, medical or social field related to the technical work of WHO or a degree in a management-related or administrative field;
  • you are not related to a WHO staff member (e.g., son/daughter, brother/sister, or mother/father);
  • you are fluent at least in one of the working language of the office of assignment; and
  • you have not previously participated in WHO’s Internship Programme.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Internship: WHO’s Internship Programme offers a wide range of opportunities for students to gain insight in the technical and administrative programmes of WHO. WHO internships are not paid and all costs of travel and accommodation are the responsibility of the intern candidate.
Duration of Internship: six to twenty four weeks.
How to Apply: If you are interested in completing an internship at a WHO office please follow the relevant below link(s). You will find information on the application process and additional information on WHO’s Internship Programme on the website of the respective office. Choose to apply in any of the offices via the links below:
Award Provider: World Health Organisation (WHO)
Important Notes: WHO does not charge for internships. If you encounter programmes that “facilitate” your obtaining an internship by paying money, please contact the WHO. WHO does not charge for internships.

KECTIL Youth Leadership Program 2017 for Young Leaders in Developing Countries. Fully-funded to the US

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2016
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Online, USA (for the Youth Leadership Conference)
About the Award: KECTIL that refers to the Knowles Educational and Charitable Trust for International Leadership, is based on the following principles:
  • Creating an authentic, collaborative network of high potential youth from developing and least developed countries can break down prejudices, lead to cultural, religious and gender understanding and give youth the comfort that they are more than just themselves– they are part of a mutual youth-based support system with the goal to make a positive difference in their lives, their Colleagues’ lives and the lives of those in their communities.
  • Identifying, embracing and mentoring high potential youth (17-24) from developing and least developed countries can have a dramatic effect on the youths’ dreams, service to others and life accomplishments.
  • Nothing comes easy and there is “no free lunch.” The results will not be achieved without hard work, dedication and an open mindedness to cultural understanding and compassion.
Kectil comprises of the following program categories:
  • Web-Based Mentoring Program
    • Monthly Kectil Talks with Leaders in Science, Business, Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Public Service
  • Assignments & Sharing
    • Connect with other students on social media (Facebook & Twitter) with facilitated web-based group discussions
  • Youth Leadership Conference
    • Intensive Leadership Training, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Workshop, Meetings with Successful Leaders, and Creation of Network of Youth Peers in Developing Countries
  • Alumni Web-Portal
    • Maintenance of Network of Youth Peers in Developing Countries, Interaction with New Youth Participants, Availability of Mentorship from Program
Type: Training
Eligibility: Participants must be talented Youth (aged 17-25) in least developed and developing countries who have demonstrated a talent and passion for leadership, scholarship or innovation, are proficient in English and have access to a computer and the internet.
Number of Awardees: 15
Value of Programme: 
  • The Kectil Program will select fifteen of the most active participants in the Web-based Program to be given a special award.
  • The participants will have attended all of the Sessions and completed the online pre and post assignments.
  • The Kectil Program will host a Youth Leadership Conference in Atlanta the first week of August 2017 for a select group of highly qualified youth from least developed and developing countries.
  • The conference will include intensive leadership training, an innovation and entrepreneurial workshop, community service training, and meetings with successful leaders in a small group interactive setting.
  • The Conference will provide additional instruction over and above the year-long web-based program to Kectil Colleagues who have the greatest potential to be future leaders and who come from communities in most need of passionate and positive youth role models.
  • The Conference will be held on the campus of Emory University. Participants will stay in University dormitory rooms and will eat in a cafeteria serviced by the University dining program.
Duration of Programme: 1 year
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial, Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Interested Participants must go through the Application requirements before registering to submit an application
Award Provider: Knowles Educational and Charitable Trust for International Leadership (KECTIL)