6 Feb 2017

International Graduate Business School Young Talents Case Study Contest 2017/2018 – Zagreb, Croatia

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Croatia
About the Award: We understand that MBA is a big step in one’s career so we want to provide a full MBA financing for the best candidates. We are looking for young, talented people who are intellectually thirsty, want to grow, improve their knowledge and cope with challenges of the digital transformation and innovation.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: MBA (EMBA)
Eligibility: If you fulfil the following entry requirements:
  • 3-5 years of relevant work experience
  • higher education with a minimum of 180 ECTS credits
  • English language proficiency
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Contest: The chance to win the full covered e-Leadership MBA Scholarship.
Duration of Contest: Two(2) years
How to Apply: Visit Scholarship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Algebra University College, Kelley School of Business

Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academic Scholarship for Girls 2018 – South Africa

Application Deadline: 15th February 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: South Africa
To be taken at (country): South Africa
About the Award: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls – South Africa is a residential boarding, special learning school with 300 students enrolled in Grades 8 -12. The Academy teaches the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme (IB MYP) in Grades 8 – 10. Grade 12 students write the Independent Examination Board (I.E.B.) NSC Examination.
Eligibility: Students qualify to apply if they are girls who:
  • Are currently in Grades 7, 8 or 9
  • Display leadership potential
  • Are South African citizens or permanent residents
  • Display academic talent
  • Are in a family whose total household income is less than R10,000 per month
Number of Awardees: Not specified
How to Apply:
Completed application forms must be addressed and sent to:
Attention: Student Recruitment
P O Box 1485, Henley on Klip, 1962
Fax: +27 (0) 16 366 9004
Once all applications have been received and screened, testing will be arranged for those applicants who meet the criteria. There are several stages to the selection process.
Award Provider: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls

UNU-MERIT International Conference 2017 Scholarships for Developing Countries – Belgium

Application Deadline: 1st March 2017.
To be taken at (country): Brussels, Belgium
Type: Events and Conferences
Eligibility: The awarding of these scholarships will be on a competitive basis. In order to be eligible for the scholarships, students must:
  • agree to be bound by the terms and conditions (particularly regarding the sharing of costs);
  • provide proof of their nationality and country of residence (e.g. passport, birth certificate);
  • submit a CV and a statement of motivation detailing why they should be selected for the scholarship;
  • indicate what theme they are interested in; and
  • agree to write a short blog post about the conference or to participate in an audio/video testimonial. The blog or testimonial may be used by APPAM and UNU-MERIT for marketing purposes.
Selection: Decisions regarding the selection of successful applicants will be made by UNU-MERIT staff, in particular the Director, the Deputy Director and the UNU-MERIT conference chair, and are final. Scholarships are not transferable between persons.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:
  • Included in the scholarship:International travel expenses (economy class, booked by UNU-MERIT); travel expenses in Brussels (public transport, economy class, reimbursed based on receipts); APPAM conference waiver.
  • Excluded from the scholarship – to be paid by the applicant:Local travel (in home country); accommodation in Brussels; costs related to passport, identity card and / or visa; any other out-of-pocket expenses (meals, excursions, etc.).
Duration of Scholarship: 13-14 July 2017
How to Apply: Please send your letter of motivation, your CV, the conference theme you are interested in and a scanned copy of your passport, identity card or birth certificate to appam2017@merit.unu.edu  before 1 March 2017.
The outcome of the scholarship selection will be communicated before 15 March 2017. After selection for the scholarship, you will need to register for the APPAM conference separately. APPAM will offer you an invitation letter and visa letter if needed.
Award Provider: The United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT)

Bankers Without Borders (BWB) Grameen Foundation Fellowship 2017

Application Deadline: 31st March, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
To be taken at (country): Fellowship placements will likely be in Africa (particularly Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Burkina Faso, and Tanzania), Latin America (particularly Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Ecuador), Asia (particularly India and the Philippines), and the Middle East (particularly U.A.E).
About the Award: Grameen Foundation Fellows make their mark in the fight against poverty, while broadening their professional horizons and gaining invaluable hands-on experience in international development. This is a unique opportunity for professionals from a wide range of industries, from management consulting and business to data analysis to healthcare and agriculture, to gain substantial experience leading the development and implementation of projects serving the poor, working with some of the brightest minds in social innovation.
During their placement, Fellows work with some of the brightest minds in social innovation on projects designed to accelerate the impact, scale and sustainability of some of the world’s most promising organizations committed to alleviating global poverty.  All Fellows receive monthly stipends, pre-departure training, and ongoing support.
Offered Since: 2013
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Typically, strong Fellowship candidates have experience in strategy or management consulting and/or have worked in global business or in start-up environments. For placements with Grameen Foundation teams, we also look for expertise in the areas of financial services, health, agriculture, mobile technology, and social entrepreneurship.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of ScholarshipAll Fellows receive living stipends, pre-departure training, and ongoing support.
Duration of Fellowship: 1 year
How to Apply: 
Candidates are strongly encouraged to submit their completed written application by the priority deadline of March 31, 2017.
The application closes on  April 14, 2017.
Award Provider: Bankers Without Borders (BWB)

100 Hungarian Government Scholarships for South African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 5th March 2017.
Eligible Countries: South Africa
To be taken at (country): Hungary
About the Award: The qualifications offered are all at degree level. There are 30 Bachelors, 60 Masters and 10 PhD spaces available in various academic fields including natural sciences, engineering, IT, business management, agriculture, human resources and food sciences among others.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Application for the scholarship is open to all South African citizens with a strong academic record and an interest in studying in Hungary. Applicants should also demonstrate commitment to the development of South Africa and must be available to study abroad from September 2017. Furthermore, all applicants must meet the minimum academic requirements for entry into a similar programme at a South African university.
Number of Awardees: 100
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship offers tuition, accommodation and medical insurance.
How to Apply: The scholarship offers tuition, accommodation and medical insurance. Application forms are available to download from the following website: (vhttp://www.internationalscholarships.dhet.gov.za/Content/HUNGARY/DHET_Hungary%20application%20form.pdf).
For more information:
Madikwe Mabotha
Chief Director: Communication
Telephone 012 312 5024 Mobile 081 710 3321
Email Mabotha.M@dhet.gov.za www.dhet.gov.za
For General Enquiries:
Lehlohonolo Mphuthi Media Liaison:
Communication Telephone 012 312 5648 Mobile 061 985 9474
Email Mphuthi.L@dhet.gov.za www.dhet.gov.za Issued by the D
Award Provider: Hungarian Government

Cold War Redux: the “Fake Information Age”

Binoy Kampmark

London.
The great tedium of history is that those who refuse to acknowledge its immemorial works tend to see exceptional events everywhere.  The next event of terror is singular; the next act of technology inspired hacking is remarkable.
Listening to the crackling consternation of the airwaves this Friday morning, the sense of a dark, sulphuric fog, not unlike the polluted air of London descending upon the UK, is palpable. There is a terror that the UK is escaping the bosom of the European family, a painful process of separation involving a mixture of exhilaration and bile filled disgust.
With equal terror is the sense that the wily and resourceful Russians have gotten the upper hand everywhere, closing in on their opponents in what has been termed, erroneously, a fake information age. They do not do so with tanks, with missiles, and with garrisons so much as what is incongruously called weaponised information.
The UK Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, goes so far as to call it weaponised mis-information, and flattering the Kremlin with its provenance:
“Today we see a country that, in weaponising misinformation, has created what we might now see as the post-truth age.  Part of that is the use of cyber-weaponry to disrupt critical infrastructure and disable democratic machinery.”
The literature is now being peppered less by clinical analysis than a fear about losing current and coming battles: the Russian menace, as every, must be exaggerated. Budgets must be financed; personnel hired and fed.  An example of such fears is found in an Institute of Modern Russia paper by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss unmistakably entitled The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money.
A salient point is that the Russian information corps have simply done better than their opponents. If there is a market place of gristle and ideas, Moscow seems to be prizing others out of it – or so it is being assumed by the likes of Fallon. Big boys and girls have become subtler and more sophisticated in manipulating the obvious, in chancing their digital arm.  This is not so much the world of the lie as the world of the alternative.  The UK, by way of contrast, finds itself lagging in staff and skills in the cyber security department.
In terms of elections, the world of make believe starts becoming an addiction. Before long, Pygmalion’s statue comes alive, and one wants to believe it has fleshy lips and a comely mouth. But for all that, it still remains information, to be either consumed without critique, as much news is, or questioned with indigestible refrain.
The plethora of charged assessments and allegations of Russian meddling, first in the US election, and now the forthcoming French, Dutch and German elections, only points to an age old practice of wanting a more favourable position in diplomacy.  Gone are the days when this was traditionally done by traditional gun boat diplomacy, emissaries, delegations and envoys. The modern hyper-networked world has made reach and scope childishly simple, enabling a deep burrowing into information systems at a fraction of the cost.  This is not so much soft power as seductive power.
The mistake is to then assume that one man, a certain President Vladimir Putin, controls this creation, the puppet master in charge of the information warfare machine. This confuses operational matters – the prosaic sort that agencies engage in across the globe – with actual matters of direct influence and causation.  In the ideological scrap, proportionality is lost, and equivalence sets in: all Russia does is deemed faking and fakery, the orgasm that never was.
It has been said that the Kremlin, as other governments, have had spectacular moments of disrupting infrastructure.  The frontier of the cyber war was already well and truly crossed in the battles with Estonia in 2007 in a dispute over a war memorial.  As we only have the words of spooks to go on, always making this a hazardous line of inquiry, subsequent incidents have been noted where broadcast networks have received interest.
British security officials, for instance, claimed last year that the group known as APT28 and Sofacy (Fancy Bears being another name) was thwarted in its efforts against the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky.  The same group was supposedly linked to the disruptive incidents with the bringing down of French international broadcaster TV5 Monde in April 2015.
There is another line at play here.  To take out and control information systems is one thing; to hack a system – the servers of the Democratic National Committee, for instance – and reveal gold dust and candy to be couriered over to such an organisation as WikiLeaks, is another. Individuals like Fallon fail to make the distinction.  All is fake in the post-truth world, and Russia refuses to play with clean hands.
Little is done to actually confront the information directly.  The hacking of the DNC, the Podesta emails and Hillary Clinton’s email indiscretions are all grouped under the category of propaganda – weaponised as battalions of facts and realities, the tactic on the part of those caught with their pants down is to accuse your assailant of removing the belt.
The same goes for how one views such media outlets as RT.  The constructively minded individual will profit from the discussions of such programs as the financially minded Keiser Report or The Hawks, the latter paying tribute to the passing of mainstream news. There is much worthy crankiness in all of it.
But all subject matter is blurred into a series of forces that trouble critics in the West rather than illuminate.  All “weaponised” information, which shape a counter-narrative, is thereby ignored for what it says, dismissed as counterfeit rather than a way of assessing its merits.  One does not examine the blade approaching you in a darkened street as a fact to be admired but a threat to be deflected.

Environmental Disaster in Sumatra

Andre Vltchek

Outside Southeast Asia, almost no one knows about existence of Palembang, a city in Sumatra, which is the sixth largest island in the world. It is a gloomy but big city; it is actually immense, with almost 2 million inhabitants, most of them living in crammed and grubby conditions.
The city is cut in half, by the mighty tropical River Musi, a desperately polluted waterway, bordered by slums built on stilts, and by a few old colonial buildings.
Vessels of all types pass through Musi. They are taking away everything that can be sold, abroad or to the rest of Indonesia. There are enormous barges filled with coal, oil tankers, makeshift boats carrying palm oil fruit bunches, as well as countless ships carrying timber.
Plunder is done openly; there is no attempt to conceal it.
Ms Isna Wijayani, a Professor at Bina Darma University in Palembang, laments:
“There is no primary forest left in a wide area around Palembang. However, illegal logging doesn’t get reported in local media. It is because powerful forces, including police and the army (TNI) are involved or directly behind much of illegal logging and other profitable commercial activities in South Sumatra.”
Bina Darma University invited me to speak on the manipulation of the Indonesian media by the West. I was asked to address around one hundred selected students and lecturers from the region. What followed was an hour long discussion, during which I clearly understood how little is known, even among the local students and teachers, about the dire environmental situation in their part of the world.
“We have no idea about the extent of deforestation around here,” explained Ms Lina, a student.
Ms Ayu Lexy, a graduate student, was somewhat more knowledgeable on the subject:
“I think Donald Trump is crazy, claiming that there is no global warming. Effects of it are clearly felt here.”
***
This time, same as several years ago, I rented a makeshift speedboat, and instructed the captain to take me around the delta and to Upang, a village more than one hour of literally ‘flying’ over the murky waters, from Palembang.
For the first few kilometers, hellish-looking factories lined up along both shores. All of the plants appeared to be forming a grand coalition, serving a single goal: to destroy what was left of the once pristine tropical paradise.
There was the Pusri plant, producer of fertilizers, one of the largest in Southeast Asia, belching smoke and spreading an insupportable stench all around its vicinity. Right across the water, surrounded by slums, a wood-processing plant was emitting a very distinct odor. Local children were swimming nearby, clearly oblivious of health hazards.
Later, a former top executive of ‘Pusri’, Mr. Reza Esfan, confessed to me:
“We create pollution, of course, although we try to minimize it. I can’t deny that unsavory odor is emitted… Obviously, Pusri’s mistake was that they didn’t purchase the land surrounding their plants. Now, if we have a leak, then the community sues us…”
Naturally, not a word about the suffering of the communities…
At Kapitan Village, several women were washing their clothes in the filthy water of the river, and then brushing their teeth in it.
“Why shouldn’t we be washing ourselves and brushing our teeth in clean water? We can’t spend our money on such luxuries! Anyway, the river water is free, and it is clean.”
As a woman spoke to me, a grotesquely swollen carcass of a dog passed slowly by just a few meters away.
***
Deforestation was essential for construction of all local ‘industries’. But how ruthless is deforestation in Indonesia? How bad is its contribution to global climate change?
The simple answer is: it is not just bad; it is dreadful.
The Pan-Asian independent news network, the Coconuts TV reported in 2015:
“Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, adding more carbon pollution to the atmosphere than all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined each year. It’s also pushing many animal species to the brink of extinction, including the Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran elephant, and the orangutan due to the destruction of their habitats.
Indonesia has become the global leader in deforestation, and the reason is the world’s thirst for palm oil. Palm oil is the most widely used vegetable oil on the planet. It can be found in over half of all packaged products at the supermarket, including everything from cooking oil to lipstick.”
As early as in 2007, Greenpeace Philippines snapped at Indonesia’s unwillingness to deal with the disaster:
“Indonesia destroys about 51 square kilometers of forests every day, equivalent to 300 football fields every hour — a figure, which should earn the country a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s fastest destroyer of forests… These figures demonstrate a lack of political will and power by the Indonesian government to stop runaway deforestation rates. A series of natural disasters in recent years, floods, forest fires, landslides, droughts, massive erosion are all linked to the unprecedented destruction of our forests. Forest fires from concessions and plantations have already made Indonesia the world’s third biggest contributor of greenhouse gases,” Mr Hapsoro (Greenpeace Southeast Asia Forest campaigner) said.”
Since 2007, not much has changed. The country has already lost well over 70 per cent of its intact ancient forests, and commercial logging, forest fires and new clearances for palm oil plantations threaten half of what is left. The greed seems to know no boundaries.
According to Science direct :
“Between 1970 and the mid-1990s, export-oriented log production and global demand were the primary pressures underlying deforestation. Cultivation of rice and other crops was also found to be associated with a growing population and transmigration policy. Moreover, deregulation of foreign investment in the 1980s appears to have led to expansion of an export-oriented industry, including commercial crop and log production. Between the mid-1990s and 2015, imbalance between global demand and production of Indonesian timber and oil palm led to illegal or non-sustainable timber harvest and expansion of permanent agricultural areas…”
The result: Sumatra and Kalimantan islands are now choking on their own smoke, although the agony spreads far into neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Year after year, millions of people get affected, classes are cancelled, airplanes grounded, and regular activities averted. Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from acute respiratory tract infections. Hundreds lose their lives.
Some even call the unbridled ‘export of pollution’ a ‘crime against humanity’. Emotions are running high, and many citizens of Malaysia and Singapore protest by boycotting Indonesian products.
On several occasions I witnessed thick smog covering the skyscrapers of major Malaysian cities, and of Singapore. In 2015, during the ‘big fires’ of Sumatra, life in Kuala Lumpur almost came to a standstill.
***
This time, landing in Palembang, the haze had been covering almost the entire runway. “Visibility 6 kilometers,” the captain of Indonesian flagship carrier, Garuda informed us, not long before the touchdown. In fact, the visibility appeared to be no more than 200 meters. But in Indonesia, many ‘uncomfortable facts’ are outrightly denied.
Throughout the following days my eyes became watery and my joints were aching. I kept coughing uncontrollably. When I was asked by the Italian ‘5 Star Movement’ to record my political message (I did it in a local slum), I could hardly speak.
The trouble didn’t just come from the forest fires: everything here seemed to be polluting the environment: the burning of garbage, notorious traffic jams, emissions from unregulated factories, even cigarette smoking in almost all public places.
***
Along Musi River, the original forests are gone, replaced by rice fields, palm oil and rubber plantations.
I spoke to dozens of farmers and fishermen: most of them have never heard about the global warming, others didn’t care. In Indonesia, the struggle for bare survival is what propels most of the people — this, as well as the cynical chase for profit, pursued by the ‘elites’. I described it in detail in my damning book “Indonesia: Archipelago of Fear”.
At some point, the captain of my boat became hostile. Angry, frustrated and nationalistic, he began sabotaging my work, constantly rocking his boat in order to prevent me from photographing disaster areas.
Still, I prevailed. I had to. Millions of people were suffering; dozens of species were disappearing, including tigers and rhinos, elephants and orangutans.
***
Mr. Ahmad, a 55 year old fisherman from Upang village, is aware of the tragedy:
“In the last 20 years, the level of Musi River has risen on average by 50 centimeters. Here we have a badminton court. In the past, during high tides, the water would go up only to our ankles, but now it comes up to our thighs.”
Mr. Ahmad doesn’t understand that it is the destruction of tropical forests that has a direct impact on the rising levels of his river.
Local university students, who are accompanying me, know what’s happening, but they don’t seem to care. As I interview farmers and fishermen, they’re chatting on their phones, clearly indifferent.
“The environmental destruction around Musi River, particularly of the rainforest, is very bad, and it continues. The great fire of 2015 showed how bad the management of the rainforests is in Indonesia, particularly in Sumatra,” Ms Khalisah Khalid working for WALHI (the Indonesian Forum for the Environment), told me over the phone.
However, for many different reasons, environmental disasters do not seem to be treated as emergencies: by the government, mainstream media, even by local people.
As my boat flew over the water, hitting waves created by monstrous coal barges, breaking my back in half, I realized that the mainstream media hardly ever comes here, despite the fact that what takes place around Musi has a devastating impact on our entire Planet. Abroad, the Sumatran environmental disaster is just one of those ‘abstract stories’.
For years, I worked in many parts of this enormous and once stunning island, from Aceh to Lampung. I also worked all over Oceania (Oceania is name of my book covering that vast part of the world), the most affected area of the Planet, where entire nations are now disappearing due to the climate change.
Global warming has undeniably devastating impact on the entire world, including the Palembang area itself. In the short term, palm oil and rubber plantations may bring some profits to the companies, even to local people, but tens, maybe hundreds of millions of lives could be disrupted, even broken as a result. The price is too steep, but in Indonesia, there is hardly any discussion on the subject. Too many powerful individuals are involved, and too much money is being made.
Now those who claim that there is no climate change have a powerful ally in the White House. And so the silence reigns. The water is rising. Increasingly, smog is covering, like an endless and deadly duvet, this entire part of the world.

The Question Of Jerusalem

Mustapha Marrouchi


The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President has ushered in a new era of uncertainty, nowhere more so than in the Middle East.  The rules of the game have indeed taken a turn for the better for Bibi Netanyahou, who gave the final push to the construction of 566 new homes in East Jerusalem.  The new lodgings will be built in Pisgat Zeev, Ramot, and Ramat Shlomo, Meïr Turjeman, the Head of the Municipality in Jerusalem, declared while adding that he has plans to build 11000 homes to accommodate the demands of the newly-arrived Jews.  The deal seems to have the support of both the Prime Minister of Israel and the President Trump.  The former is elated by the election of Mr. Trump and delighted that President Obama, who dealt in fact, not speculation, is finally gone.  No wonder that some 430 000 Israeli settlers actually live in occupied West Bank and more than 200 000 in East Jerusalem, the part of the city Palestinians hope to turn into the capital of the state they aspire to found.
In point of fact, Bibi Natanyahou is having a celebration of a kind.  The new order of things is pleasing to him insofar as he cannot wait to annex the rest of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and kill the peace deal with Palestine once and for all.  He hopes to do all this with the blessing of President Trump and his administration.  Even so, let us consider for a moment that the US government moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and that the “Eternal City” has indeed become the new capital of Israel.  Let us also consider that Al-Aqsa Dome from which the Prophet Mohammed is said to have ascended to Heaven is no longer standing on its foundations and that a Jewish Temple is built on its ruins.  If that were to happen, and it could happen under a mentally unstable President Trump, I fear for the future of the region which might go ablaze once again.
The bill (Recognition Act) that was introduced by the three Republican senators on January 3rd —namely, Ted Cruz, Dean Heller, and Marco Rubio after they were sworn into the 115thCongress is aimed at encouraging the move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  The idea, encouraged by President Trump himself, is not new.  Far from the truth.  Both Bill Clinton and George W Bush tried to move the American embassy to Jerusalem but changed their mind once in office, deferring the implementation of the 1995 so-called Jerusalem Embassy Act, which stipulates that Jerusalem is Israel’s “undivided” capital.
The move by the newly elected Republican majority Congress to relocate the US Embassy runs contrary to world opinion in that not a single state acknowledges Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem.  It is for this very reason that not one country has an embassy there.  If this were to happen, the country in question would be violating international law and UN Security Council Resolution 478.  So, were the US Embassy to flit to Jerusalem under the watchful gaze of the Trump administration, it would not only contravene international law but also deny the Palestinian right to self-determination and return home.  In point of fact, ever since 1967, Israel has been busy turning Jerusalem into a Jewish city: landscape, food, fashion, architecture, education, history, music, dance, and so forth.  It has done so by adopting a policy ofJudaisationaimed at cleansing the city from its multicultural and multi-religious constituencies.  Such a method of “purifying” the city includes the revocation of Palestinian residency introduced under the pretext of a “breach of allegiance,” barring Palestinian families from reunifying, practicing urban discrimination as well as zoning policy, and above all, constructing the infamous wall that disfigures and slices through Jerusalem and the West Bank, which has become a Bantustan of sorts.  In addition, one must point to the collapse of the economy in East Jerusalem which had until recently a thriving tourism industry.  All that is gone as I write.
The relocation of the US Embassy would also encourage Israel to go on building illegal settlements which are stifling some 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem who live below the poverty line.  Add to that the housing crisis since Palestinians have access only to 13% of the land in East Jerusalem while Jewish settlers hog every day on 35% of the land.  The alarming reality is that not only Trump but also Jared Kushner, a passive-aggressive special adviser of a kind to the president, and indeed his family donate colossal amounts of money to new settlements rising in Bet El, an area the size of Manhattan, situated north of Jerusalem.  It is likely that the aggressive policy of annexation will inflame the situation on the ground, especially in light of the appointment of the US new ambassador to Israel, the pro-Israel hardliner, David Friedman, who heads the American Friends of Bet El Institutions and who maintains that the “holy city of Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people forever.”  For Trump Zionism Inc. the annexation is not an obstacle to peace in the region but rather a reason for being for the Jewish state.
The upshot is that we are all in for a bumpy ride with the advent of President Trump.  No one knows where we are heading: Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, Yemen, Afghanistan, the list goes on.  A recipe for disaster, if you ask me.  Let us hope that we, the people, will fight back for a better and just world, a world where there will be room not only for the “happy few” millionaires appointed byMonsieurTrump to head his government, but for the rest of us who are languishing to set our energy free.  It is not too much to ask, is it!

Another Missile Crisis or More Chaos?

Arshad M Khan


Iran test-fired a missile and the U.S. government went ballistic. It put Iran ‘on notice’ — a phrase meaning little but with a distinct menace.
Rummaging around in the Obama administration files, the new arrivals soon discovered well-prepared plans for sanctions should Iran’s actions displease. Iran was no longer ‘on notice,’ it was sanctioned. The Iranians are furious, saying nobody was going to stop them from defending themselves.
Saudi Arabia, the perennial U.S. ally and unhappy with the Iran agreement, was well pleased promising to increase its investments. From Wikileaks we had learned how this defender of the true faith urged President Obama ‘to cut off the head of the snake’ meaning Iran. So a fourteen centuries old political struggle resulting in two Islamic factions continues, complicated no doubt by the lesser known fact that Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich province has a majority population who are Shia — the same form of Islam as in Iran.
The Iran agreement itself consisting of an initial Joint Plan of Action (JPA) and culminating in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is unique in including a UN Security Council imprimatur and in involving the six major world powers (U.S., Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) plus, of course, Iran. Should the U.S. abrogate the agreement unilaterally, it would consequently alienate not only Iran but also its allies, major trading partners, and friend-to-be Russia, if President Trump is to be believed. Nowhere in this copious document does the word ‘missile’ appear, for Iran would not have signed the agreement.
So it was that the Obama administration put forward a resolution in the UN security Council to secure missile restrictions not in the tentative agreement. And it dug in its heels. Thus the Security Council Resolution 2335 passed unanimously. The UN and its Security Council pass all kinds of resolutions sometimes implemented much more strenuously than was the intent (as in Libya) causing chaos, often ignored (as by India on Kashmir, or Israel, and others) and generally paid not too much heed … except when countries find it suits their purpose.
Is it all the Trump bluster? After all, his much self-vaunted business acumen consists of owning one building (Trump Tower) and a minority share in two others in New York and a few hotels. These constitute a majority of his net worth. The rest is a smattering of golf clubs and franchises.
Mr. Trump will soon discover the world stage, countries, their political leaders and their people a different cup of tea from real estate. In the first place, the stakes are higher … and can be deadly. And a war with Iran, a much larger, better armed country than Iraq, would be a disaster — its ramifications likely to be felt by Israel through a missile-armed Hezbollah. And its large army with easy access to Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, via a Shia run friendly Iraq government, could teach the Saudis and the Gulf States a lesson they would not soon forget — despite the U.S. base in Qatar.
If this president has been as easily seduced by military power as his predecessor, another war and even more refugees are the future. Add all the executive orders, lawsuits, immigration problems, demonstrations, and as Steve Schmidt a Republican strategist observed this week, their supporters ‘voted for change, not for chaos’.

Chile ravaged by fires

Alexandra del Piano

Chile is facing one of the worst forest fires in its history. The worst hit areas are O’Higgins, Maule, Biobio and La Araucana, all located in the extreme south of the country, where in addition to small Mapuche farming communities, there are large forestry companies.
The fire, fueled by strong winds, high temperatures and an eight-year drought, has had an enormous impact on the country’s fauna and flora, which experts consider irreversible.
Valparaiso, one of Chile’s main port cities, is known for frequent fires that consume its hillside forests. It has been declared on “Red Alert” after a fire on January 2 consumed 50 hectares and dozens of homes.
The whole city of Valparaiso has been blanketed in a layer of white smoke for over a week. The smoke is a daily reminder of the wildfires that continue to incinerate forests in seven of the country’s fifteen regions, four of which have been declared disaster areas.
Having already burned over half a million hectares, taken 11 lives and left over 3,000 people homeless, President Michelle Bachelet announced that the fires represent one of the worst emergency situations in Chile’s history.
But, why is Chile constantly subject to such fires? Why, with such a long history of battling fires of epic proportions, is the country not more prepared to face these emergency situations? The answer lies in why the Chilean forests are so prone to catching fire and why fires spread so quickly.
The configuration of the trees in Chile’s forests today is: 75 percent pine, 15 percent eucalyptus, and 10 percent native. Pine and eucalyptus trees are known for being incredibly dry. So, why then was the majority of Chile’s native, humid forest destroyed and replaced with this monoculture of dry pine and eucalyptus trees?
To understand this, one has to go back to the first year of Pinochet’s dictatorship. In 1974, Decree Law 701 (better known as the “forest development” law), which subsidizes plantations of monocultures of pine and eucalyptus trees with 75 percent of resources, was enacted. Once the state attached a high cost value to a plantation of trees, along with the “subsidy,” companies rushed in to destroy native forests, in order to replace them with plantations of pine and eucalyptus that could produce profits.
This law, which is still in effect today, allowed for the appropriation of huge areas of national territory by two main monopolies: CMPC, run by the Matte family, and Bosques Arauco run by the Angellinis. Seventy percent of Chile’s forestry business (2 million hectares) is controlled by these two families.
As part of this process, these companies stripped the Mapuche community of its native lands, leaving them with a mere half a million hectares. Since then, a multi-million-dollar fortune has been accumulated by the two families, yet the regions they exploit suffer from among the highest rates of poverty in the country. For example, over 100,000 residents live in homes without access to water.
While these two companies are worth at least $10 million, they have shown little interest in investing in fire prevention to protect their land.
Ken Pimlott, director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, who has done consulting for Chile’s National Forest Corporation (CONAF), noted that with the intensity of forest fires and its impact on residents losing their homes, Chile is about 30 or 40 years behind California, in terms of fire prevention. It begs the question, why doesn’t the state own any planes that can carry more than 10,000 liters of water? Why are there no specialized training programs for wilderness firefighters?
Over 9,000 people (including 4,500 volunteer firefighters and 4,600 members of the military, police, and public functionaries) have been working to extinguish the fires with the aid of 24 planes, 45 helicopters, and 124 fire trucks, not counting the “Supertanker” plane that can carry up to 75,000 liters of water, which is currently being rented out by Benjamin Walton’s (of the Wal-Mart Waltons) Chilean wife, Lucy Ana Aviles.
According to CONAF, there are still 110 active fires, including 49 currently under control and 60 still out of control.
Those most affected by the disaster are obviously the thousands of poor families who have lost their homes, belongings and land, not the major forest companies, whose land and assets are protected by insurance, ensuring their continued profit.
In the final analysis, the “natural disaster” of Chile’s fires is another fatal result of a capitalist state which only serves to maintain the wealth of a small group of individuals, at the expense and exploitation of millions of impoverished people.

Australian coalition government faces defections

Mike Head 

With the Australian parliament due to resume tomorrow for its first sitting of 2017, question marks hang over the survival of the Turnbull government, which has been clinging to office by a threadbare one-seat majority since last July’s election. The ruling Liberal-National Coalition is riven with divisions on foreign and domestic policy that have only been intensified by the advent of the Trump administration.
Media reports are speculating that the government, facing rapidly declining public support and possible splits by some of its most right-wing members, will not last the year. The commentaries generally focus on the plight of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as an individual, but more fundamental issues are coming to the surface.
The Trump administration’s menacing threats of trade war and war with China have compounded the dilemma facing the Australia ruling elite: Washington will undoubtedly press Canberra to play a frontline role in any confrontation with Beijing, putting in jeopardy lucrative economic relations with China, Australia’s largest trading partner. Trump’s bullying phone call to Turnbull last week over a refugee deal is just a foretaste of what is to come.
Today’s Australian Financial Review editorial noted: “Over the past decade, Australian foreign policy has become understandably obsessed with not being forced to choose between Chinese economic prosperity and American national security. The Trump presidency has brought the tensions into harsher relief, meaning the chances of Australia having to make difficult strategic trade-offs has increased uncomfortably.”
Turnbull has attempted to put the best possible face on his dressing down by Trump. Last night, on the “60 Minutes” television program, Turnbull claimed that “this has been a very good week for Australia,” because in response to Trump’s phone call, “we have seen dozens and dozens of congressmen and senators talking about the importance of the Australian alliance.
Yet, all of these statements emphasised that Australia had been involved in every major US war since World War II and thus by the implication would be required to do so again. Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, stressed the “shared sacrifice in wartime,” in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Vietnam.
On “60 Minutes” Turnbull also tried to dismiss Murdoch media reports that, supposedly in return for a refugee deal, the White House would expect Australia to send more special forces troops to Iraq and/or send warships or planes into the territorial zones around Chinese-controlled islets in the South China Sea.
Questioned by veteran journalist Laurie Oakes, Turnbull did not rule out sending Australian troops “for some Middle Eastern adventure” or “ships in the South China Sea.” But he said any such requests would be no surprise, because “at the end of the day our two military establishments work very, very closely together, seamlessly, extremely closely together.”
Thus, Trump’s call appears to have achieved its immediate objective. Turnbull, who once expressed reservations about the US “pivot” to Asia to confront China, and whose government has not yet followed the US in provocatively challenging Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, has been forced to state his government’s readiness to accede to the demands of the White House.
Nevertheless, doubts remain in Washington about Turnbull and the public airing of the content of Trump’s phone call has undoubtedly undermined his standing. His predecessor Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull deposed in September 2015, was a far more forthright participant in US military aggression and clearly has not given up his ambitions to become prime minister again.
As well as creating enormous tensions in the Australian establishment, Trump’s election has given succour to right-wing populists seeking to emulate him in demonising refugees and immigrants, and inciting protectionist sentiment, as a means of diverting rising discontent into reactionary nationalist directions.
Among them are Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigrant One Nation Party and Senator Cory Bernardi, whose “Australian Conservatives” grouping is threatening to split from the ruling Liberal-National Coalition. Both are being given extensive publicity in the corporate media. Bernardi is reportedly set to announce his break from the Coalition in the coming days.
The Murdoch media’s Newspoll added to the pressure on Turnbull today, reporting that the Coalition’s support plunged from 39 percent to 35 percent over the summer holidays, down to its lowest since Turnbull ousted Abbott. None of the anti-government swing went to Labor or the Greens. Instead, support for other parties jumped to 19 percent—up from 13 percent at the July election—including 8 percent for Hanson’s One Nation.
Reporting the results on its front page this morning, the Australian noted with alarm that a record 29 percent of people would not give their first preference vote in a House of Representatives election to either the Coalition or Labor.
Turnbull has experienced what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation dubbed a “summer of discontent.” As well as the phone call from Trump, the US president also dumped the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bloc, despite Canberra’s pleas to the contrary. Turnbull has also had to deal with the forced resignation of Health Minister Sussan Ley, and constant sniping by Abbott, who is seeking to destabilise Turnbull’s leadership. Turnbull also admitted he donated $1.75 million of his own private fortune to the Liberal Party’s election campaign last year—an indicator of flagging backing from corporate donors.
Behind the media conjecture about Turnbull’s future stands a deepening economic and social, as well as geo-political, crisis. There is mounting frustration in the corporate elite that Turnbull has not delivered what he promised them when he toppled Abbott. Turnbull, a multi-millionaire ex-banker, declared he would provide the economic leadership and “narrative” to ram through the austerity agenda that Abbott had failed to carry out.
The Coalition government already confronts intense popular opposition over the inroads it has made into health, education and other essential social services. But under conditions of a collapse of the mining boom and a slide towards recession, big business is demanding much more and is concluding that Turnbull may not be up for the task.
Turnbull’s government, like Abbott’s, is the latest in a line of unstable administrations—back to the last Rudd and Gillard Labor governments of 2007 to 2013—that have sought to impose the austerity agenda of big business on politically hostile population. Today’s Australian editorial puts Turnbull on notice:
“For perhaps the tenth time in the past five or six years, as our politicians return to Canberra for the resumption of a parliamentary sitting period, there is a heavy burden of necessity on the government to reset and start afresh. Malcolm Turnbull, barely six months into his first term as the elected Prime Minister, seems to have lost his way, or is struggling to find it.”
Meanwhile, the world situation has changed, accelerating this crisis. Trump’s domestic program, on behalf of the billionaires he represents, of slashing corporate taxes, business regulation and health, education and welfare spending, must be matched. This means the Australian ruling elite requires a far deeper assault on the jobs, working conditions and social rights of the working class.