Global Entry Privileges For Muslim-American Travelers Are Quietly Revoked

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

The Seven-million strong American Muslim community, on the receiving end since the ghastly terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, has ostensibly become target of President Trump’s policies.

While the January 27 travel ban may still be affecting American Muslim citizens, some Muslim travelers outside the seven countries targeted by the controversial ban, including naturalized U.S. citizens and green card holders, are indicating that their Global Entry status has been revoked.

Global Entry is a program run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which provides expedited entry through customs checkpoints at U.S. airports to vetted travelers.

Mic.com has quoted the Immigration lawyers as saying  that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is revoking Global Entry status for their clients. Skift.com has also reported the same.

According to Mic, lawyers are currently trying to decipher the pattern regarding the cancellation of Global Entry and TSA Precheck status for many Muslim-American travelers.

Skift’s reporting backs up this pattern. Business travelers indicated to Skift that corporate visa vendors are alerting clients that Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 49 may be affected.

One individual, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen while in middle school, was suddenly informed via email that his Global Entry status had been revoked, according to Skift. The CBP stated that his status has been revoked for the following reason: “You do not meet the program eligibility requirements.” He had first received Global Entry certification in 2012 an.

Mic reported that Greg Siskind, attorney and board member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, has been leading the charge in investigating these cases and called for examples on Twitter in early February. “So far, we have heard from eight to nine people who are all Muslim,” he said. “We expect that number to grow.”

According to Siskind, though, the revocations extend beyond the countries targeted on the ban list — Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Libya — and has even affected American citizens.

Heena Musabji, a Chicago-based attorney, said in a phone interview she’s heard of three cases since the start of Trump’s travel ban in which Muslim U.S. citizens were denied Global Entry without explanation.

One of Musabji’s clients is Hasan Askari, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen who emigrated from Pakistan in 2003 and later received dual bachelor’s degrees at East-West University in Chicago. As a customer relations officer for a Chicago-based software company, Askari’s profession requires a lot of traveling, so he applied for Global Entry eligibility in July 2016.

In November, Askari went through CBP’s in-person screening and interview process. He was told he was approved and would receive his card in the mail, but in February — after Trump’s travel ban was put into effect — Askari received an email from CBP notifying him of a change in his Global Entry eligibility status. He later learned he was denied.

Muslim Legal Clinic

Not surprisingly, Legal Clinic Coordinator of the Muslim Community Association of the San Francisco Bay Area (MCA) has given the following advice to the potential travelers:

As a U.S. Citizen you should have no problems traveling and, barring an extreme circumstance,  legally you cannot be denied entry into the U.S.

It is your decision whether to travel or not. Should you decide to travel, I have a few tips from our recent workshop that might make your travels easier:

• Before you travel, inform your U.S. family/friends & an immigration attorney of your arrival details (airlines, flight number, & arrival time) so they are ready to assist you at the airport.
• Your attorney may suggest to carry a signed Form G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative) and a legal opinion letter that states the basis for your reentry into the U.S.

• Be sure to have the phone numbers of immigration attorneys, non-profit organizations, etc. on hand in case you have trouble at the port of entry.
• Upon arrival, be prepared for secondary inspection for further questioning.
• Remember, you should answer questions about the purpose of your trip, how long you were gone for, and what countries you visited.
• Questions about religious beliefs and political views are not appropriate.
• Be prepared:
  • For requests to search your electronic devices (such as your phone, tablet, laptop, flash drives, camera, etc.)
  • For requests to search your emails & social media accounts (such as Facebook/Twitter)
  • For requests for your usernames & passwords to your devices & accounts
  • U.S. citizens cannot be refused entry for refusing to provide this information, but refusing this information may result in delays, lengthy questioning, and/or officers seizing your device for further inspection.

Sri Lankan elite discusses “frightening economic situation”

Saman Gunadasa

The Colombo-based Sunday Times published a lengthy article last weekend about a secret meeting of government ministers and President Maithripala Sirisena. According to the newspaper, the high-level gathering discussed “what portends to be a frightening economic situation unfolding in the country.”

The meeting was briefed by Central Bank Governor Indrajith Coomaraswamy and his deputy, Nandalal Weerasinghe, and involved ministers from Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). The SLFP is part of the “unity government” with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP). Another meeting involving UNP ministers is planned.

The Sunday Times reported that the Central Bank officials called for the Sri Lankan government to fully implement the austerity measures required by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In exchange for a $US1.5 billion loan last August, the IMF demanded Colombo increase taxes, cut subsidies and impose various far-reaching economic reforms, including the privatisation of state-owned corporations. The government is currently preparing more attacks on the living conditions of workers and the poor.

Sri Lanka has been severely hit by the continuing downturn in the global economy and a prolonged drought that has destroyed key crops and driven up the prices of staple foods. Early this year, Central Bank chief Coomaraswamy described the economy as being “hospitalised” in the hands of the IMF.

Central Bank officials presented the ministers’ meeting with a detailed overview of domestic and foreign debt and associated debt-servicing problems. Weerasinghe said domestic debt had increased from $US30 billion (4,590 billion rupees) in 2010 to $62 billion in 2016. He said the annual servicing of Treasury bonds required $6.23 billion (945 billion rupees), but market sources had warned “the feasible amount” that could be raised was only $4.74 billion (720 billion rupees).

Recent reports have revealed that the official foreign reserves were only $5.5 billion in January, a fall of half a billion dollars over the previous 12 months. Foreign direct investment (FDI), according to the Board of Investments, halved to $300 million in 2016, from $600 million in 2015.

A recent Reuters news agency article also noted that “Sri Lankan policymakers face a tricky balancing act as the rupee comes under fresh selling pressure, hurt by capital outflows” due to the US Federal Reserve’s “more hawkish policy outlook and uncertainty caused by US President Donald Trump’s policies on trade, immigration and international relations.”

In an indication of increasing capital flight from Sri Lanka, foreign investors sold about $208 million worth of government securities during the four weeks to February 8. Exports have also declined and the rupee has depreciated by around 15 percent since January 2015, sharply pushing up domestic prices.

According to the IMF, which is working directly with Colombo, Sri Lanka’s “capital and financial account position has weakened due to foreign exits from government securities, lower FDI inflows, and slow implementation of externally financed public and private projects.”

The IMF said “investor sentiment has worsened, reflecting global market volatility and concern over domestic policies.” An IMF team visited Sri Lanka last week, with an expanded delegation expected to arrive shortly.

The IMF has proposed that $500 million be raised from the financial markets to compensate for the withdrawal of funds from securities. The finance ministry, however, expressed concerns over this proposal. Last weekend’s Sunday Times said the ministry told the IMF it “would be imprudent to impose unjustified burdens on the people” and warned that “reluctance on the part of the IMF to show flexibility could destabilise the government.”

Irrespective of its concern, the government is already attempting to secure loans from the international markets. Last week, the cabinet approved efforts to raise $1.5 billion over the next few months to service the debt this year.

Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake has tried to cover up the brewing economic problems, claiming that the country’s fiscal performance was on track in 2016. “Fiscal performance on track,” means that the government, in line with IMF demands, will slash the fiscal deficit to 5.4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by additional tax increases and social spending cuts.

The Fitch credit ratings agency, however, has warned that “foreign-currency debt, which is close to 40 percent of GDP, weakens Sri Lanka’s fiscal finances, as it increases the risk of higher debt in local currency terms if the rupee depreciates sharply.”

Inflation is on the rise, with workers and the poor hit by higher commodity prices, especially for staple foods, such as rice, coconut and vegetables. Core annual inflation hit 7 percent in January, up from 5.8 percent in December, under the impact of tax increases imposed in the 2017 budget.

A severe drought has hit wide areas of the country and caused food shortages. The government last week imposed rice price controls in a desperate attempt to prevent a price surge. It has also been forced to import rice from India, Vietnam and Indonesia. Farmers have accused big rice millers, many of them closely connected to the government, of hoarding rice and driving up prices.

Fearing the political consequences of this socially explosive situation, the Sunday Times declared: “In this ghastly debt scenario, the whole machinery of government, including the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, the President’s and the Prime Minister’s Offices, seem blissfully unprepared to meet the challenge of the enormous magnitude of the debt crisis ….”

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, in fact, is considering the imposition of a state of emergency and the deployment of security forces to curb any unrest among the masses. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe last month submitted a proposal to the cabinet along these lines. The pretext for this sort of draconian response is the drought, which has struck 16 of Sri Lanka’s 25 districts.

Indicating its support for such measures, a Sunday Times editorial declared: “Even if a State of Emergency was premature, a state of alert and urgency is the need of the hour.”

Jakarta election points to social unrest in Indonesia

John Roberts 

Preliminary results of last week’s election for the governor of Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital province, indicate that the election will go to a second round on April 19. None of the three candidates gained more than the 50 percent vote required to win.

Incumbent governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, with an estimated 42.87 percent of votes, will contest the run-off against Anies Baswedan with 39.76. The third candidate, Agus Harmurti Yudhoyono, at 17.37, conceded defeat.

Basuki faced a vicious chauvinist campaign by right-wing Islamic organisations, attacking him on the basis of his Christian and ethnic Chinese profile. This was a means of exploiting and channelling the rising discontent fuelled by widening social inequality produced by the “free market” program that he shares with his predecessor as governor, President Joko Widodo.

This campaign, encouraged by his two opponents, failed to dislodge Basuki, but is continuing. His political opponents aim not only to remove him, but to weaken the Widodo administration in the run up to the 2019 presidential and national parliamentary elections.

The Islamists claim that, as a Christian, Basuki is unfit to hold the important Jakarta post in Muslim-majority Indonesia. These groups, like the prominent Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), have well-known ties with rival factions of the ruling elite. Behind the religious bigotry and racism lie definite class interests.

The Islamist groups hounded Basuki into a trial on trumped-up charges of “blasphemy” under reactionary pro-clerical laws. The trial is still ongoing. A conviction could see him jailed, even if he wins on April 19. His running mate, Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) figure Djarot Saiful Hidayat, would replace him.

Demonstrations held in Jakarta as part of this anti-Basuki campaign on November 4 and December 2 attracted hundreds of thousands. The anti-Basuki groups were able to capitalise on the mass discontent of some of the poorest sections of the population with all the political parties of the ruling elite.

Basuki is supported by a pro-business coalition comprising not only Widodo’s party, the PDI-P, led by ex-President Megawati Sukarnoputri. It also includes Golkar, the political instrument of the former Suharto dictatorship, as well as NasDem, the party of media mogul Surya Palof, and Hanura, the party of Suharto-era general Wiranto, who is Widodo’s security minister.

The Basuki campaign appealed to sections of big business and more affluent middle class layers that have benefitted from the Widodo coalition’s implementation of the pro-market restructuring demanded by international finance.

Basuki pushed large projects in Jakarta, including the commencement of work on mass rapid transit (MRT) and light transit lines, and associated flood mitigation programs, after decades of delays. Widodo has closely associated himself with the MRT.

Part of this program was the eviction over two years of 16,000 families from waterfront neighbourhoods, stripping them of their livelihoods as street vendors and fishermen. Basuki’s administration treated this as collateral damage, a response exploited by the opposition.

Vital to maintaining Basuki’s electoral base has been the role of Megawati and the PDI-P. Despite the PDI-P’s anti-working class record while in office, it has retained the support of sections of the working class and urban poor, by posturing as a secular party of social reform.

The PDI-P initially hesitated about endorsing Basuki, in part because of the evictions and the impact on its Jakarta electoral base. Even after endorsing him, Megawati played no role in the campaign until the size of the November and December demonstrations set off alarm bells in the Widodo camp and the state apparatus. Megawati hardly said a public word about the anti-Basuki agitation until it developed as a proxy campaign against Widodo’s government.

On January 10, at a PDI-P meeting, Megawati denounced the Islamist campaign and its political allies for fomenting “recent social, religious and ethnic tensions” and threatening national unity.

A state crackdown began. FPI leader Rizieq Syihab and other leaders were placed under investigation on various charges. The Jakarta police chief, backed by the area military commander, banned a rally called by the FPI and other Islamist groups for the Saturday before the election and threatened arrests.

Second place-getter Anies serves as the front man for Prabowo Subianto, who contested the 2014 presidential election against Widodo. Anies has the support of Prabowo’s Gerindra party and the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party (PKS). This campaign was closely identified with the Islamist attacks on Basuki. At the same time, well aware of the social discontent in Jakarta, it pushed jobs as an issue, advocated price controls on basic commodities, and demanded clean water availability and an end to land reclamation and evictions.

Leaders of the FPI and the two largest Muslim organisations, Nahdlatu Ulama and Muhammadiyah, called for a vote for the third place-getter Agus. A former army officer, and the son of Widodo’s predecessor as president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, he had the support of a coalition of Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party and the three Muslim-based parties.

While the election was widely portrayed in the media as a religious battle, the fact that Basuki was not eliminated in the first round indicates the limits of clerical influence. Far more telling is that nearly 20 years after the collapse of the 1965–1998 Suharto dictatorship, social tensions are sharpening.

While the economy has grown more than fivefold since 1998, 80 percent of the archipelago’s 250 million people are worse off, according to World Bank statistics. Today, 1 percent of the population controls half of all property and financial assets, while almost 100 million people live below, or just above, the official poverty line.

Fuelling the political turmoil are differences in the capitalist elite over economic policy and the uncertainties produced by Donald Trump’s election as US president. Widodo’s governing coalition is associated with the restructuring demanded by international investors and sections of big business. In 2014, Widodo’s incoming government slashed fuel subsidies, provoking hostility among working-class people and the most impoverished layers.

The more nationalist and protectionist wings of the ruling class include the Prabowo and Yudhoyono factions. The former President Yudhoyono introduced a 2009 law to force mineral exporters, including the US Papua-based Freeport-McMoRan, to build smelters to undertake more refining prior to export. Widodo, however, has made concessions to the big exporters.

When Anies emerged as the second candidate, Prabowo proclaimed it was a defeat for “those who want to prove that money can colonise all Indonesian people.” This is a reference to an influx of ethnic Chinese capital, of which Basuki is a symbol. Widodo has courted foreign investment, which has seen China become the third largest supplier of direct foreign investment after Singapore and Japan.

As part of this policy, Widodo has met Chinese President Xi Jinping five times in the past two years. There are concerns in sections of the Indonesian elite that the Trump administration’s aggressive “America First” program and threats of trade war and military actions against China could produce dire consequences for Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia.

Munich Security Conference signals a new arms race

Ulrich Rippert 

The Munich Security Conference, which ended last Sunday, took place in an atmosphere of warmongering and pro-armament propaganda. Beforehand, President Donald Trump had threatened to withdraw from NATO if the European allies did not significantly increase their military spending.

European government representatives responded by warning that the United States could not be relied upon in the long term. In future, Europe had to take its security into its own hands. A systematic military upgrade was therefore imperative. Before the start of the security conference, German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced a massive rearmament of the Bundeswehr (armed forces) in a document entitled “We have understood.”

More than 25 government leaders, 80 foreign and defence ministers and over 500 security experts from around the world participated in the conference. Von der Leyen repeated what she had written beforehand in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: “We Germans and most Europeans have for far too long relied for our security on the broad shoulders of our American friends. And yes, we know that we have to bear a larger, fairer share of the burden for the common Atlantic security.”

In Europe, she said, the willingness to do so was “greater than ever.” The European armed forces had “learned military skills and the prudent trust of others in numerous joint operations over recent decades.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany would honour its commitments and spend more money on NATO and rearmament. “We are committed to the two-percent target,” she said, referring to the requirement that NATO member states devote 2 percent of their gross domestic product to military spending. “We will make every effort to achieve it,” she added. Currently, Germany allocates about 1.2 percent of its gross domestic product to its military budget. “We will do significantly more for defence policy,” Merkel stressed.

At the same time, she warned the US against withdrawing from NATO. No one could deal singlehandedly with the problems of the world, the chancellor said. This was understood as a criticism of Trump and his anti-NATO statements.

The head of the Security Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger, was even more explicit. In interviews, he sharply attacked the new US president. In the Berliner Tagesspiegel, the former German ambassador to Washington said, “The United States no longer counts as the political-moral leadership symbol of the West.” Europe had to fill the resulting vacuum and take on more leadership responsibilities.

The German government is using the widespread opposition to the nationalist and racist policies of the Trump administration to advance its plans for European rearmament. The Munich Security Conference played a central role in this.

Three years ago, at the same conference, German government representatives announced an end to military restraint. Now, the demand of the new US administration that the Europeans do more for their own defence serves as a welcome pretext to drive forward the military buildup.

At the beginning of the conference, Ischinger published an anthology with contributions from high-ranking politicians and security experts under the heading “Germany’s New Responsibility.” In his introduction, he calls for “closer planning and coordination of EU defence budgets.”

The increase in defence spending to two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) demanded by the US government and adopted by the NATO member states in 2014, was too small, according to Ischinger. At least three per cent of GDP was necessary. To achieve this, budget items for crisis prevention, development aid, diplomacy and defence had to be reorganized and directed into a military buildup.

This would mean raising the German defence budget, currently 37 billion euros, to nearly 100 billion euros. Such a gigantic hike in military expenditure would require massive cuts in all areas of social spending and would be opposed by the vast majority of the population.

That is why the Munich Security Conference, which reaffirmed the decision to step up German and European rearmament, was accompanied by shrill warmongering from the media. The recurring mantra runs: By electing Trump, America has abandoned its leadership role in the Western alliance. Germany must understand this as a wake-up call and an opportunity.

The lead article in the news weekly Der Spiegel is headlined “Beyond NATO.” It begins with the sentence, “Donald Trump is right.” Seventy years after the end of World War II, Europe had to take on responsibility for its own security. While it was “premature” to write off America as a partner, it was also “reckless and naïve” not to adjust to the fact that Europe “can no longer rely unconditionally on America.”

There follows the memorable sentence: “The description ‘junior partner’ can finally be consigned to the rubbish heap of history.” Until now, only far-right groups had spoken of Germany freeing itself from American hegemony and paternalism and enforcing its sovereignty.

Such nationalist tirades have not been heard since the “Sturmlied,” the anthem of the Nazis, with its refrain “Germany, awake!” Trump’s slogan “America first!” is regarded as a blow for liberation in Germany’s editorial boards and party offices. Finally, there is a feeling of release from all inhibitions. The call to arms can be linked to the old chauvinist slogans.

Christiane Hoffmann, the author of Der Spiegel ’s lead article, is married to the Swiss parliamentary deputy and former ambassador in Berlin, Tim Guldimann. In her article, she articulates the views within leading diplomatic circles, which are being discussed ever more openly.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung headlines its editorial comment on the Munich Security Conference “Forced to be self-confident.” It reads: “The European Union has received a wake-up call. It should be understood primarily as an opportunity.” The American president thinks the European partners must do more for themselves. “His vice president embellished the formula: We are there for you when you’re there for us.” This conditionality is new. It forces the Europeans to agree on their goals.

In its latest edition, the political weekly Die Zeit asks the question, “Does the EU need the bomb?” It regrets the fact the Bundeswehr “cannot freely make use” of the American nuclear weapons stationed in Germany and is “allowed to use them only...if Washington gives the green light.” Some Europeans could now “imagine their own deterrent, independent of the US.”

That Die Zeit specifically means a German atomic bomb is clear from the next few paragraphs. The authors regard with skepticism whether the two European nuclear powers—France and Britain—would grant the German government joint decision-making power on the use of the weapons in an emergency. The British prime minister had already made clear how she intends to use this power—as a lever in the Brexit negotiations with the EU. And in France, it is completely open who will set the tone after the presidential election.

The authors of Die Zeit ’s artricle strongly regret the fact that Germany is “a pacifist country.” The Germans, according to Die Zeit, had “forgotten how to think in nuclear terms.” In other words, they had “forgotten” how to think in terms of the destruction of millions of human lives. Apparently, they need to be taught it again!

Jan Techau, in the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, is even more explicit. He refers to the “endeavour to stand there ‘morally clean’ after every undertaking,” which supposedly runs through the foreign policy debate in Germany, as “neurotic.” The “exaggerated moral standard for measuring behaviour” leads to “an isolating neurosis.”

The director of the Richard C. Holbrooke Forum at the American Academy in Berlin traces this moral neurosis back to the “collective trauma of a society” that “at the end of World War II had to realize that all its energy, its idealism, its readiness to suffer deprivation, its ambition, its creativity, its discipline had flowed into the most terrible of all human projects.”

A remarkable formulation! Will Techau have us seriously believe that Hitler’s followers supported him out of idealism and only noticed that he was a criminal at the end of the war?

In any case, he vehemently advocates the surmounting of moral scruples and basing the debate on security policy “on political interests and responsibility” instead of “the satisfaction of one’s own moral requirements.”

“Foreign policy,” according to Techau, “almost always takes place in a moral grey area, in which one, if one wants to remain capable of action, is forced to make painful compromises in one’s own moral invulnerability.”

He refers to the military as the “crowning discipline of foreign policy.” He declares that “The willingness to expose oneself militarily” determines “in times of new strategic uncertainty in Europe, more than any other factor, whether a country is a reliable partner and ally… The political costs of making one’s moral invulnerability the main national interest can thus be enormous.”

Techau too raises the question of whether Germany needs its own nuclear weapons. He concludes with the threat, “In the coming years, Germany will face foreign policy and security challenges of which the country cannot even dream today. Possibly not even in its nightmares.”

Amid ongoing conflicts, Pence extends olive branch to EU

Alex Lantier 

European politicians and media reacted to US Vice President Mike Pence’s tour of Europe as a chance to mend ties with the Trump administration. His remarks at this weekend’s Munich Security Conference and at the European Union (EU) in Brussels Monday, just after Trump sacked his pro-Russian National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, committed Washington to the NATO alliance with Europe, based on a war drive against Russia.

At the Munich Security Conference, Pence declared that “the United States of America strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in our commitment to this trans-Atlantic alliance.” He said that the US government would “continue to hold Russia accountable.” He also echoed calls in the ruling class in Europe for stepped-up rearmament, particularly in Germany, demanding that Europe contribute a “fair share to our common defense.”

In Brussels, Pence reaffirmed the “strong commitment of the United States to continued cooperation and partnership with the European Union… Whatever our differences, our two continents share the same heritage, the same values and above all the same purpose: to promote peace and prosperity through freedom, democracy and the rule of law.”

After these remarks, EU officials moved to endorse the most right-wing administration in American history, opposed by overwhelming majorities of the population in most European countries. Even as the Trump administration openly prepares a mass roundup of immigrants in the United States and deep attacks on basic social programs, they hastened to accept as good coin Pence’s assurances that Trump is committed to freedom and democracy.

“I heard words which are promising for the future, words which explain a lot about the new approach in Washington,” EU Commission President Donald Tusk declared in Brussels after his meeting with Pence. “We are counting, as always in the past, on the United States’ wholehearted and unequivocal—let me repeat, unequivocal—support for the idea of a united Europe.”

Tusk made clear, however, that Pence’s remarks, while a turn away from previous positions, had not fully addressed EU concerns about Trump. Tusk alluded to some of Trump’s statements—on the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, dismissing NATO as “obsolete,” demanding that Germany buy more American automobiles, and hailing Britain’s exit from the EU, which Trump called a “vehicle for Germany”—that are unacceptable to the dominant sections of the European ruling class.

“Too many new and sometimes surprising opinions have been voiced over this time about our relations—and our common security—for us to pretend that everything is as it used to be,” he said.

Tusk’s concerns were echoed by German officials before Pence spoke in Munich. “Our American friends know well that your tone on Europe and NATO has a direct impact on the cohesion of our continent,” German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said at the Munich conference. She implicitly attacked Trump’s statement that Washington is equidistant from Berlin and Moscow, declaring: “There cannot be a policy of equidistance to allies and to those who question our values, our borders and international law.”

The reaction of EU officials to Pence’s visit underscores that workers and youth seeking to oppose Trump cannot rely in any way on the European capitalist class. Having waged nearly a decade of deep austerity and attacks on immigrants, the EU powers have no principled objection to Trump’s antidemocratic policies, such as his unconstitutional Muslim ban and his plans for mass immigrant deportations. Their concern is to work out relations with US imperialism that allow them to continue asserting their own imperialist interests internationally.

None of the historically rooted economic and strategic tensions between US and European capitalism revealed by Trump’s statements against NATO have been resolved. Indeed, Washington and the EU are not publicly discussing them. Pence reportedly did not raise the failed TTIP trans-Atlantic free trade talks that German and French officials criticized last year.

Rather, Washington and the EU are recklessly using the war drive launched against Russia under Barack Obama, who allied with Berlin to back a 2014 coup that toppled a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, to paper over their differences and justify a vast, unpopular increase in EU military spending. This aligns the EU with the Democratic Party in the United States, which is waging a press campaign to attack Trump from the right, as a tool of Russia.

Bloomberg News concluded that “European officials got what they needed from the administration for now,” citing Judy Dempsey of the Carnegie Europe think tank in Berlin: “It’s quite clear the message Merkel has given to the US: if the violence continues to rage in the east of Ukraine, how are you going to stop it? How are you going to get them to the negotiating table again? Are you going to let Putin set the agenda? And they listened.”

“At the Munich Security Conference, US Vice President Mike Pence made clear that his boss stands behind NATO and that the United States will meet its obligations to the alliance. In a time of general uncertainty, this is good news,” wrote Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “Europeans know that they must make more efforts on security policy, but they are also realists: without America, they cannot deal with really major threats.”

Thierry de Montbrial, the head of the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) think-tank, told the New York Times that Pence had succeeded in “delivering the gospel that people needed of the importance of the trans-Atlantic alliance.” Montbrial also praised Pence’s support for European rearmament: “[H]e said clearly that he wants Europe to be stronger, which in a way is a good change from the past, when Washington was skeptical about a stronger European defense.”

Such praise of Pence’s tour notwithstanding, it is highly unclear how long the current thaw in Trump’s relations with the EU will last. Not least among the problems such a thaw would face is the political conflict and instability developing inside Europe itself, amid escalating social anger in the working class, the electoral rise of far-right parties across the continent, and Brexit.

While admitting that “Pence is toning things down with the EU,” Le Monde wrote: “Still, his comments were often very general, as if his administration wanted to be prudent, or to wait for a deeper dialogue with new leaders who, in a few months, will take office after elections in France, Germany, the Netherlands, possibly Italy.”

Significantly, according to a detailed Reuters report denied by the White House, Trump’s neo-fascist chief political strategist, Steve Bannon, spoke to German diplomats before Pence’s trip to repeat that the EU was “flawed.” He reportedly made comments similar to 2014 remarks he delivered to a Vatican conference, that he does not “believe in this kind of pan-European Union” and that Western Europe was founded on “strong nationalist movements.”

Reuters’ sources said Bannon’s remarks confirmed Berlin’s concern that Trump has “no appreciation for the EU’s role in ensuring peace and prosperity in post-war Europe. ‘There appears to be no understanding in the White House that an unravelling of the EU would have grave consequences,’ [one] source said.”

The EU countries are divided, however, and intense US-EU tensions remain. Yesterday, French President François Hollande announced a four-power summit in Versailles for March 6 between Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. “We are the four most important countries,” Hollande bluntly declared, “and it is our task to say what we want to do with the others, together” in Europe.

According to Le Monde, this reflects a change of policy in Berlin, which after the Brexit vote insisted on maintaining the unity and formal equality of the 27 remaining EU states. After Trump’s election, however, ruling circles in Berlin reportedly changed course. “They concluded that we cannot tie our destiny to obstinate member states, we have to be able to advance without waiting for unanimous agreement.”

Mounting anti-Semitic attacks in US draw half-hearted response from Trump

Niles Niemuth

Some 200 headstones at a Jewish cemetery in University City, Missouri, in the suburbs of St. Louis, were damaged or overturned by vandals late Sunday or early Monday, in the most serious in a wave of anti-Semitic threats and actions this year.

Ultra-right and anti-Semitic forces have been encouraged by the inauguration of Donald Trump, and particularly his elevation of Stephen Bannon, the former CEO of Breitbart News, to a top position at the White House. Breitbart has been a leading promoter of the alt-right, the online designation of the rancid milieu of white supremacists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis.

No arrests have been made in the Missouri incident, and investigators have not yet formally determined that the attack was a hate crime rather than simple vandalism. But Karen Aroesty, St. Louis regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the press the Jewish community was alarmed. “Anxiety is high,” she said. “Your loved ones are there. Your memories are there.”

Both the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Missouri chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced the vandalism. ISNA President Azhar Azeez released a statement saying, “We encourage our members to reach out to their local synagogue and Jewish neighbors to express their solidarity and support and to generously support the rebuilding of the recently desecrated cemetery.”

The FBI has opened an investigation into a series of bomb threats that have targeted several dozen Jewish Community Centers (JCCs) across the United States since the beginning of the year. Eleven centers were threatened via telephone on Monday including in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin; St. Paul, Minnesota; Houston, Texas; Buffalo, New York; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Birmingham, Alabama

So far, all of the threats at the facilities, which provide recreational, cultural and child care services to Jews and non-Jews alike, have turned out to be hoaxes. It is still unknown who is responsible for calling in the threats.

This week’s incidents followed phoned-in bomb threats on January 9, 18 and 31. So far this year, there have been 68 bomb threats at 53 JCCs in 26 states and at one center in Canada.

Paul Goldenberg, the director of the Secure Community Network, an agency that provides security services to Jewish institutions in North America, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that it appeared to be the same caller as in the previous threats.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency released a recording at the end of last month of one of the threats that was made on January 18. In the recording, the caller chillingly threatens that a bomb is about to go off, killing a significant number of Jews.

“It’s a C-4 bomb with a lot of shrapnel, surrounded by a bag,” an electronically modulated voice states. “In a short time, a large number of Jews are going to be slaughtered. Their heads are going to be blown off from the shrapnel. There’s a lot of shrapnel. There’s going to be a bloodbath that’s going to take place in a short time. I think I told you enough. I must go.”

JCCs in the US have been targeted for attacks in recent years by anti-Semitic white supremacists.

In 1999, Buford O. Furrow, Jr., a member of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations, injured three children, a teenage counselor and one staff member when he shot up the lobby of the North Valley JCC in the Los Angeles suburb of Granada Hills.

Neo-Nazi Frazier Glenn Miller killed three people and wounded two others in 2014 when he opened fire in the parking lot of the Kansas City JCC in the suburb of Overland Park.

The Trump administration has come under increasing pressure to respond to the wave of threats. Karen Aroesty of the Anti-Defamation League in St. Louis posed the question after the cemetery vandalism. “What is the government’s position relative to rising anti-Semitism and intolerance generally, and what will the government do to put a stop to it?” she said. “We’ve been asking that for several weeks now.”

After several weeks of silence from the White House about the bomb threats, Trump shut down two Jewish journalists at his news conference last Thursday when they tried to raise the question of the bomb threats and increasing incidents of anti-Semitic threats following his election.

“Some of that anger is caused by people on the other side,” Trump remarked to one of the reporters. “It will be by people on the other side to anger people like you.”

Finally on Tuesday, during a visit to the National Museum of African American History and Culture on Tuesday morning, Trump gave an interview to MSNBC in which he made obviously rehearsed remarks—but still poorly delivered and without genuine feeling—denouncing the recent anti-Semitic threats.

“The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil,” Trump stated blithely.

Soon after Trump spoke, Stephen Goldstein, the executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, released a statement denouncing the president’s remarks as a “Band-Aid on the cancer of Anti-Semitism that has infected his own Administration.”

“His statement today is a pathetic asterisk of condescension after weeks in which he and his staff have committed grotesque acts and omissions reflecting Anti-Semitism, yet day after day have refused to apologize and correct the public record,” Goldstein added. “Make no mistake: The Anti-Semitism coming out of this Administration is the worst we have ever seen from any Administration.”

Goldstein was referencing the White House’s official commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day last month in which it deliberately omitted any mention of Jews or anti-Semitism and instead lamented the “innocent people” killed by the Nazis during World War II. This move was seen as clear nod to the neo-Nazi alt.right, which seeks to empty the Holocaust of its significance and instead transform it into a general tragedy in which many people died.

Later in the day Tuesday, at a regular press conference, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the threats against Jewish community centers and skepticism over Trump’s latest remarks. He characterized Trump’s remarks Tuesday morning as “unbelievably forceful.” He was half right.

Responding specifically to the statement from the Anne Frank Center, Spicer complained, “It’s ironic that no matter how many times he talks about this, it’s never good enough.”

Despite being given the opportunity, none of the journalists in the briefing room raised the fact that Trump has staffed his White House with rabid anti-Semites, most notably Trump’s senior adviser and “chief strategist” Bannon, the former CEO of the far-right Breitbart News.

Bannon has brought with him a number of other White House staffers from Breitbart, a hotbed of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. People who were in daily contact with neo-Nazis six months ago are now in daily contact with the president of the United States.

Anhui Government Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018 – China

Application Deadline: Deadline to be determined by participating schools.

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): China

About the Award: This program sponsors international students who apply to study or have studied undergraduate or postgraduate programs in institutions of higher learning of Anhui Province (except those who have been sponsored by Chinese Government Scholarship Programs).

Type: undergraduate or postgraduate

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must be non-Chinese Citizens with foreign passports and valid Chinese visas, and should be friendly to China.
• Applicants should have documents such as HSK certificate to prove that they have required level of proficiency in Chinese. (Limitations shall be relaxed if all the courses of the program the applicants study are instructed directly in English.)
• Education Background and age limit
  • applicants for undergraduate program must have senior high school diploma and be under the age of 28.
  • applicants for master’s degree program must have bachelor’s degree and two letters of recommendation from professors or associate professors and be under the age of 40.
  • applicants for doctoral degree program must have master’s degree and two letters of recommendation from professors or associate professors and be under the age of 45.
• Applicants should abide by Chinese laws and rules and regulations of the school and have good academic performances.

Selection: 

1. Scholarship quota is allocated by Anhui Provincial Department of Education to institutions of higher learning in Anhui recruiting international students at the end of November.
2. Colleges and Universities in Anhui recruit eligible international students or organize eligible international students at school to apply for the scholarship according to specified quota. Pre-admission lists should be submitted to the provincial department of education before Mid-June.
3. The Provincial Department of Education shall organize experts to conduct the assessment and send the result to each college or university at the end of June.
4. The Provincial Department of Education shall allot funds to each college or university according to the actual number of international students winning the scholarship in September. The scholarship shall be given to students by the school.
5. If the holder of the scholarship breaks rules, laws or regulations, the school shall report the infringement to the Provincial Department of Education to stop offering scholarship to that student.
6. The school should make a comprehensive assessment on holders of the scholarship to determine whether they are qualified to gain the scholarship in the next year. The result should be submitted to the Provincial Department of Education before the end of May in written form.

Value of Scholarship: 

• Applicants for bachelor’s degree: 20,000 yuan/year
• Applicants for Master’s degree: 30,000 yuan/year
• Applicants for Doctoral degree: 50,000 yuan/year

How to Apply: Applicants must provide the following documents:

1. Application Form for Anhui Government Scholarship for International Students 
2. Copy of Passport
3. Notarized highest diploma
4. Academic and school performance transcripts
5. Original recommendation letters

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Anhui Provincial Government

Fulbright Foreign Scholarships in USA for 4,000 Students (Masters & PhD) 2017/2018

Application Deadline: varies per country, however on a general note, it is usually around February to May annually of the preceding year you wish to study.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Citizens of more than 155 countries worldwide, including countries in Africa, East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Middle East and North Africa, The Americas, and South and Central Asia.

To be taken at (country): All accredited USA Universities and Academic Institutions.

Eligible Field of Study: The Fulbright program encourages applications from all fields, including interdisciplinary ones except medical degree program or clinical medical research.

About Scholarship: The Fulbright Foreign Student Program enables graduate students, young professionals and artists from abroad to study and conduct research in the United States. The scholarships are for study towards a Master’s or PhD degree, and can also be awarded for non-degree postgraduate studies. Study and research under this program is for one or more years at U.S. universities or other appropriate institutions.

The Fulbright Foreign Student Program is administered by binational Fulbright Commissions/Foundations or U.S. Embassies. All Foreign Student Program applications are processed by these offices.

Offered Since: 1946

Type: Masters and PhD degree (also non-degree postgraduate studies)

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

• To participate in the Fulbright Foreign Student Program, the applicant must have completed undergraduate education and hold a degree equivalent to a bachelor’s degree.
• Program eligibility and selection procedures vary widely by country. Please use the drop-down menu located on the country specific websites to find information about the Fulbright Program in your home country, including eligibility requirements and application guidelines. See link below
• If your country is not listed there, you are not eligible to apply.

Number of Scholarships: The number of awards varies per country, but approximately 4,000 foreign students receive Fulbright scholarships each year.

Value of Scholarship: The Fulbright program provides funding for the duration of the study. The grant funds tuition, textbooks, airfare, a living stipend, and health insurance. See the official website for the exact scholarship benefits.

Duration of Scholarship: The whole duration of the study, research or non-degree program – usually one year or more

How to Apply: All applications to the Foreign Student Program are processed by bi-national Fulbright Commissions/Foundations or U.S. Embassies. Therefore, foreign students must apply through the Fulbright Commission/Foundation or U.S. Embassy in their home countries.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: USA Government

Important Notes: Note that the Institute of International Education (IIE) arranges academic placement for most Fulbright nominees and supervises participants during their stay in the United States.

All inquiries should be made to your local embassy or Fulbright Commission. For more information, see your country-specific website.

University of Bologna Study Grants for International Students 2017/2018 – Italy

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Italy

Eligible Field of Study

About the Award

Type: 

Eligibility: Unibo Action 2 study grants are assigned on the basis of SAT and GRE test scores.

A candidate can apply for Unibo Action 2 if:

• they are in possession of (or about to obtain) a valid qualification for access to their chosen Degree Programme, issued by an Institution outside of the Italian educational system;

• they will sit one of the following tests by the application deadline:
  SAT (if you are interested in registering in a First or Single Cycle Degree Programme)
  GRE (if you are interested in registering in a Second Cycle Degree Programme)
• they are younger than 30 years.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 11.000 €

How to Apply: SAT and GRE test are aptitude and skills assessment tests. The tests can be sat in authorised centres in various countries around the world; they are held in English. You must enrol for the tests on the websites of the organisations managing the tests.

The codes needed to send test scores to the University of Bologna are: for SAT 6993; for GRE 7850.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Bologna

MBA Scholarships and Fellowship 2017/2018 for Developing Countries – University of Geneva

Application Deadline: 

• 1st March, 2017
• 30th May 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Nations

To be taken at (country): University of Geneva, Switzerland

About the Award: The University of Geneva and the United Nations University share a strong commitment to enhancing the capacity of individuals and institutions in developing countries.

Type: MBA, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Scholarships are based on a combination of academic merit, financial need, and availability of funds.
• These scholarships are reserved for nationals of developing countries and are only given to first round applicants (by the 15 November deadline).
• The United Nations University (UNU) Fellowship is  reserved for mid-career professionals from developing countries, who would be expected to apply and disseminate their newly acquired knowledge and skills in promoting the socio-economic development of their own and other developing countries.

Number of Awardees: 3 (- 2 MBA Candidates, 1 Fellowship Candidate).

Value of Scholarship:  

• The University of Geneva and its partners will be offering a maximum of 2 partial MBA scholarships.
• The University of Geneva is offering one UNU fellowship – which covers full tuition – to a qualified candidate. This only covers for tuition fees and no other expense.  

Duration of Scholarship: Duration

How to Apply: Candidates who wish to be considered for the IO-MBA UNU Fellowship or an IO-MBA Merit Scholarship should submit their completed application by the 15 November applications deadline. No other application process is necessary to be considered for these awards; please just indicate on your online application your eligibility (must be from a developing country) and wish to be considered, and the University will do the rest.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The University of Geneva, The United Nations University