Angry protests against the Berlin senate’s refugee policies

Verena Nees 

The governing coalition of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Left Party and Greens in the Berlin Senate has only been in office three months but anger with its right-wing policies is already growing. Last Monday, the construction of a camp using shipping containers to house refugees at the former Tempelhof airport led to fierce protests at a town hall meeting.

Elke Breitenbach, Left Party Senator (state minister) for Social Affairs, responsible for refugee accommodation, held a public meeting in Berlin Neukölln to answer questions and justify the construction of the camp on the edge of the former airport.

Accommodation in metal containers, euphemistically called “Temp Homes”, was “better than in gymnasiums and airport hangars,” Breitenbach said in her introductory remarks. Here, at least, there was some “privacy”.

Local residents, refugees and their supporters who flocked into the hall saw this quite differently. The slogan “New Senate—Same old Politics!?” was printed on numerous placards that met the Senator for Social Affairs, and in the hall there was a banner emblazoned, “Integration instead of ghettos.”

Since the beginning of February, the contractor has been busy unloading shipping containers on a large fenced area next to the tarmac of the former Tempelhof airport. A total of 976 containers for four to six people have been placed there. Starting this summer, up to 1,140 refugees are to be moved there, including around 550 people who currently still live in airport hangars. According to Breitenbach, the containers were “just temporary” accommodation for a period of up to three years.

Now the first rows of containers have been installed and resemble nothing less than military-style barracks. There are no trees to provide shade for the metal shacks, which in summer will face merciless heat from the sun, and icy winds in winter.

“How can we heat them in winter”, a woman who had fled from Afghanistan asked, one of those who has had to live in the airport hangar for a year and who came to the meeting with other women refugees. “How can a family fit into such a small space? Are we allowed to receive visitors? And why is there a fence? People will stare at our kids like caged animals in the zoo.” The women were not convinced that the temporary sheds represent any improvement over the hangars.

With the construction of the refugee ghetto at Tempelhof, the so-called “Red-Red-Green” coalition in the Berlin state assembly, which the Left Party had touted as a turn towards a more humane refugee policy, is continuing the policies of the outgoing grand coalition of the SPD and Christian Democrats. The Left Party is now itself directly responsible for the treatment of refugees.

Breitenbach justified her actions saying, “A ghetto yes, there are fences—for forensic reasons”. She admitted that, “Nicer accommodation looks different,” but the hangars and the ICC exhibition hall were worse ghettos.

There was no other choice, Breitenbach insisted, as she was repeatedly interrupted by catcalls and angry heckling. One must temporarily fall back on “Temp Homes”, even if one did not want to do this, and it was very expensive, she said. Nevertheless, she noted that well over ten thousand refugees were currently living in “precarious conditions”, in gymnasiums and other makeshift shelters.

Claiming that the Left Party preferred to accommodate them in regular apartments Breitenbach insisted that these were not so easy to find. She wisely chose not to mention the policies of the previous SPD-Left Party Senate, which sold off thousands of public housing units to speculators and thus intensified the housing shortage in Berlin.

In the previous SPD-Left Party coalition in the Berlin senate, Breitenbach learned how to recast social oppression as something progressive. From 2002 to 2003, she was the personal assistant to the then Social Affiars Senator Heidi Knake-Werner, a member of the Party of Democratic Socialism, the predecessor of the Left Party, who was responsible for implementing the Schröder government's Hartz IV welfare cuts against the unemployed.

The attempts of the Left Party Senator for Social Affairs and the other representatives on the panel, including the district mayor Angelika Schöttler (SPD) and Monika Herrmann (Green Party), to place the shipping container ghetto in a favourable light was met with resentment and jeers. The applause of a few Left Party cheerleaders scattered around the hall sounded pathetic.

State Secretary Dr. Sudhof (SPD), who was also on the podium, highlighted the “precarious” housing situation of refugees in Berlin. Sudhof presented a graph which showed there were still 15,900 people housed in emergency shelters in Berlin in February 2017, while in the rest of Germany the figure was just 4,100.

The numbers speak for themselves. Sudhof, who had already served as Finance Senator under Dieter Glietsch, could not have emphasized more graphically the impact of the catastrophic refugee policy in Berlin, for which the SPD has been responsible for years at the head of the Berlin Senate. Glietsch was formerly chief of police of the Red-Red coalition and was hired by the grand coalition that followed under the same mayor Michael Müller (SPD) as a refugee manager.

The arguments used by Glietsch to justify the quartering of refugees in the Tempelhof hangars at the town meeting in early 2016 still resound: In an emergency, one must “push down” one’s own minimum standards, but this was only temporary. The words of the Red-Red-Green Senate representatives regarding the Temp Homes sound just the same.

The greatest expressions of anger at last Monday’s meeting were directed against the Left Party, which had announced a change in social policy and the better integration of refugees following the election.

Some participants engaged in a heated argument with those on the podium regarding the location of the containers away from the airport hangars. They expressed the suspicion that the Senate had other plans for the tarmac and was starting the redevelopment of Tempelhof Field by the back door.

“I voted for you, because last September, the Left Party, Greens and Pirate Party had promised they would not change the Tempelhof law,” one woman shouted angrily. “And now the Left Party is sitting up there and implementing the policies of the SPD! For me, this is a clear indication that there is something else at stake here than a serious solution to the refugee crisis.”

Given the volatile mood in the hall, the spokesman of the Left Party from Neukölln, Moritz Wittler, decided to speak. Wittler is a supporter of the pseudo-left Marx21 group, the German satellite of the British Socialist Workers Party, and which has a base in the Left Party's Neukölln district association.

As is typical of the pseudo left, to some cheers, he directed radical-sounding criticism at the “comrade” Social Senator. “It is impossible, comrade, the way you are dealing with the citizens here, how you are sticking up for the false policies of the SPD?” and, “I demand and expect from our government that it stands up to the mighty of the city.”

Wittler demonstrates the key role Marx21 plays in the current situation, like other pseudo-left groups. They serve as a lightning rod and criticize the policies of the Left Party only to subordinate the growing opposition to the Red-Red-Green coalition. This is the duplicitous game they played after the last election.

The Neukölln delegates submitted a resolution to the Left Party special conference, which rejected the coalition negotiations with the SPD and Greens—only to explain in the next breath that if, as they expected, they did not succeed, they would “critically” support the new state executive.

The atmosphere in the hall became even more heated when, finally, the new leader of the Left Party in Berlin, Katina Schubert, stood up and came to the rescue of Social Senator Breitenbach. She cynically called the audience stupid. They had probably never heard before that one must make compromises in a coalition.

When participants angrily shouted that “compromise” meant locking refugees in an enclosed ghetto, Schubert went on to declare, “Neukölln is a stronghold of the extreme right. We must protect the refugees from attacks.”

Breitenbach, visibly nervous, joined in the chorus asserting that it was necessary to fence off and guard the containers, to know who was staying on the premises. “And for those here who hurl abuse at me, I can dish it back”, she attacked her critics.

The Left Party is showing its true colours on the refugee question. It does not support such a ghetto because there were no better options; on the contrary, integration through housing refugees in apartments in the midst of Berlin’s population is undesired. In line with the federal government’s new asylum and deportation policy, the Red-Red-Green coalition in Berlin aims to deport masses of refugees through so-called “voluntary return measures.”

The meeting confirmed that workers and youth will only be able to organize the defence of refugees independently of the Left Party and their pseudo-left supporters.

Behind the Guardian’s “Laundromat” money laundering exposure

Jean Shaoul 

Last week, the Guardian, posturing as the champion of democracy and good governance, carried a long feature item headlined “The Laundromat.” This lambasted Russia for a “vast money-laundering operation run by Russian criminals with links to the Russian government and the KGB,” via London banks.

The series of articles, authored by Luke Harding and other Guardian journalists, claimed that Britain’s high street banks HSBC, Lloyds, RBS, Barclays, Coutts and 13 other UK-based banks took part in a money laundering operation worth at least $20 billion, but possibly as much as $80 billion. Harding claimed the money was laundered for 500 people, including Russia’s oligarchs, Moscow bankers and personnel connected to the FSB, Russia’s secret service agency. The FSB was the successor to the KGB, which ceased to exist in 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union—but Harding deliberately refers to the KGB in the present tense.

The scheme, operational between 2010 and 2014, enabled its perpetrators to evade Russian taxes and customs duties. In an apparent attempt to tar Russian President Vladimir Putin with financial skulduggery, the article claims that one of Putin’s cousins, Igor Putin, sat on the board of one of the Moscow banks with accounts involved in the fraud.

However, while the article implies that Kremlin insiders and hangers-on used the scheme to move their ill-gotten gains abroad, no one is actually named. As it acknowledges, the real owners of the money remain hidden because the cash, allegedly looted or gained illicitly, belongs to companies—often fictitious—registered in Britain that channel it into the global financial system and off-shore tax havens.

The trouble with this breathless account, labelled the “Global Laundromat,” is that it cites no evidence, just anonymous sources, and is full of inferences: “could have,” “potentially,” “could be” and the like, about what purports to be a news story. But it is old news. It first came to light three years ago in 2014 and the scheme was closed soon after, not by the British, but by the Russian authorities. The latest revelations come from investigations carried out by the Latvian and Moldovan authorities.

Much coverage was given to the lavish life style made possible by the Russians’ “dirty money,” including jewellery, furs, clothing, furniture, homeware and expensive private school fees. The theft of state assets that accompanied the restoration of capitalism in the former Soviet Union undoubtedly produced a layer of oligarchs and nouveau riche, but the ultimate beneficiaries of this process are to be found in Wall Street and the City of London.

It is noteworthy that the newspaper of what passes for Britain’s “liberal left” is not overly concerned that UK authorities have done little, if anything, to root out complicity with criminal activities. The Guardian simply said, without comment, that the scale of the operations, involving some $738.1 million, “staggered law enforcement officials.”

The Guardian noted that none of the banks challenged the data, simply reporting the fatuous catechisms recited by all the leading banks about having rigorous anti-money laundering policies in place. The newspaper accepted as good coin their claim that the volume of payments made it impossible to carry out the necessary checks. In that case, how and why was the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)—who made public the documents behind the Guardian’s articles—able to establish that the official owners of many of the banks’ accounts were fictitious or “‘nominee directors,’ based in the Ukraine”? The Guardian does not deign to ask, let alone answer the question.

No UK agency, including the Financial Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office, the National Crime Agency, the Bank of England, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), appears to have carried out any serious investigation into the banks’ complicity with money laundering and tax evasion. Yet the numerous scandals involving such criminality on the part of British-based banks have given the City of London the well-deserved moniker of the “money-laundering capital of the world.”

This is in the face of last year’s declaration by the National Crime Agency that, “We assess that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year.”

In so far as the banks have had to pay any penalties for their criminal activities, this has largely been to the US authorities. For example, in 2012, the US Justice Department and then-Attorney General Eric Holder oversaw a “deferred prosecution” sweetheart deal with HSBC that required the bank pay just $1.9 billion in penalties for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels.

Last year, the UK tax authority, HMRC, abandoned a criminal investigation into HSBC over claims that it had turned a blind eye to alleged illegal activities of wealthy individuals—including arms dealers that were brought to light by none other than the Guardian and other news outlets around the world. HMRC gave an amnesty to hundreds of the 3,600 UK customers it had identified as potentially hiding money in Switzerland. Likewise, the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, refused to take any action.

Despite this record, the focus of the Guardian ’s article was on Russia and its malfeasance, although it was forced to acknowledge that there had been several Russian attempts to control the illegal movement of money, including taking foreign companies to court, parliamentary enquiries and arrests. In 2014-15, the Russian authorities stripped Alexander Grigoriev, who ran the Russian Land Bank, of his banking licences, and later arrested him. He is still in jail. Furthermore, they shut many of the banks involved in Laundromat.

All this is in marked contrast to the British authorities that noticed nothing suspicious or if they did, turned a blind eye. Yet the Guardian has the gall to comment, “The Russian investigation into Laundromat has been cursory.”

Such a disparity between the Russian and British authorities’ investigations and surveillance points to the real reason why Russia’s “dirty money” was channelled through the City of London. This is due to Britain’s infamous “light touch regulation,” that tolerates financial swindling, the criminal mis-selling of financial instruments, money laundering, interest rate and foreign exchange-rate manipulation and tax evasion. In contrast to Russia, Britain has not jailed, fined or otherwise sanctioned a single top banker.

So where is this hyped-up story coming from, and who is behind it? As the Guardian explained, all the papers relating to the “Global Laundromat” were obtained by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, which is part owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev.

The OCCRP, set up in 2006, is a consortium of investigative centres, media organisations and journalists operating in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Central America. It specialises in investigations into organized crime and corruption. The OCCRP receives funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), the United States Department of State, the Swiss Confederation, Google Ideas, and the Open Society Foundation (OSF). The OSF was established by business magnate George Soros in 1993 to support “open government” and civil society groups around the world.

Since 2012, the OCCRP has cynically dedicated its Person of the Year award to “the individual who has done the most in the world to advance organized criminal activity and corruption” [emphasis added]. Previous winners have included Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev in 2012, the Romanian parliament in 2013; Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2014, Montenegro Prime Minister Milo Đukanović in 2015 and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in 2016. The presidents of the Philippines, Syria, Cuba and Russia, all of whom are anathema to the US, were named on the 2016 roll call.

In other words, the OCCRP is one of a number of US-sponsored NGOs that focuses on corruption as a means of targeting and undermining governments perceived as hostile to Washington’s geostrategic interests. Such propaganda networks are no aberration. In 2014—following the US-orchestrated demonstrations by fascistic forces that toppled the elected, pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych—US State Department official Victoria Nuland boasted that Washington had spent $5 billion building up opposition, “pro-democracy” groups in Ukraine since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

The Laundromat articles are “journalism” at its basest, in the service of US and British geo-strategic interests. The Guardian is playing a central role in this, having for years proselytised for the western imperialist powers in an anti-Russian campaign. Harding, the lead author of the Laundromat “exclusives,” was formerly the Guardian’s correspondent in Moscow. The newspaper supported the western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, employing allegations of Russian aggression to press for punitive sanctions against Moscow. Harding gave the fascistic forces who led the coup in Ukraine a clean bill of health in a March 2014 article headlined, “Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab.” Since then, the Guardian has only become more hysterical in churning out anti-Russian propaganda that is McCarthyite in character.

Trump administration plans economic and military offensive against Africa

Thomas Gaist 

The near-total silence of the Trump administration over its plans for the African continent has become something of a cliche among commenters on African politics. Indeed, the US government is maintaining military-style secrecy over its foreign political activities not only in Africa, but in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere around the globe.

Despite the relative secrecy, the general outlines of Trump’s Africa policy can nevertheless be deduced from his administration’s opening moves on the continent, when these are understood as the outgrowth of the crisis of American imperialism and the worldwide militarist offensive it has waged since the dissolution of the Soviet Union more than a quarter century ago.

From the outset, the selection of key leadership positions overseeing various US operations on the continent has underscored the hardline corporatist and militarist character of Trump’s agenda in Africa.

Trump has chosen retired US Air Force Colonel Rudolph Atallah to serve as Africa director on the National Security Council (NSC). Attalah was previously director of the US Special Operations Command Sub-Saharan Africa Orientation Course, which prepares US soldiers and government officials for deployment to the region. Trump’s leading choices to head the State Department’s Africa Bureau include Jeff Krill, the former vice president of Kosmos Energy, a company with substantial financial interests throughout West Africa, and retired US Army intelligence officer Charles Snyder.

Its initial military moves have made clear the Trump regime’s determination to intensify the neocolonial African policies of the previous four administrations, pursuing nothing less than the unconditional subordination of the continent’s economies, resources and working masses to the profit-drive of the American ruling class.

During his first three months in office, Trump approved major expansions of the US Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) interventions in Somalia, Libya, Nigeria, and several other unnamed Central and West African countries.

Trump reportedly favors giving US commanders in Africa wide latitude to wage war in complete secrecy, and without direct authorization from the civilian government. The White House has granted American ground forces expanded powers to call in airstrikes against large areas of Somalia, which were officially declared “areas of active hostilities” subject to “war-zone targeting rules” by the Trump White House on Thursday.

The new president is casting aside the pretense, upheld by Obama, that the ever-growing US war operations in Africa are aimed at enabling mutually beneficial economic development. The shape which US-Africa business relations will take under Trump was highlighted in mid-March, when the White House declined to give exemptions from its travel ban to some 100 African business leaders seeking to enter the United States to attend the 2017 African Global Economic and Development Summit.

By contrast, more than 50 African military officials will meet with leaders of AFRICOM at the US military commands headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany in April.

Expressing his enthusiasm at the opportunity to cultivate collaborators among Africa’s national elite, US AFRICOM Commander General Thomas D. Waldhauser gushed: “We’re very interested in listening to our African partners, what some of their concerns are, what they would like from AFRICOM…We’re very, very excited about that.”

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a country which has been the site of some of the worst crimes of imperialism against the African continent, has emerged at the center of the Trump administration’s counterrevolutionary social and economic agenda for Africa.

In February, the Trump administration struck down minimal restrictions on the collaboration of American corporations with mercenaries in Congo’s war-torn eastern provinces. The leaking of the executive order on the “conflict mineral rule,” the only substantive Africa policy document to so far emerge from the White House, has the appearance of a calculated political signal. It sends an unmistakable message of “open season” to American corporations, and to their militarist collaborators on the continent. The order also signals the US government’s commitment to the violent breakup, if necessary, of Congo’s government and the all-out looting of its natural wealth.

The post-Soviet history of the Congo expresses all the essential features of American foreign policy as it has developed during the past 25 years. Over the past quarter century, Washington has smashed apart the political and social order of much of the semi-colonial and colonial world, breaking up the very political order that underpinned US world rule since 1945 on behalf of short-term economic aims sought by dominant sections of US capital. In Congo, just as in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, the US government has toppled governments and established new forms of colonial-style rule, administered by stooge governments, mercenaries, extremists and warlords, backed up by US air support, Special Forces “advisers,” and CIA paramilitaries.

Congo, believed to have the most valuable natural resources deposits of any country worldwide, has borne the worst of Washington’s predations. During the 1990s, while bourgeois ideologists celebrated the “End of History,” the American state orchestrated a proxy war that led to the deaths of some 5.5 million Congolese.

Militias, recruited from Uganda and Rwanda and trained by American commandos, were striking deals with American firms even prior to launching the Second Congo War in 1998. Relations became so close that one mercenary commander was loaned the private Lear jet of a US mining firm.

The “rebel” mercenary forces empowered by the US proxy war have remained in direct control of the minerals ever since. Backed by Washington and the US puppet regimes in Rwanda and Uganda, they function as local rentiers, security forces and slave labor contractors on behalf of American capital.

The incessant struggles between the ever-growing number of militias has devastated the civilian population. Over 70 armed groups are presently active in eastern Congo, including fighting groups affiliated with the Ugandan Allied Democratic Forces, Burundian National Liberation Forces, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the March 23 Movement and members of the Rwandan military who organized the brutal genocide in 1994.

Even as the US government stokes wars and corporate plunder across the continent, fueling mass starvation and transforming millions into refugees, the White House has announced billions of dollars’ worth of cuts to famine and disease prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Trump administration has proposed to slash the overall US aid budget by one third. Issued in the teeth of historic famine warnings, with 20 million lives threatened between Somalia, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Yemen, the cuts are an especially vicious attack against the most oppressed and vulnerable members of society.

Announcing the cuts, Trump vowed to “reduce or end funding for international organizations whose missions do not substantially advance US foreign policy interests.” Any “savings” generated by these cuts will be wiped out several times over by Trump’s commitment of $54 billion in new military spending.

US foreign aid cuts will fall especially hard on the Congo, whose UN mission is among the leading recipients of US foreign aid worldwide. Rather than financial considerations, the cuts are political measures, aimed at ratcheting up pressure on the government of President Joseph Kabila, under conditions where the Congo is already plunging into ever deeper chaos.

Last week, protests in Kinshasa against the Kabila government led to clashes between demonstrators and state forces. Fighters with the Kamwina Nsapu militia killed and decapitated dozens of Congolese security forces in an ambush in Lulua province. UN investigators have reported discovery of 23 mass graves in eastern Congo this week.

The political purposes of the foreign aid cuts are suggested by the simultaneous demands of the Trump White House for a huge reduction in the UN’s peacekeeping mission in the Congo.

Amid heated rhetorical attacks against the central government by US ambassador Nikki Haley, the UN voted this week to scale down its Congo peacekeeping mission by 20 percent. Haley, who had pressed for a much larger reduction, from 19,000 to 3,000, denounced Kabila’s government in the strongest terms, as “corrupt,” and for “preying on its citizens.”

“The UN is aiding a government that is inflicting predatory behavior against its own people. We should have the decency and common sense to end this,” Haley said on March 29.

Congo’s government served, from 1965 to 1991, as the most important ally of Washington’s anti-Soviet campaigns in Africa. The fact that the American ruling class now demands the total humiliation of the Congo, not long ago a mainstay of the US-postwar order in Africa, is a powerful indicator of the changes that have occurred in the strategic orientation of US imperialism.

In Africa and worldwide, Trump’s policies mark the decisive transformation of Washington into the most destabilizing factor in world politics.

Former South Korean president arrested

Ben McGrath

Former South Korean President Park Geun-hye was detained Friday after a judge granted the prosecutors’ request for an arrest warrant at a hearing the previous day. She has been charged with bribery, abuse of power and leaking state secrets, the same allegations that led to her impeachment and removal from office on March 10. A formal indictment is expected by mid-April. If convicted, Park could face between 10 years to life behind bars.

In approving the prosecutors’ request, Judge Gang Bu-yeong stated, “The need for her arrest is acknowledged because there is probable cause to charge her and a concern of evidence being destroyed.” Park was taken to a detention center where other high-profile figures in the scandal have been held, including her friend Choi Soon-sil with whom she is alleged to have conspired to collect bribes from major conglomerates or chaebol. It is also claimed that Choi had access to state documents and took part in decision-making despite holding no formal government office.

The charges assert that Park and Choi set up two non-profit bodies—K-Sports and Mir—to funnel a total of 77.4 billion won ($70 million) into their pockets in exchange for favors. Lee Jae-yong, the de facto head of Samsung, was arrested in February for handing over 43.4 billion won to gain approval for a merger between Samsung affiliates that gave him control over the conglomerate.

Park is the third South Korean president to be arrested in the tumultuous history of the country’s politics. Two generals—Chun Doo-hwan and his successor Noh Tae-woo—led the country from 1979 to 1993, but were arrested in 1995 for their roles in the coup that brought Chun to power, for the massacre in Gwangju that killed hundreds in 1980, and for corruption. Both were convicted with Chun receiving a death sentencebut President Kim Young-sam pardoned both, supposedly on the grounds of national reconciliation.

The Park scandal led to massive, weekly protests in South Korea beginning in October, during which hundreds of thousands of workers and students denounced not only Park but the chaebols as well. However, Park was not removed simply for being corrupt. Her opponents worked to prevent the movement from developing beyond the control of the existing political establishment. Furthermore, her attempts to build a closer relationship with China led her to fall from favor with the United States, which did not oppose her removal.

The likely Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) candidate and current front-runner for the May 9 presidential election, Moon Jae-in, has benefited the most from Park’s removal and widespread anti-Park sentiment. Moon recently stated after winning the second of four rounds in the DPK primaries, “We need an overwhelming victory in the presidential election if we are to properly reform the country and create a brand new nation following a change of power.”

However, the conservatives were only able to return to power in 2008 under Lee Myung-bak, and then in 2013 under Park precisely because the Democrats were widely discredited in the eyes of the working class.

From 1998 to 2008, Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Noh Moo-hyun enforced the austerity demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after the 1997–1998 Asian Financial Crisis. Both presidents carried out mass job cuts and repression against striking workers with the aid of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. The Democrats also deployed troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in alliance with US imperialism. Moon served as chief of staff during Noh’s administration and has attempted to alleviate concerns in Washington, telling the New York Times for example, that he was “America’s friend.”

At the same time, the Democrats are tapping into anti-war sentiment by posturing as opponents of the US deployment of a THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-ballistic missile battery in South Korea. They submitted a resolution to the National Assembly on Tuesday calling on the government to seek parliamentary consent for the system while also criticizing China for its economic retaliation against South Korea for allowing THAAD on its territory. This anti-China rhetoric helps legitimize Washington’s war drive against China and North Korea.

The other major parties are also in the process of selecting their candidates. Yu Seung-min of the Bareun Party has already clinched the nomination, but with public support hovering around 2 percent, it is likely he will form an electoral alliance. His party supported Park’s impeachment, splitting with the Saenuri Party, now known as the Liberty Korea Party (LKP). Yu stated he is willing to join forces with the LKP so long as its candidate is anti-Park.

The Bareun Party, which backs even stronger ties with Washington, is clearly concerned over what a Moon presidency would mean. Its policy chief, Lee Jong-gu, stated, “It will be paradoxical to expect a strong alliance with the US if Moon is elected president considering he first protested against THAAD and demanded a decision be left up to the next government, while the US wanted to deploy it quickly.”

The LPK on Friday chose South Gyeongsang Province Governor Hong Jun-pyo as its candidate. Hong has kept his distance from Park while also calling for a broad alliance against Moon, which could mean uniting with the likely People’s Party candidate, Ahn Cheol-soo, who has publicly remained cool to the idea.

The People’s Party was formed last year in a split from the Democrats, moving further to the right. This makes an electoral alliance between Ahn and dissatisfied members of the Democrats another possibility. Former DPK interim leader Kim Jong-in left the party in early March, saying he would help play a role in forging an electoral alliance to defeat Moon. His close aide, Choi Myeong-gil also left the DPK on March 29, stating, “I believe Kim will play a pivotal role, and that his role will create a great, successful outcome. And that will make people happy.”

None of these politicians or political parties is capable of solving the crisis of capitalism in South Korea or halting the drive to war. Should Moon win, he will enforce the demands of big business and Washington just as readily as the other candidates. Workers and students should place no faith in him, the DPK, or any organization that calls for supporting this capitalist party.

Sino-Indian Strategic Dialogue: Differences in Strategic Thinking

Siwei Liu

China and India reopened a new round of strategic dialogue in Beijing February. Admittedly, the dialogue has important implications for maintaining strategic stability in a changing regional security environment. But it has also revealed the differences in the two sides’ strategic mindsets. These differences feed into the trust deficit and will eventually weaken the dialogue process. 

The Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui and the Indian Foreign Secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar co-chaired the strategic dialogue held on 22 February 2017 in Beijing. During the seven hour-long talks, the two countries exchanged views on bilateral ties as well as regional and international issues of common concern. There is no denying that this was the right time for the two Asian giants to have such a comprehensive dialogue.

This was the first round of strategic dialogue held since the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014. Before this, the two sides had six rounds of dialogue from 2005 to 2014. Therefore, there is symbolic importance to the reopening of this dialogue for Sino-Indian relations as well. It demonstrates that both sides expect to see a more stable and healthy bilateral relationship.

Similarly, the practical significance of the strategic dialogue is also evident. Tthe new periphery strategies of both countries - China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative and India’s Indo-Pacific strategy – to some extent, have caused discomfort to each other. In addition, the new security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region also bring some uncertainties and challenges to China-India strategic relations. It was important, therefore, for both countries to reopen dialogue and discuss how to avoid strategic misunderstanding.

The dialogue attracted considerable attention in various communities in the two countries, including the media. Unfortunately, it seemed that the dialogue was very hard to conduct from a practical point of view. In fact, some Indian analysts have started to complain about the results and expressed disappointment that the dialogue did not address a series of issues that have troubled Sino-Indian relations as they stand today. Similarly, Chinese experts argue that the two countries should use the mechanism to push forward greater strategic convergence rather than get entangled in strategic differences. 

The difference in strategic mindsets played an important role in the conduct and results of this round of the Sino-Indian strategic dialogue. Both countries represent ‘oriental’ cultures; however, China and India “think differently.” China’s strategic mindset is more dialectical, synthetic, and also focused on long-term strategic planning. It is quite different from the Indian mindset, which is more abstract, exceptionalism-driven, and in favour of pursuing practical solutions at the tactical level. China and India bring their differing priorities shaped by these different styles of thinking or approaches to the negotiating table. 

The Indian side preferred to bring up sensitive issues like India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), getting the UN to impose sanctions on Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar, among others. It appeared that India preferred to solve current problems and differences before pushing the bilateral strategic relations forward.

The Chinese prefer to understand bilateral ties though a big-picture analysis. Fu Ying, a Chinese diplomat, pointed out that, “the two sides should see trees, but also the forest.” Although Beijing was looking to narrow strategic differences through the dialogue, it also was inclined to discuss strategic convergence, including prospects of promoting regional cooperation. Beijing hoped to create a friendly atmosphere for bilateral ties. Contrary to Indian thinking, the Chinese are looking at establishing friendly bilateral relations before addressing specific issues between the two countries. 

Admittedly, this is not the first strategic dialogue between China and India and both sides seemed to be highly attuned to each other’s way of thinking. Not just that - the maladjustment, to some extent, also made them uncomfortable. Delhi was obviously disappointed that China disregarded its demands on solving some sensitive issues. Although Beijing tried to address Indian concerns – for instance, a delegate who was an expert on nuclear issues had joined the dialogue on the Chinese side - the Chinese were not comfortable with the Indian over-emphasis on differences between the two sides rather than focusing on the convergences. Beijing does not want to allow these differences to cloud the overall relationship.

Perhaps it is necessary that the Chinese and Indian sides unstudy each other's strategic mindset more closely. This also includes a better understanding of the other's strategic culture. The conduct of the latest strategic dialogue has shown that a more open and creative attitude is the only way to have a successful Sino-Indian dialogue.

University of Dundee Global Excellence Postgraduate Scholarships for International Students 2018 – UK

Application Deadline: 1st October, 2017 for the Jan 2018 academic session

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Scotland, UK

Eligible Fields of Study: All

About Scholarship: This scholarship is payable for each year of your degree at Dundee. The Dean’s International Scholarship is available to applicants in each of the University’s 9 Academic Schools. Each Academic School will decide which of their applicants will receive the scholarship based on previous academic merit plus the supporting statement.

Type: Full time Undergraduate and Masters taught

Eligibility: The Dean’s International Scholarship is open to undergraduate and taught postgraduate international applicants.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: If you are successful you will be awarded £3,000 per year, which is deducted from your annual tuition fee.

How to Apply: If you are made an offer for an eligible course, the University will email you a link to an online scholarship application and ask you to submit a short supporting statement.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The University of Dundee

Atlas Corps English Teaching Fellowship 2017 for Teaching in Latin America

Application Deadlines:

• Priority: 3rd April 2017
• Final: 2nd June, 2017

Offered annually?

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Colombia

About the Award: The Atlas Corps Teaching Fellowship is an English teaching opportunity for emerging professionals. The opportunities we offer are a collaboration between Atlas Corps and our two partners in Latin America – Heart for Change and Volunteers Colombia, who work with different governmental agencies in Colombia and other countries – from nationwide Ministries of Education and public schools to local vocational training programs.

Through this collaboration, our mission is to facilitate the development of a prosperous Latin America where children and youth have the opportunity to receive a high-quality bilingual education.

The program we offer in Colombia specifically is the country’s largest bilingual program. In its first year, 350 Fellows taught alongside 1,050 Colombian teachers, strengthening English education for nearly 98,000 public high school students in 33 cities. Today Fellows teach English in 38 different Colombian cities.

Atlas Corps Teaching Fellows learn leadership skills in an international context while advancing English language skills in youth. The benefits of this prestigious fellowship include a living stipend, general and TEFL teacher training, ongoing professional development, and engagement in the global Atlas Corps network of over 500 leaders from 80+ countries!

Selected participants will: Co-teach in cities across Colombia (big and small!) in public schools through the Ministry of Education

• 25 hours/week instruction
• 15 hours/week planning

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Bachelor’s degree or equivalent
• Clean Background Check
• Age range of applicants is 21 to 50
• English language skills, at native language proficiency or C2 level equivalent.
  • We require English level proof for non-native speakers in the form of test results from either Cambridge, IELTS or TOEFL. (We do NOT accept TEFL or CELTA certificates as proof of English level)
  • Below are the qualifying scores:
    • Cambridge: C2
    • TOEFL: 96+
    • IELTS: 7.5+
• Spanish language skills, at basic level or higher (we encourage all levels of Spanish to apply)
• High level of flexibility and adaptability
• Interest and enthusiasm for serving in an educational environment (we will provide the methodology, you provide the inspiration and energy)

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: 1,500,000 monthly COP stipend

• Two-week orientation, including extensive training in pedagogy/TEFL and training on logistics related to living in Latin America (visa, identification, bank accounts, mobile phones, and more)
• Courtesy visa and ID
• Local medical insurance
• Transportation from Orientation to your placement city
• 24/7 support from Regional Coordinators and staff
• Certificate of program completion
• Bonus upon completion of the program
• Atlas Corps specific benefits! More details in link below.

Fellow Pays: 

• $400 Program Deposit (returned upon completing Fellowship)
• International health insurance (~$300)
• Round trip ticket (cost depending on location)

Duration of Fellowship: Mid-July 2017 (exact date to be confirmed)

How to Apply: Here is the general overview of the Application Process, but please read ALL the steps by clicking this link: Process and Procedures – Atlas Corps Teaching Fellowship and the Fellowship Webpage Link below

1. Online Application: You will need to create a login, and you can save your responses so you can return to the application at any time. The application consists of background information, a personal biography, and a transcript or certificate. Again, this application allows you to be considered for any of our opportunities in Latin America, and you’ll be able to indicate your preference on the form.
2. Review Process: Applications will be reviewed by the Atlas Corps Selection Board. Atlas Corps and our partners in Colombia will both conduct Skype interviews. Our partners will then make their final recommendations to Atlas Corps, and Atlas Corps will notify the selected candidates.
3. Pre-Arrival Process: After being selected and confirming their spot, candidates will receive information about what other logistical documents they need to send in, as well as visa support if applicable.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Atlas Corps

Ewha Global Empowerment Program (EGEP) for Women Activitists in Asia and Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 9th April 2017

Selected participants will be announced 17th May 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Countries in Asia and Africa

To be taken at (country): Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea

Theme:

• For the July 2017 session: Transnational Feminism and Women’s activism
• For the January 2018 session: Transnational Women’s Activism: Sexuaity, Women’s body and Violence

About the Award: EGEP is a two-week residential educational program that takes place twice a year (summer and winter) offered by Ewha Womans University. According the MOU between Ewha Womans University and UN Women, this program aims to promote education for women and gender equality in Asia and Africa by empowering women working in non-governmental public sectors and by nourishing the next generation of women leaders.

On completing this program, participants will have:

• improved their theoretical knowledge and practical capacities from a gender perspective;
• broadened their understanding of women’s lives, women’s issues, and women’s rights in Asian and African contexts; and
• strengthened their feminist leadership capacities to build women’s solidarity and cooperation in local, national, and transnational contexts.

Offered Since: 2012

Type: Training

Eligibility: With minimum three years of experience, women activists working in international and national non-governmental public sectors in Asia, such as NGOs, NPOs, civil society organizations, as well as individuals working independently are encouraged to apply for this program.

Selection Criteria: The selection committee will evaluate the applicants based on the following criteria:

•     field experience                                                                      25%
•     expertise in women’s issues                                                25%
•     potential as next generation of women leaders              25%
•     contribution to the community                                          25%

Number of Awardees: 20~25 for every term of EGEP

Value of Program: The University covers the tuition for all the participants. Ewha Womans University provides the funding to cover fees for the tuition, dormitory, and a two-week allowance for all the participants. Funds for airfare will be awarded only to the participants from ODA beneficiary countries.

Duration of Program: 2 weeks. July 9 – 23 2017 / January 7 – 21 2018

How to Apply: 

• Application Form
• Curriculum Vitae
• Statement of Purpose
• Essay
• Letter of Recommendation

Requirements: These requirements are only for those who have been notified as selected EGEP participants.

All forms are downloadable at http://egep.ewha.ac.kr.

It is important to go through the program webpage before applying

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Ewha Womans University.

Deutsche Welle Heroes of Today Contest for Portuguese -Speaking African Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 1st May 2017

Eligible Countries: Portuguese -Speaking African Countries

To be taken at (country): Online

About the Award: Deutsche Welle’s “Heroes of today” contest seeks stories about a person who makes a difference in the community.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Aspiring journalists from Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa can enter this contest.

Selection Criteria: A jury selected by DW will be responsible for classifying the portraits submitted by contestants. In each of the categories (text, video and photo) will be selected three candidates by the jury. The final position of the three will be determined through a public vote on  Facebook of DW Africa (see in link below) taking place in May.

Number of Awardees: 3

Value of Contest: DW will offer prizes for the first, second and third place in each of the three categories of the competition:

• Text:
  1st: a camera
  2nd: a smartphone
  3rd: an iPod
• Video:
  1st: a camera
  2nd: a smartphone
  3rd: an iPod
• Photography:
  1st: a camera
  2nd: a smartphone
  3rd: an iPod

How to Apply: To participate in the contest “heroes of today” (2017 edition), you must publish a portrait of a person who makes a difference in your community until May 1, 2017.

There are three formats to choose from.

– a text (maximum 5,000 characters) with a photograph of the person portrayed

– a video about the person portrayed (with a maximum duration of 3 minutes)

– a series of photographs of the person portrayed (12 photos at most)

You need to post this picture on a blog, on Facebook, on Instagram or on YouTube – always accompanied by the #DWheroisdehoje hashtag – and fill out this DW Africa form to take part in the contest:

By continuing and entering this content in the “Heroes of Today” contest, you agree to automatically transfer to DW – Deutsche Welle the rights to use text, photos, audio, and videos included in the material for the release of the project. He also declares that he has read the competition rules.

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Deutsche Welle