German politicians and media push for war with Damascus

Johannes Stern

In the aftermath of the alleged gas attack in the Syrian province of Idlib, German politicians and media outlets have switched to war mode. Although the circumstances remain entirely unclear and everything points to an imperialist provocation, the German government and other European powers are advocating the overthrow of the Assad regime and a confrontation with Russia.

On the sidelines of the Syrian donor summit in Brussels on Wednesday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel described the gas attack in Syria as a “barbaric war crime” and demanded retaliation. “Those responsible for this barbarism in the Assad regime must be held accountable. And there can be no alignment with the Assad regime—even in the struggle against the terrorists of the so-called ‘Islamic State’,” he said. “As an ally of the Assad regime,” Russia bore “particular responsibility.”

Gabriel left no doubt that the chief goal of the imperialist powers in Syria is the overthrow of Assad. The struggle against Islamic State was “important,” but it could “not be permitted to push the fight against the crimes of the civil war in Syria, torture, poison gas attacks, into the background.” The “political process for a new constitution, free elections and a democratic end to the Assad regime” was “the precondition for permanent peace in the region.”

It is a cynical lie for the German government to claim that it is interested in “democracy,” “peace” and “human rights” in the Middle East. It was made public over recent days that the German military supplied the coordinates for a massacre in Syria that killed at least 33, including women and children.

Unlike the war in Libya in 2011, Germany has been one of the warring parties from the outset in Syria, seeking to enforce its economic and geostrategic interests in the Middle East. Already in 2012, the Foreign Ministry, in conjunction with the German Institute for Foreign Affairs (SWP) and sections of the Syrian opposition, began the project “The Day After” and drafted a “vision for a post-Assad order.” Then at the end of 2015, the German army intervened directly into the conflict with Tornado fighter jets, a warship and 1,200 soldiers.

The German government is now seeking to utilise the gas attack to strengthen its position in the US-led coalition. Their main concern in this is not the well-being of Syria, but rather that the United States under President Trump sticks to the goal of overthrowing Assad and ensures Germany a share of the spoils in the plundering of Syria.

“The brutal, inhumane gas attack cannot pass without consequences,” SPD parliamentary group leader Thomas Oppermann told Der Spiegel. However, “the threats from President Trump that the US will go it alone” would not help the situation. Notwithstanding Trump’s verbal about-face with regard to Assad, his Syria policy remains “very contradictory” and “this political back and forth” makes it more difficult to reach “a consensus in the international community to resolve the conflict,” Oppermann added.

The Green Party spoke in similar terms. Green parliamentary deputy Franziska Brantner called on the US president in an interview to end his “zigzag course” towards Assad and to take a clear stance against him. “I think the conflicts are simply too grave for us to carry on listening to such manoeuvring. The Europeans must demand a clear statement.”

By a “clear statement” Brantner means a major military intervention. “The question is, how long do we want to look on? There is actually a UN Security Council resolution from 2015 which unambiguously states that if another poison gas attack takes place, measures under Chapter VII will be adopted. These are the harshest measures the United Nations has.” To reach the desperate people, “air bridges” would have to be established and secured militarily, she continued.

Brantner’s proposal aims “unambiguously” to bring about regime change in Damascus. In March 2011, the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which was also justified with “humanitarian” arguments, was the pretext for a massive NATO air war against the oil-rich country, which reached a brutal high point with the murder of Muammar Gaddafi by Western-backed Islamist rebels.

In Syria, the establishment of “air bridges” and the intervention of the military in accordance with Chapter VII would result in a direct confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and Iran, Assad’s main allies.

Despite this, Gregor Gysi, the chairman of the European Left in the European Parliament, called for a more aggressive intervention, regardless of who was responsible “for the spreading of poison gas in Syria.” He added, “Either it was a gas attack, then at some point those responsible have to be held accountable for war crimes. Or a poison gas factory was bombed in which other troops, not Syrian government troops, were producing gas.” The Left Party politician continued, “They should also be sharply criticised and held to account.”

With Russia’s intervention in Syria having cut across the German government’s plans and driven the Islamist militias to the brink of defeat, the German media is also waging an ever more hysterical campaign for military action against Damascus.

Hubert Wetzel, who in 2013 called for the firing of a “salvo of cruise missiles at Bashar al-Assad’s army headquarters,” wrote in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on Thursday in a piece entitled “Now it’s Trump’s war,” “A truth does not become a lie just because the liar Donald Trump said it. That’s why: Trump is right. The Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad continues to murder his own population and can still gas women and children to death because of the ‘weakness and indecisiveness’ of Barack Obama, as Trump said of the former president.”

Then he added, “A president used to govern in Washington who drew red lines in the sky but never defended them. Today, a president governs in Washington who up to now thought Assad was a nice guy and Russia—a warring party in Syria—a partner for peace; who has not drawn any red lines, but who thinks many lines that he never drew have been crossed. Assad need not worry for now.”

Berthold Kohler, the co-editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, raged, “All eyes are also turned towards the Kremlin, because without the Russian attack to benefit the butcher Assad, his regime would no longer exist. It seems to have finally been understood in Washington that Russia did not simply intervene in the Syrian civil war out of neighbourly love.” However, the United States, like Europe, “still doesn’t have a plan to prevent Assad from gassing his people.”

US launches cruise missile attack against Syrian government

James Cogan

Between 8 and 9 p.m., US Eastern Time Thursday, two US warships in the Mediterranean fired a barrage of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base at Shayrat, near the city of Homs. The attack is the first direct assault by the United States on the Russian- and Iranian-backed government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has plunged the world into days of uncertainty as to the consequences. Highlighting the utter recklessness and criminality of the American action, Russian forces were at the base.

The Syrian government has issued a bitter condemnation of the US attack, denouncing it as “aggression.” There are reports that at least four Syrian troops were killed and that the air base was virtually destroyed.

The Russian military was reportedly given notice that the air base was going to be bombed. Russia has large numbers of aircraft and personnel in Syria assisting Assad’s forces fight a six-year, US-sponsored insurrection by predominantly Islamist militias. If the Russians were given notice, questions remain as to whether they were given a sufficient window of time to withdraw their assets from harm’s way.

The pretext for the US attack is the sinister and dubious allegation that Assad’s air force used chemical weapons in an attack on a rebel-held town on Tuesday. The claims are dubious, above all, because the Syrian government had no motive to use such weapons, knowing that it would be seized upon to demand that Trump order a direct US-led intervention. The Islamist rebels, by contrast, along with their CIA advisors, had ample motive under conditions in which they are facing complete military defeat. Moreover, the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra militia is known to be in possession of, and to have used chemical weapons.

On Thursday, the Assad government again categorically denied any responsibility for a chemical weapons attack. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem stated: “I stress, once again, that the Syrian Arab Army did not and will not use such weapons even against the terrorists who are targeting our people.”

The attack on Syria is the outcome of months of political civil war in Washington, which has seen Trump denounced by the Democratic Party and much of the media as a virtual Russian puppet for his stated agenda of improving relations with Moscow. His domestic opponents have succeeded in compelling the new administration to shift and make the immediate focus of US foreign policy stepped-up operations in the Middle East.

The result is the prospect of a rapid descent toward a confrontation with Iran and nuclear-armed Russia. It is entirely conceivable that the Syrian military, using sophisticated Russian-supplied anti-aircraft missile systems, will now retaliate by engaging American aircraft in Syrian airspace or launching attacks on the American troops operating on the ground with various rebel militias in parts of the country.

Trump appears to have authorised the bombardment even as he was sitting down for dinner and a photo opportunity with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who arrived in the US just hours before and whose government has consistently aligned with Russia to defend Assad’s government.

Among the numerous questions posed by the US strike is whether the top-level summit between Trump and Xi can even proceed. The situation is, by any standard, unprecedented for a Chinese leader. Xi will face immense recriminations in China if he is seen sitting alongside Trump in polite diplomatic talks, at a luxury golf resort in Florida, while his own government, Russia, Iran and other countries are denouncing a unilateral and illegal American act of war on Syria.

Moreover, the Trump administration has been threatening to launch a pre-emptive attack on North Korea and trigger a catastrophic war on China’s borders. The missile strike on Syria will remove any doubt in Chinese strategic and military circles as to whether Trump would be prepared to order such action.

Trump held a press conference Thursday evening at his Florida mansion. In words dripping with imperialist hypocrisy, he stated: “Tonight I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end this slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.”

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson subsequently issued a statement accusing Russia of being “complicit” in the alleged gas attack and denouncing it for failing to meet its undertakings in 2013 to ensure Syria destroyed its chemical weapons. At the time, the Obama administration, in the face of doubts in the US military establishment and popular opposition, used the Russian guarantees to back away from its plans to wage a massive air war on the Assad government.

The Putin government in Moscow, backed by Bolivia, has signaled that it will demand an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Friday to condemn the American strike. The Russian Senate Security and Defense Committee chair Viktor Ozerov told journalists that the attack was an “act of aggression against a United Nations member.” Prior to the missile strikes, Russia had demanded an impartial investigation into the alleged gas attack and warned Washington that there would be “negative consequences” if it instead took military action.

The other key supporter of the Assad government, Iran, has issued a statement through its foreign ministry that it “roundly condemns” the US action. Large numbers of Iranian military personnel are on the ground not only in Syria, but in Iraq, fighting alongside Shiite militias that are nominally loyal to the US-backed government in Baghdad.

In Syria, the Saudi- and Turkish-financed and armed Islamist Ahrar al-Sham militia declared that it “welcomes any US intervention through surgical strikes.” The Israeli government has issued a statement voicing its complete support for the American operation. Turkey had already given blanket support in advance of the strikes.

As the US strike took place late in the night European time, the imperialist allies of Washington in Europe, after spending days exploiting the alleged gas attack to denounce Assad and Russia and call for action, have not yet issued formal statements.

On the other side of the world, an indication of how numerous US allies may respond has been given in Australia. The country’s defence minister was phoned by US officials several hours before the US strikes. Australia has fighter-bombers and other aircraft operating with American forces in Syria and Iraq. Both the government and the main Labor Party opposition have made statements fully endorsing the US strike, though Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would not confirm if the Australian military would join attacks on the Syrian government.

New Zealand International Doctoral Research Scholarships (NZIDRS) 2017/2018 – Fully-funded

Application Deadline: 30th August, 2017 for Autumn 2017 admission session

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International countries

To be taken at (country): New zealand. Recipients can undertake PhD study in any discipline at any of New Zealand eight Universities:
AUT University,
Lincoln University,
Massey University,
University of Auckland,
University of Canterbury,
University of Otago,
University of Waikato,
Victoria University of Wellington.

Eligible Field of Study: Applications are welcomed from eligible candidates undertaking relevant research in any discipline.

About the Award: The New Zealand International Doctoral Research Scholarship (NZIDRS) is a Government funded scholarship, administered by Education New Zealand. The scholarship aims to attract and retain the best international researchers to New Zealand. The scholarship provides full tuition fees and a living stipend for up to 3 years.

The NZIDRS is a prestigious, highly competitive scholarship. It is awarded based on academic excellence and the benefit of the candidate’s proposed research to New Zealand. Recipients of this award will have an academic record placing them within the top 5% of PhD candidates worldwide.

Type: PhD Research Scholarship

Eligibility: In order to apply for the NZIDRS, candidates must meet ALL five eligibility criteria.
These criteria are non-negotiable.

1. Candidate must hold a minimum grade equivalent to a GPA of 3.7 on a 4.0 scale OR an A to A+ average in your most recent or highest post graduate tertiary qualification

2. Candidate must have a confirmed, non-conditional offer of place for a (direct-start) PhD programme at a New Zealand university

3. If candidate has already commenced their PhD studies in New Zealand, their start date must be after 01 July 2015

4. Candidate must conduct their PhD study in New Zealand (not from a distance)

5. Candidate must not hold citizenship or PR status in New Zealand or Australia.

Selection Criteria: The NZIDRS are awarded based on academic excellence and the impact of the PhD research for New Zealand.  Applications must propose research that has a clear, direct and tangible positive effect on:

• New Zealand’s economy, in terms of international trade and business development in key sectors, OR
• New Zealand’s population in terms of health and safety, OR
• Research and scholarship in either of the above two areas

Number of Awardees: Normally 8 awards are made

Value of Scholarship: 

• New Zealand University annual tuition fees and associated student levies
• An annual living stipend of NZ$25,000 per year (tax free)
• Medical insurance coverage up to NZ$600 annually

Duration of Scholarship: The NZIDRS covers the following above for a TOTAL of three years (36 months):

How to Apply:

1. Download and complete an NZIDRS Application Form (available on the Scholarship Webpage)
2. Answer all questions by completing all fields and submit your form along with ALL required documents to Education New Zealand.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Government of New zealand Ministry of Education.

World Bank Group Analyst Program for Exceptionally Talented Young People 2017

Application Deadline: 21st April 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at: Positions may be based in Washington, DC or in a local office.

About the Award: Through this structured three-year program, you will work in an intellectually challenging and culturally diverse environment within a specific practice, region, or corporate unit in the World Bank Group, which includes the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. You will have the opportunity to contribute and grow your skills in areas ranging from analytics, research, data management, project management and finance. In addition, the program offers various cohort activities aimed to broaden your exposure to the work of the World Bank Group and develop leadership skills.

Upon completion of the program, there may be opportunities for you to continue your career in the World Bank Group. Participants holding a Master’s degree who find the opportunity to continue their career at the WBG may also be eligible for advancement opportunities. Alternatively, you may leverage the experience you have gained to pursue further studies or other opportunities in international development.

Type: Contract Job

Eligibility: 

– Citizenship of a member country of the World Bank Group
– Passion to contribute to the World Bank Group mission to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity
– 28 years of age or younger (i.e., born on or after January 1st, 1989)
– Master’s or Bachelor’s degree in relevant field. Candidates who are currently pursuing a degree are eligible if the degree will be awarded by December 31, 2017
– One to three years of relevant work experience in the recruitment stream is considered.
– Analytical thinking, proven academic success, strong written and oral communication skills, and leadership potential
– Experience working or studying in developing countries is preferred
– Fluency in English is required. Fluency or proficiency in other languages, in particular Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Spanish or Russian, is preferred.

In addition, successful candidates must demonstrate the World Bank Group Core Competencies (Read more about the Selection Cycle):

-Deliver results for clients
– Lead and innovate
– Collaborate within teams and across boundaries
– Create, apply and share knowledge
– Make smart decisions

Selection Criteria: To be competitive for this highly selective program, you need to demonstrate a commitment to development, analytical thinking, proven academic success, and leadership potential. We value diversity in our workplace, and encourage all qualified individuals, with diverse professional, academic, and cultural backgrounds to apply.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program:  

• Contract: a three-year local term contract is being offered.
• Salary: WBG Analysts are offered a locally-competitive salary, based on their education and professional experience.
• Health, Life, Accident and Other Insurance Programs: WBG Analyst and their families (including declared domestic partners) may choose from three comprehensive medical/dental benefit plans. The WBG also provides basic life and accident insurance to all staff at no cost, and staff can elect optional life and accident insurance plans. The WBG also provides disability and Workers’ Compensation coverage to staff at no cost.
• Pension Plan: The WBG sponsors a comprehensive pension plan for eligible staff. Upon separation from the WBG, either a lump sum or a pension will become payable to the staff based on eligibility.
• Relocation Benefits on Appointment: For WBG Analysts relocating to a new country, a cash allowance at the discretion of their hiring unit may be granted.
• Tax Allowance: U.S. staff receive an additional quarterly payment to cover the U.S., state and local income tax liabilities on their World Bank Group income. Expatriates and U.S. permanent residents do not incur U.S. income tax liability and are thus not eligible for this benefit.
• Financial Assistance: The World Bank Group offers financial assistance programs, including a two-year interest-free settling-in loan to those who relocate upon appointment.

Duration of Selection and Program: Based on the business needs in a specific recruitment stream, a select number of candidates may potentially be approached for further interviewing/testing between May, 2017 and January 31, 2018. Offers will be made during that period. Selected candidates will enter the World Bank Group between May 2017 and March 2018 and will start their development curriculum in mid-March 2018.

The WBG Analyst Program (WBG AP) offers a mix of challenging work program and a comprehensive development curriculum for three years.

How to Apply: Interested candidates should go through full instructions for selection and application in the Program Webpage (See link below) before applying.

Apply Here

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: World Bank Group

DAAD – Helwan University Scholarships for Refugees in Egypt 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 20th September 2017

Eligible Countries:  Arab refugees (from Syria, Libya, Irak and Yemen)

To be taken at (country): Egypt

About the Award: The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) – with funds allocated by the German Federal Foreign Office –offer scholarship opportunities to Arab refugees (from Syria, Libya, Irak and Yemen), currently residing in Egypt and registered as refugees through the UNHCR to study thisMaster’s programme,but also to students from Egypt.

The programme is focused on transferring knowledge and methodologies necessary for the administration and management of archaeological sites, which include the following academic fields: conservation strategies and methods, strategic heritage management and planning, visitor management, presentation and interpretation, as well as general leadership skills and knowledge of the tourism sector. Graduates will be able to approach among other things the documentation and long-term security of war and disaster -related damage to physical cultural property in a sufficient manner. Knowledge of “Disaster & Risk Management” for Cultural Heritage and “Heritage in Conflict” will also be achieved. The variety of these subjects will endow graduates with the multidisciplinary skills required in the significance assessment, management and protection of heritage sites. The programme cooperates with the German Archaeological Institute (DAI).

Graduates will be qualified to work in a broad range of heritage institutions in the private and public sector: government agencies, heritage organisations, museums, tourism agencies, private corporations, etc. As heritage consultants and managers, they may be employed to develop and implement conservation and management plans for archaeological or other cultural heritage sites.

Type: Master of Arts (M.A.) awarded by Helwan University, Egypt in academic cooperation with Brandenburg University of Technology in Cottbus, Germany.

Eligibility: – Bachelor’s degree in Archaeology, Tourism, Architecture, Conservation or (Art) History, or equivalent qualifications (The equivalence of other study degrees has to be determined by the program’s administration). – Adequate proficiency in English language.

Number of Awardees: 10 full scholarships for Arabs and 5 full scholarships for Egyptians are available for the academic year 2017-2018. Scholarship holders are exempted from tuition fees.

Value of Scholarship: The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) awards monthly scholarships (500 Euros per month for 24 months) to students from Egypt and for Arab nationals currently residing in Egypt and affected by civil war (Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq).

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of program

How to Apply: www.heritage.edu.eg

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: DAAD

CUNY McGraw Business Journalism Fellowship for Business Journalists 2017

Application Deadline:

• Spring Deadline: 31st May 2017
• Fall Deadline: 30th November 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: The McGraw Fellowship provides editorial and financial support to journalists who need the time and resources to produce a significant story or series that provides fresh insight into an important business or economic topic. We accept applications for in-depth text, video or audio pieces, and we encourage proposals that take advantage of more than one storytelling form to create a multimedia package.

Typically, we’ll award grants up to $5,000 a month for one to three months; in exceptional cases, we’ll consider longer grants based upon specific proposals. We’ll look for applicants with a proven ability to report and execute a complex project in their proposed medium; ideally, candidates will also have a strong background or reporting expertise on the subject of their piece.

The McGraw Center provides editorial supervision during the Fellowship. We work with the Fellows to develop their projects during the reporting phase and frequently edit the completed stories. We also assist with placing the articles. In some cases, we partner with established print, radio or digital outlets; in others we will publish them as e-books or through the CUNY J-School’s book imprint. The stories also run on the McGraw Center website.

The aim of the McGraw Fellowship for Business Journalism is to support in-depth, ambitious coverage of critical issues related to the global economy and business. In an age when many news organizations no longer have the resources to tackle complex, time-consuming stories, the Fellowships enable experienced journalists to do the deep reporting needed to produce a serious piece of investigative or enterprise journalism.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:  The McGraw Fellowship for Business Journalism is open to anyone with at least five years professional experience in journalism. Freelance journalists, as well as reporters and editors currently working at a news organization, may apply.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Grants are awarded up to $5,000 a month for one to three months

How to Apply: Applicants should submit a well-focused story proposal of no more than three pages through the accompanying online form. Think of it as pitch, much like you would submit to an editor at a newspaper, magazine, digital outlet, or radio station: give us enough preliminary reporting and documentation to demonstrate that the story is solid. The proposal should highlight what’s new and significant about the story, why it matters and what its potential impact might be. The proposal should also note where significant stories on the subject have run elsewhere and how the proposed piece would differ. Applicants should also briefly outline a proposed reporting plan and a timeline for completing the story, and let us know if a media outlet is lined up to run the story.

In addition, applicants should enclose three journalism samples. The samples should be professionally published work that showcases your ability to tackle an in-depth story in the proposed medium. Please also provide us with a resume and references from two editors or others familiar with your work; if that is a problem, please contact us to discuss alternatives.

No budget is required at the time of application, but finalists may be asked to provide an estimated budget or further information on their project at that time.

Visit Fellowship  Webpage for details

Award Provider: The McGraw Center for Business Journalism

Important Notes: Applications will generally be accepted twice a year  — in the spring and the fall. The upcoming spring deadline is May 31, 2017; fall applications will be due November 30, 2017. However, we will consider time-sensitive projects on a case-by-case basis outside of the deadline periods.

Forgotten Americans

Vijay Prashad

Clarity about the the value of government comes through its budget allocations. If there is more money provided for poverty alleviation, for instance, it indicates that the government is compassionate. If there are severe cuts to farm aid, it suggests that the government cares little for the trials of farmers. The government of Donald Trump—in close association with the Republican leadership in the United States Congress—has now provided its template for the budget. A reading of the document—merely 62 pages long—shows that the Trump administration seems to care little for those who suffer and much more for the military and the moneyed. Trump’s rhetoric about helping the “forgotten Americans” seems largely forgotten. Wall Street, the defence industry and the military contractors will benefit greatly from this budget. Those without jobs and who live in poverty will see little relief.

Trump ran for office making the pledge that he would turn his attention to those who had been abandoned by policymaking in Washington, D.C. The language he spoke was drawn from the doctrine of economic sovereignty—that the government should tend to the economic problems of its people before it worries about global problems. Nation-building at home, Trump said to rapturous applause, was more important than nation-building in Afghanistan or Iraq. There is little in this budget that reflects his nation-building-at-home promise. Has Trump abandoned the “forgotten Americans”? In introductory economics classes, students are taught the problems of resource allocation through the metaphor of “guns vs butter”. Governments have scarce resources and they must allocate these resources with care for the priorities of the people. It is necessary to spend some money on the military and the police, but if too much goes in that direction, it will undermine other requirements of society, such as education, health care and programmes for the elderly. A government’s decisions over how much to spend on “guns” impacts on how much remains to be spent on “butter”.

The Trump budget calls for an increase in U.S. military spending by $54 billion. This would lift the total U.S. military spending to $641 billion, edging up to 3.5 per cent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The U.S. far outspends the rest of the world’s states in terms of military spending. China, the next on the list, spends a mere $215 billion, under 2 per cent of its GDP. Added up, the total military spending of the next nine countries after the U.S.—China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France, Japan, Germany and South Korea—approaches the U.S. total. In other words, U.S. military spending was already far above that of other countries, while it is now in another stratosphere entirely. It is important to point out that Russia’s government, in this period, has cut its military budget by 25 per cent, down to roughly $60 billion. This means that Trump’s addition to the U.S. military budget amounts to 80 per cent of the total Russian military budget.

Trump will divert money to the military at the same time as he offers major tax concessions to the wealthy, deregulates business enterprises and cuts sharply on social programmes. The economic team in the administration is entirely staffed by former executives of the major financial behemoth Goldman Sachs—people such as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and head of Trump’s National Economic Council Gary Cohn. These men are driving economic policy, much of it to benefit their own circle of billionaires and financiers. Money to help the American poor with heating costs and with affordable housing will be sliced, just as funding for education, the arts and the humanities will be cut. Regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency will lose their ability to do their jobs. This is what Trump’s adviser called the “deconstruction of the administrative state”. Rural Americans, many of whom drove miles to vote for Trump, will find themselves unable to avail themselves of rural airports and to listen to public radio on rural stations. Money for these initiatives will dry up. More money is spent on the military’s advertising budget than on the government-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Large numbers of government employees will lose their jobs. “Shrink the federal workforce,” says the draft budget. “You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” said Mick Mulvaney, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Senator Bernie Sanders, confronted with this draconian budget, called Trump a “fraud”. “I think he is going to sell out the middle class and the working class of this country,” said Sanders, who had run his primary campaign on the issue of rising social inequality in the U.S.

Cultural sovereignty

Despite an avalanche of negative publicity, Trump’s approval ratings, as reported by the Gallup poll, remain at 42 per cent. This has remained steady despite the chaos in the White House, the report that showed that 24 million Americans would lose their health care with Trump’s new plan, the ridiculous tweets about Barack Obama wiretapping Trump last year, and the catastrophic diplomatic fumbles with Germany and the U.K. None of this has impacted Trump’s followers, who are loyal to the core. What Trump’s team understands is that his supporters need economic support but that they also believe that their fortunes have been undermined by specific groups of people and policies. These include “Mexican illegal workers”, “Indian H-1B workers”, “the Chinese government’s fiscal policy”, and “radical Islamic extremism”. Trump justifies his budget choices not on the basis of rational calculations but on the prejudices of his followers. The main impulse that anchors his budget is “America First”.

In Trump’s preface to the budget document, he writes: “A budget that puts America first must make the safety of our people its number one priority—because without safety, there can be no prosperity.” In other words, the population of “forgotten Americans” must forgo their personal ambitions for that of the nation. It turns out, of course, that the “forgotten Americans” are the largest contributors to personnel in the U.S. armed forces. They have one or more family members in the military and have a personal connection to the idea of a strong military. Whether this helps their family in direct economic terms or not is beside the point. The idea that national strength translates to personal strength is a powerful emotion that cannot be set aside.

Trump’s preface points not only to the increase in defence spending but also to the building of the wall on the Mexican-U.S. border, to the increase of funds for Homeland Security, and to the increase of funds for the police. If economic sovereignty cannot easily be produced, then cultural sovereignty can be afforded to the population. Attacks on those who “do not belong”—illegal immigrants, terrorists, job stealers—become central to the message of the Trump administration. The id to Trump’s ego is Iowa Representative Steve King, who went on television news programmes to tout an unreconstructed racist message. “You cannot rebuild your civilisation with somebody else’s babies,” he said, referring to immigration. “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up and you need to teach your children your values.” No other civilisation, King said, had contributed anything worth studying. “Western civilisation” alone is to be championed. It is sufficient. Such messages of cultural superiority tickle the fancy of a population that will once more be forgotten when it comes to economic policy.

There is an element of raw truth in Trump’s draft budget. He writes that it is “a message to the world—a message of American strength, security and resolve”. A strong military, such a view suggests, would allow the U.S. to threaten its trade partners to resolve trade disputes, such as those over intellectual property rights or currency manipulation, to its benefit. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s threats to North Korea—“all options are on the table”—send a strong message to China. Trump’s comments about a 30-foot-high border wall send a message to Mexico City and Ottawa regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trump’s comments that NATO members “must pay what they owe” and his refusal to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand during a photo opportunity, after she asked him specifically if he would like to shake hands, signify the kind of America First message that Trump wishes to send. In an earlier language, this attitude would have been characterised as “imperialism”. Nowadays, that term is rarely used. Which is largely why there is such confusion over how to understand the Trump agenda.

Tapping Into The Creativity Of The Poor

Moin Qazi

I always believe that people can do wonders, if their energy is channelized and focused on a given task. Tomorrows are made by people. A lesson I learnt early in life is that great leaders don’t teach. They touch and transform. They don’t instruct; they inspire by their conduct and disposition. They help people discover within themselves the strength to find the pathway to the stars.

This lesson kept me in good stead in my rural development journey over four decades .During my early engagement with the poor I trying to relate to them through personal association. My fertile, overheated conscience was stung by my academic reading of the sufferings of people in Latin American countries. Driven by guilt, buried under the weight of my attractive job and haunted by the sight of excruciating poverty every day, I volunteered to spend the weekends off from my office with villagers, trying to make up for the fact that I had so much while they had so little.

The friends whom I consulted before embarking on my rural mission admired my aspiration but moderated my enthusiasm with caveats. “They know a lot more than we do. You can at best learn from them.” “Don’t try to supplant their culture; that will be the greatest disservice.” I initially wrote off these responses as an attempt to unnerve me. Later I realized that these advices were not pure banter.

I put away my books and immersed myself in the rhythms of villages learning from the poor and understanding their problems, trying to see their culture and society through their own eyes. I had to invert everything I’d learned in economics classes. My status as a qualified sociologist was worth zilch. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. That status did make me a little ashamed at my inadequacies, yet it freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life. I was able to turn my ideas into workable goals. The humble beginnings taught me life as only a villager can know. It brought me to terms with the inadequacy of my learning. I realized I had to become part of the villagers’ heartbeat to be in a position to help them.

My exposure to villages came from our home stays. This was known as a ‘night halt’. This was not just a paper fad. The bank’s regional offices monitored these night halts and we were expected to give a monthly report on them. Rural branches were opened in such remote hinterlands that the bank manager was the only literate denizen in some of these desolate islands. We lived the lives of the locals so that we would feel the pain the villagers felt. I remember once a poor woman telling me “Uncle, I will fetch rice from the village headman’s house as what I cook is very dirty. It’s so full of stones you’ll crack your teeth if you eat it.” When I checked the cavernous kitchen, I found her daughter trying to light the damp wood. She fingered the kindling gingerly for fear of the community of scorpions living, loving, and reproducing in the pile.

Once I decided I would remain a permanent creature of the planet of the poor, I started religiously making myself part of the villagers’ beats—interacting with people, speaking their earthy language, rallying the masses for meetings. Without a common language, we communicated through gestures and occasional local words which I had picked up from colleagues. Languages interest me very much—as the basis of communication, and in their own aesthetic right—but I have never been very good at learning them. My lingua franca was Hindustani which is itself a mongrel of two hybrid languages, Hindi and Urdu. In remote villages, I spoke pidgin Marathi. I made very serious efforts to respect linguistic sentiments and tried to avoid mangling any of the culturally rooted modes of communication.

It was only through long and close contact with the poor themselves and through our work with them that we were able to gain a deeper understanding and more balanced view of the local society. In this way, our experience was not that of typical non-governmental organizations (NGO), many of which work from within the confines of the project enclave or are based in urban centres from where excursions are made out into the villages by jeep. Sadly, many NGOs are far removed from the realities of poverty and often fail to reach those most in need. For me, the most surprising discovery was the simple human-to-human connection that let me overcome both linguistic and cultural barriers.

We have to get rid of the pernicious notion that the roots of poverty lie with the poor themselves and that cultural differences are responsible for the gap between less-developed countries and the industrialized West. I found the villagers had many of the same economic needs, beliefs and aspirations as the most capitalist of Westerners. Village craftsmen were keenly interested in profits, and entrepreneurship was in plentiful supply in rural India, having been part of the traditional culture for a millennium.

Now more than ever, it is important to reaffirm that significant advances are attainable for the rural poor, who are a potential source of great wealth and creativity, but who must first and foremost seek their own survival under present institutional, cultural and policy conditions. Their poverty deprives not only themselves but also the rest of us of the greater value they could produce under more conducive circumstances. I feel that the people, who have pioneered the various programmes that have now become models, recognized this potential and sought to evoke it.

We should not forget that poor villagers are not just statistics but people like you and me, and apart from the poverty that they share in common, there is as much variety of humankind among them as anywhere else in the world: the hardworking, the lazy, the shy, the outspoken, the honest, the devious, the intelligent and the dull, the improvident and the enterprising. The people with whom we worked were all of these, though, in my experience, the positive characteristics almost always stood out.

The best approach to local development is to tap into the knowledge already available and think of ways it can be leveraged to achieve a more appropriate, locally useful and sustainable development. Approaches to rural development that respect the inherent capabilities and native    of rural people and that systematically build on experience have a reasonable chance of making significant advances in improving those people’s lives. A critical success factor is creating organizational capabilities at local levels that can mobilize and manage resources effectively for the benefit of the many rather than just the few.

As Verghese Kurien, the father of India’s Milk Revolution repeatedly emphasized: “India’s place in the sun would come from the partnership between wisdom of its rural people and skill of its professionals”

Ice And Busts: The Lost War On Drugs In Australia

Binoy Kampmark

It was hard to tell whether Australia’s Federal Police authorities, along with their Victorian colleagues, were gloating at their latest effort.  Thrilled at the unearthing of a stash of methamphetamine, a form of it colloquially known as ice, trumpeted as the “biggest seizure” in Australian history, there was a sense of achievement. They had gotten one up on the drugs gangs, inflicting a blow to the narcotics trade.  Celebrate!

Such celebrations, however, are misplaced. For one, they seemed to follow similar celebrations in February, when $1 billion worth of liquid methamphetamine, concealed in gel push-up bra inserts, were uncovered.

Do these seizures suggest that the police and various enforcement authorities are gaining the upper hand, or perhaps foot dragging before ever enterprising and novel ways of adding to the narcotics market?

A stash of 903 kg of methamphetamines is certainly a remarkable quantity, secreted in boxes of wooden floorboards in an inconspicuous part of east Melbourne.  “We located 70 boxes of floorboards,” chirped AFP assistant commissioner Neil Gaughan.  In each of them “was concealed between the floorboards two kilograms of methamphetamine.”

But this suggests that there might well be much more, a drugs economy that is thriving in a hot house of high demand.  Even Justice Minister Michael Keenan has conceded this point, noting that Australia has become one of the most lucrative markets for drug trade in the western world.

Tones of scolding severity duly follow when the phenomenon of drugs consumption is examined, notably among the researchers most interested in those habits of gradual yet mesmerising decay. “There is no doubt Australia has a culture, especially among our young people, which does not see the taking of illicit substances or binge drinking as particularly detrimental to the health,” claimed Professor Harvey Whiteford of the University of Queensland in 2013.

The police also annotate such findings with their suspicions about the inner drug devil in many an Australian.  As Detective Chief Superintendent Mick Smith of the New South Wales Drug Squad’s Chemical Operation Unit claims with a Presbyterian fury, “1.3 million people in Australia have tried ice.  Some of your friends and members of your family would have to have tried ice.” The horror, the horror.

Last month, researchers released findings after examining, somewhat unglamorously, wastewater across 51 sites only to find that methylamphetamine was the most consumed illicit drug in the country.  It topped the premier league table of items, beating a range of other contenders such as heroin and cocaine.

For such reasons, this is a battle, if not a poorly described war, that is unwinnable against basic human wishes and market demand.  Experimentation and temptation is all, and the world of testing is becoming more diverse than ever.  Law and medical authorities are desperate to stifle the interest, and are failing.  The central problem is the nagging obsession with drugs as a matter of law and order.

Those participating in the market know this better than anybody else.  Even Gaughan concedes with detectable admiration that the methods of novelty in this case on the part of the drug traders were considerable. (One has to beef up the opposition to show your own efforts are worthwhile.)  “You can appreciate the concealment method used in this particular activity is quite complex, quite unique. It wasn’t something we had seen previously.”  The sentiment is often noted.

The battle against drugs was lost in the United States at enormous cost, becoming a continental affair of devastating consequences to security and welfare.  Other countries, lagging in efforts to legalise certain drugs and attempts to control the narcotics market, find themselves at the losing end. Warring against desire and instinct eventually unravels. The cartels, and those connected with the prison industrial complex, profit.

It is precisely for such reasons that Portugal decriminalised the use of all drugs, whatever their rank of severity, in 2001.  The result?  Portugal has 3 drug overdose deaths for every million citizens.  The EU average, by way of contrast, is 17.3 per million.

In Australia, a few politicians have decided to shift the emphasis.  The Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, himself a former drugs and alcohol doctor, convinced his party in 2016 to abandon absolute opposition to the legalisation of illicit drugs.  “It’s time we recognise this as a health problem not a law and order one.  We have to have an open, honest conversation about this and stop pretending we’re winning this war.”

Whether it is the heavy hand of the law, or some clumsy variant of it, the campaign against drugs is simply going the way of those who cash in on it, a vast sprawl of vested interests.  In the end, the very existence of the police and the enforcement complex thrives on such spectacles, on the illusion of safety and security. As this happens, sickness prevails as the money runs out the door.

In the meantime, lawyers and members of the public will be treated to the picture of overly enthusiastic ministers and police commissioners keen to get the message across that arrests are taking place and drugs seized with dedicated efficiency.  During such a process, the rule of law is bound to take a battering, not least of all the presumption of innocence.  Grainy images of various suspected figures are already doing the rounds through the papers.

The ministers traffic in votes and illusions, and finding drugs provides a false incentive for both.  What is needed, as The Age editorial surmised in November last year, is a policy “in favour of a harm minimisation strategy based on decriminalisation, regulation and education.” Paramilitary approaches should be ditched, and resources channelled into health.  Portugal, not the United States, should be seen as the model here.

Australian teachers’ agreement: The reality behind union “victory” claims

Susan Allan

An in-principle four-year industrial agreement covering public school teachers in the state of Victoria marks another sell-out deal organised by the Australian Education Union (AEU).

Worked out last month with the state Labor government of Premier Daniel Andrews, after twelve months of back-door negotiations, the deal saw the union call off planned industrial action by teachers before it even began. Unlike previous industrial agreements, this one has been finalised without any strike action or mass meeting of teachers. The union aims to prevent any discussion among teachers and ram through the agreement by lying about its contents and claiming it represents a “win” for teachers.

In reality, on every key issue confronting school staff, the AEU and government have worked together to entrench and deepen the assault on the public education system.

Excessive teacher workload will continue, leading to increased teacherstress impacting on overall student learning

Meredith Peace, president of the Victorian branch of the AEU, claims that the agreement addresses “crushing workload” by giving teachers four “Professional Practice Days” a year, supposedly allowing them to catch up with out-of-classroom work while a relief teacher covers their classes.

In the lead-up to the sell-out deal, the union reported that negotiations had hit a sticking point over workload, and were preparing to strike over the issue. Before the ballot for industrial action had even begun, the union announced a “win” on the basis of the new Professional Practice Days. The new measure does not, however, even begin to address intense workload pressures.

Teachers are already working on average 15 hours of unpaid overtime each week. The union’s claims that 7.5 hours time-release each term will resolve the situation is a cynical joke.

The agreement makes no change to face-to-face teaching time, class sizes, nor will it see any extra teachers employed in schools. As the agreement states, the one day release per term from scheduled duties must be negotiated with the principal and be in line with “department and school priorities.” In other words, it remains unclear whether teachers will be able to use their day each term to carry out work that would be of benefit to them and their students.

Insecure employment and contract teaching will continue

In an AEU statement to members, Peace claimed that changes to contract processes will see “thousands of teachers and ES [Education Support] automatically translate to ongoing employment.” Minister of Education James Merlino stated that at least “2,500 teachers and 5,000 Education Support staff would be given certainty moving them from contract to permanent roles.”

In fact, secure employment for contract teachers is not guaranteed in the agreement, and the government has since admitted that the numbers of new permanent roles are merely Department of Education “estimates.” The AEU deal retains explicit statements contained in previous agreements endorsing contracts as “continu[ing] to be necessary.”

The new proposed agreement states that schools “will offer ongoing employment” to eligible teachers, whereas the previous agreement stated that schools “should” offer it. This change in wording, however, will not alter the widespread use of contracts in public schools. Previous sweeping loop-holes that principals have used to avoid transferring contract teachers onto ongoing positions, such as “the employer having good reason” not to, or “predicted declining enrolments” for a school, remain. One in five of all teachers are now on contracts, with 65 percent of graduate teachers on short term contracts in their first five years.

Insecure employment for underpaid Education Support staff will alsocontinue

In a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) information sheet, the AEU states that Education Support (ES) staff that are linked to the Student Support Program (SSP) will be converted into ongoing positions. Student support funding is attached to students with disabilities, and other students requiring additional needs. Presently more than 45 percent of ES staff are on contract.

Again, the devil is in the detail for this supposed “win.” The proposed agreement details that if a student on the SSP leaves the school, or his or her funding is cut, then the ES staff member attached to that student will be dismissed, though now with 12 weeks’ notice rather than 10. Fewer and fewer ES staff are linked to the Student Support Program, with the government continually raising the threshold to either maintain or gain funding for students with additional needs. ES staff will continue to be grossly underpaid and face onerous working conditions, such as being compelled to work five hours straight without any break.

Real wage cuts continue , with Victorian teachers the lowest paid nationally

In a FAQ information sheet, the union states that teachers and ES staff have secured a 3.25 percent annual salary increase with an “increase of 13.7 percent over the course of the agreement.”

This falls far short of the initial 21 percent catch-up increase included in the initial log of claims. The last time Victorian teachers had a wage increase was in October 2015, and under the new agreement the next will be in April 2017. The deal provides no back pay, therefore equating to a wage freeze for more than one year. Victorian teachers will remain at or near the bottom of the wage scale compared with other states. This coincides with Victoria remaining the lowest state for government funding for schools per student, funded at $2,253 less than the national average.

Teacher “performance” monitoring processes will deepen

As with all previous industrial agreements, the union has agreed to government dictates that seek to tie teachers’ “performance” to education department criteria, school priorities and student data, creating the framework for so-called “performance pay” and targeted layoffs.

The proposed agreement deepens this process. As part of a list of union-government “commitments,” the AEU has signed off on electronically-managed and online “performance and development reviews.” Performance reviews were previously discussed and signed off on at the school level, but now the government will have the ability to monitor them centrally.

Another commitment includes a sweeping pledge by the AEU to the “implementation of the [government’s] education reform agenda and contribution to achieving targets.”

A new teaching category has also been created, “Learning Specialists.” In addition to “modelling exemplary teaching practice,” they will use data for "whole school improvement,” and develop “protocols of teacher observation, practice and feedback.” This initiative was first proposed by the AEU, which is effectively seeking to have classroom observations embedded in the industrial agreement. This follows the previous agreement where the union added a new clause allowing teachers’ accused of “unsatisfactory performance” to be sacked within 13 weeks.

AEU rewarded for its sell-out

As a result of its latest betrayal, the union has further entrenched its privileged position within the public education system. Union representatives will now be present during all induction processes for new school employees, union representatives on local consultative committees will be given 16 hours of time-release per year, union state councillors will be given two days paid leave per term, and any employee nominated by the union to attend a union training course will be given five paid days per year.

Whereas the union stands to gain from the proposed agreement, teaching and other school staff, students, and the public education system as a whole, will be worse off if is rammed through.

Teachers should vote “no” to the rotten deal, as the starting point for a coordinated political campaign in defense of the public education system as a whole and for the rights and conditions of teachers and school staff within that system.

Such a fight cannot be undertaken through the AEU. Across the country, the teachers’ unions have helped impose the following “education reforms”: NAPLAN standardised testing, My School, school “autonomy,” a new Year One phonics test, so-called performance reviews, and now the reintroduction of school inspectors in New South Wales some 40 years after their abolition.