Empire’s Aggression On Syria

Farooque Chowdhury

With the pounding of 59 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles on Shayrat airbase in Syria the Empire has widened its aggression in the strategically crucial country. The sounds of destruction announce imperialism’s and aggression, interference and intervention. This is the sound of “peace” imperialism likes to impose on peoples of other countries.

Speaking from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Donald Trump, the US president, branded Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, a “dictator”, and called on “all civilized nations to join” the US “in seeking to end this slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.” He said “as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will in the end prevail.”

But  who  has given the President of America the right to define “dictator”, “civilized nations”, “justice”, “peace” and “harmony”? Is it the “peace and justice”, which have been showered on the Afghan people? Is it the “peace and harmony”, which have been handed out to the Libyan people? Is it not the “civilized nations” – the imperial powers –that carried on acts of armed intervention in Iraq and Libya? The “civilized nations” formulation of arguments is now exposed. None forget the “arguments” formulated by the “civilized nations” prior to their Iraq aggression. Now, the missiles launched from the USS Porter and USS Ross is having their “arguments and logic” in Syria: defending a “vital national security interest”, as Trump has said. It’s the “vital national security interest” of the Empire, not of other countries; and “civilized nations” “should” step forward to defend that “vital national interest”. The Empire is the final investigator and judge as Trump said: “There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons”. Hence, there remains “no” space for multi-national investigations and further arguments. This is imperialist verdict; none to differ!

“Arguments and logic” imperialism relies on and inner-equations that determine imperialism’s path of aggression are also spelled by the missiles-attack on Syria launched from destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Recent developments in Syria and its surrounding region, and within the Empire are evidences of the imperialist logic.

What the other facts and arguments tell?

[1] Following a chemical weapon attack in East Ghouta in Syria in 2013, the Syrian authorities agreed to transfer its chemical weapons to international control for destruction so that these weapons don’t fall into the hands of militants operating in the country. Syria also joined the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons following the chemical weapon attack. The Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said in January 2016 that all chemical weapons in Syria had been destroyed. Those were destroyed on board a US vessel, and were destroyed under UN supervision.

[2] Following US vice-president’s recent claims on chemical weapons in Syria the Russian foreign ministry reminded US that all chemical weapons were taken out of Syria by mid-2014 with US assistance. So, there are “no grounds to claim that the 2013 Russia-US deal did not work out”. Russian foreign ministry’s Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department Director said: The main burden fell on Damascus and Russia. But the US also made important contribution.

[3] Walid Muallem, Syrian foreign minister, said Thursday: The accusations against the Syrian army using chemical weapons make no sense since Damascus has been succeeding in fighting on all fronts. He questioned: In such a context, would it be logical for us to use chemical weapons?

[4] Who shall be the beneficiary of the chemical weapons attack? It’s the opponents of Assad. Shall Assad engage in such act that benefits his opponents?

Doesn’t fairness demand that there should be a multi-national, full-fledged investigation of the reported chemical weapons attack in the vicinity of the Khan Shaykhun settlement in the Idlib province on April 4? The OPCW is in the process of gathering and analyzing information from all available sources. In this context isn’t the US missile attack an imperialist intervention?

The sources of available information on reported chemical weapon attack are the Syrian Observatory and the White Helmets. The Observatory’s capacity to monitor incidents within Syria is questionable. Questions are also being raised about the legitimacy of The White Helmets.

But, it seems, the Empire is always right whatever the source of information are. The Empire is always correct despite its past records false of claims about Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”. Moreover, has the world forgotten the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Other twists are there in the Syria-missile-attack-development.

Only days ago, the White House told “the Syrian people should choose their destiny” and “Assad must go”-policy is over. Similar opinions were expressed by other US senior leaders. What has happened within days that led to the missile attack on the basis of unverified reports?

After the missile attack, it was told that the US had given an advanced warning to Russia about the missile strike. But, later, Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of state, said in a statement: The US did not communicate with Russia either before or after it conducted a missile strike in Syria.

Does this signify anything?

Is there push and pulls by factions within the Empire?

The developments in Syria demand attention as many countries face threat of imperialist intervention. There’s no reason to imagine that country “x” or country “y” is immune from imperialist intervention. Market size, resources to be plundered, geographical location, relations with the world bosses act as factors for imperialist intervention. Imperialist role is forgotten by many while raising voices of opposition.

Rohingya killings expose fraud of Burmese “democracy”

John Roberts

The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva last month adopted a resolution setting up an investigation into serious crimes committed by the Burmese (Myanmar) security forces and nationalist thugs against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine state bordering Bangladesh.

UN reports dating back to early February document accounts of mass killings, rapes and the burning of whole villages in military “clearance” operations. These atrocities began last October after attacks on Burmese border posts, allegedly by Rohingya militants, killed nine security force members. Since then over 70,000 Rohingya have fled into Bangladesh taking the total number of refugees there to over 300,000, in addition to 140,000 internally displaced inside Burma.

UN reports indicate the commission of crimes on a mass scale. UN officials have estimated that at least 1,000 people have been killed and unknown numbers, particularly of males aged 17–45, are missing. Over 200 refugees were interviewed in eight separate Bangladesh refugee camps. The destruction of villages has been confirmed by satellite images.

The extent of the operation indicates that a systematic pogrom organised by the military, with the complicity of the government, is underway and ultimately designed to drive all of the one million Rohingya out of Burma.

The resolution was a rotten compromise worked out among the 47 nations on the UNHRC. Calls by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights in Burma, Yanghee Lee, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, as well as 13 international human rights groups, for a Commission of Inquiry (COI), the UN’s highest level of investigation, were rejected.

Instead the UNHRC adopted a proposal from European Union diplomats for a fact-finding mission, including forensic and sexual violence experts to “urgently” establish facts “with a view to ensuring full accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims.” The resolution is premised on cooperation from the hybrid military-National League for Democracy (NLD) government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the West’s “democratic icon.” The “urgent” investigation will submit an initial report in September and a full report next year.

In her submission of February 24, UN Rapporteur Lee had called for an inquiry to also examine similar military operations in 2012 and 2014, which were largely passed over until the anti-Rohingya drive reached its current intensity.

The aim of the EU diplomats is to cover up the role of Suu Kyi. Lee told journalists last month that the EU leaders wanted to give Suu Kyi more time before a full-scale investigation was launched and initially opposed any inquiry that did not fully involve Burma’s own investigators.

The NLD shares power with the military that exercised a brutal dictatorship over the country for half a century. It took over from military’s United Solidarity and Development Party government last April but key security ministries remain in the hands of the generals.

Both the NLD and the armed forces are steeped in the anti-Rohingya chauvinism that permeates the entire Buddhist Burmese political establishment. The Rohingya, most of whom have been in Burma for generations and have been terrorised and denied citizenship, are officially described as “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh.

The response of the Burmese ruling elite to the March 24 UNHRC resolution has been uniform.

Burma’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, U Htin Lynn, a representative of the foreign ministry that is under Suu Kyi’s direct control denounced the resolution prior to its adoption saying: “We will do what needs to be done.”

The day after the resolution was passed the foreign affairs ministry stated that Burma “dissociated itself from the resolution as whole” and added “an international fact-finding mission would do more to inflame, rather than resolve the issues at this time.”

Suu Kyi, who has previously maintained a stony silence on the Rohingya massacres, explicitly backed the actions of the military in comments to the BBC yesterday. She denied that there was “ethnic cleansing” in Rakhine, and underscored her government's support for the army's operations, stating, “They are free to go in and fight. And of course, that is in the constitution ... Military matters are to be left to the army.”

Suu Kyi’s comments were in line with those of senior military figures in the government. Army strongman General Min Aung Hlaing, who directly controls the ministries of home affairs, defence and border security, condemned any UN intervention into Burma, stating that the Rohingya were “Bengalis” not one of Burma’s nationalities and therefore had no right to remain in Burma.

The arguments at the UNHRC over what type of investigation should take place were not based on any concern for the democratic rights of the Rohingya or any other section of the population. The differences reflected conflicting economic and geo-political interests in Burma.

The installation of the NLD government in April last year was the culmination of a Faustian deal with the generals, sealed in 2011. It was fostered and overseen by Washington under the Obama administration.

The junta needed to get out from under Western sanctions and its economic over-dependence on China. After years of repression, Suu Kyi and the NLD, representing sections of the Burmese elite seeking closer ties and investment from the West, accepted the role of junior partner to the military and provide a “democratic” façade for the hybrid regime.

The arrangement opened up economic opportunities for both sides as Burma was converted into a cheap labour platform and mineral exporter to the West. The Obama administration prised Burma from dependence on Beijing and established ties with the military as part of its strategy of encircling China.

The EU moved quickly to lift economic sanctions after the deal was sealed, forcing a much faster pace of engagement with the NLD regime than many in Washington planned. International finance circles gushed about Burma being a “new frontier” where abundant untapped natural resources and cheap labour offered big profits.

Burma received $US9.4 billion in foreign direct investment in 2015–2016 with EU members Britain, the Netherlands and France high on the list, and the US well back at 35th.

China’s economic preponderance remains. In 2015–16, Singapore was the greatest contributor with $4.3 billion but China was second with $3.3 billion and still Burma’s largest trading partner. Burmese and Chinese officials announced this week that they expect a 771-kilometre oil pipeline from Burma’s Maday Island to southern China to begin operation in May.

The US and its EU allies cynically exploit concerns over “human rights” in Burma and elsewhere to advance their geo-political interests. The inquiry into the military’s atrocities against the Rohingya minority, while limited at present, is a means of exerting pressure on the regime if it fails to toe the line.

Papua New Guinea government intensifies military operations at ExxonMobil plant

John Braddock

The Papua New Guinea government of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill is moving to intensify its massive police and military operation against villagers in Hela province, where the $US19 billion ExxonMobil liquefied natural gas (LNG) is based.

In January, the government deployed 150 troops and police near the ExxonMobil site in response to what it claimed was a spike in tribal violence that had left dozens of people dead. Security forces were ordered to seize and destroy illegal weapons after police raised concerns about a build-up of high-powered guns.

Police Commissioner Gari Baki proposed last month that the government recruit 500 retired ex-servicemen to help enforce “law and order” in Hela. Baki said the former police, soldiers and warders would be on a six-year contract to train new police officers. Baki announced the plan while overseeing the destruction of over 500 firearms, mostly home-made, surrendered by locals during an amnesty that started in January.

Hela Governor Francis Potape admitted that the amnesty, which was extended twice into March, was largely unsuccessful. Police commander Samson Kua told the media on March 7 that hundreds of weapons still remain unaccounted for. Security forces would be ordered to take “tough measures” to recoup the guns and arrest the owners, Kua declared.

The actual purpose of the police-military buildup, which will involve 300 people, including public servants from the law and justice sector, is to protect the giant LNG project, which has been subjected to protests and blockades by traditional landowners.

Chief Secretary Isaac Lupari said securing the LNG site was a “critical” aim of the operation. “We’ve got a very important project that is located there,” he said. “It supports the economy, employs thousands of Papua New Guineans, so we’ve got to restore law and order.”

Construction of the ExxonMobil operation was originally bankrolled by the US Export-Import Bank. The project is viewed as economically vital by the major Wall Street shareholders that have backed it.

In February, the Singapore-based InterOil Corporation announced a $US2.5 billion deal approving ExxonMobil’s acquisition of the company. It includes interests in six licenses covering four million acres of the PNG highlands. One undeveloped gas field, Elk-Antelope, is among Asia’s largest and will be used to vastly expand ExxonMobil’s footprint.

Landowners in Hela are meanwhile still waiting for royalties, development levies and dividends from the project to be paid. In February, more than 1,000 protesters from four villages gathered at the ExxonMobil site to demand the payments, estimated at over 1 billion PNG kina ($A400 million). A spokesman said the government had promised to pay royalties but never kept its promises. It was the second major protest affecting the LNG project. In August 2016, landowners blockaded the entrance to the plant and disrupted gas supplies over the lack of payments.

Michael Main, a PhD student at the Australian National University, told ABC Radio on March 10 that “after four years of operation and windfall profits for the project’s joint venture partners,” the project had “delivered almost nothing of benefit to landowners.”

“In fact,” Main declared, “it has, in important ways, made life worse for the majority of people living in the project area.”

Under the LNG Project Umbrella Benefits Sharing Agreement, signed in 2009, ExxonMobil agreed to pay 700 Kina (US$216) per hectare per year for land occupied by the project. The government promised specific additional development programs, such as road sealing and township development. Landowners were told they could expect, according to Main, “the project to deliver tangible improvements to their lives and to the lives of their children.”

However, during the seven months Main conducted fieldwork in the province, he witnessed “a life of immense frustration, disappointment and palpable anger at the absence of benefits.” “What I encountered was abject poverty situated alongside one of the largest natural gas extraction operations in the world,” he explained.

Rampant corruption is a major issue. Main cited the township of Komo, near the LNG plant, which contained a newly built hospital that stood empty with no beds, no staff and no fuel for its generator. This was one of several “white elephants” built at inflated prices by companies owned by PNG’s politicians. “Promised developments, including road sealing, power supply and schools, had all failed to materialise,” Main said.

The complex clan-based society of the highlands region, with a history of disputes over land and possessions that can be traced back over many generations, has been made worse, according to Main, “by the frustrations of a population hammered by the broken promises of the nation’s largest resource development project.” He described constant outbreaks of fighting by “heavily armed clans, young men gunned down by military assault rifles, and many dozens of houses shot through with holes and razed to the ground.”

Main noted that since the beginning of the ExxonMobil project, PNG’s ranking on the UN’s Human Development Index has fallen by two places to 158, having been overtaken by Zimbabwe and Cameroon. “Far from enhancing development indicators, the largest development project in PNG’s history, has coincided with an unprecedented downgrade in the country’s development status,” he concluded.

PNG still has one of the lowest levels of GDP per capita in the region. Real GDP growth has dropped from 11.8 percent in 2015 to a forecast 2.8 percent in 2017. Government revenue has fallen sharply due to the precipitous decline in global commodity prices. LNG prices are less than half what they were in early 2014. The price in 2016 dropped as low as $US6.45 per million British thermal units (Btu) from a peak of $19.70 in 2014. Asia’s LNG market fared worse than slumping oil markets, plummeting by 67 percent.

The O’Neill government has responded by slashing spending, targeting health and education, by up to 40 percent. Austerity is fueling explosive social antagonisms and anti-establishment sentiment. Sections of the working class are becoming more restive over the government’s vicious attacks on jobs, living standards and basic rights. Early last month, National Civil Registry office workers in Port Moresby stopped work and locked the premises, demanding overdue wages. Workers alleged that they had not been paid for over two years.

The government is increasingly mobilising the police and armed forces to suppress deepening unrest. On March 28, armed police intervened to disperse a large crowd outside the provincial assembly in the East Sepik capital Wewak as Governor Michael Somare, PNG’s first prime minister under formal independence in 1975, was preparing to retire from official politics. The crowd had gathered to demand payments for various projects, activities and past “loyalty” to Somare.

Canada’s Conservatives join with far-right in opposing “anti-Islamophobia” motion

Laurent Lafrance

Canada’s House of Commons adopted late last month a Liberal government-backed motion condemning “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

The motion, M-103, is a pro-forma, non-binding statement of opposition to discrimination and violent attacks targeting Muslims, under conditions where there has been a surge of such attacks, including the Jan. 29 assault on a Quebec City mosque that killed six Muslims.

The Liberals’ decision to champion the motion was a cynical maneuver, aimed at covering up their agenda of militarism, austerity, and hostility to refugees, and, most immediately, their burgeoning alliance with the Trump administration.

The virulent, right-wing campaign against the motion—it passed by a vote of 201 to 91—must, however, serve as a warning. As in the US and Europe, important sections of the ruling class and political establishment are whipping up chauvinism and xenophobia, and allying with extreme-right, fascistic elements, so as to push politics still further right and split the working class.

The Official Opposition Conservatives voted almost en bloc against M-103 and trotted out a series of reactionary and spurious pretexts to justify their opposition. M-103, they claimed, attacks free speech and gives Islam a more privileged status than other religions. Some even said that it represents the first step toward the “Islamization” of Canada.

Hours before the final vote on M-103, dozens of protesters gathered on Parliament Hill. Among them were members of the “Soldiers of Odin”—an anti-refugee group linked to neo-Nazis in Europe. In Canada, as in Europe, the group is known for organizing so-called “street patrols” and for physically assaulting immigrants.

Last Saturday, members of the Soldiers of Odin clashed with counter-demonstrators in downtown Toronto. The far-right group baldly defended its role in a Facebook post, declaring that it had been called upon to provide security for a demonstration by the Canadian Coalition for Concerned Citizens (CCCC), a right-wing, anti-Muslim group, modeled on Pegida, which mounted nationwide protests against M-103 in early March.

While all New Democratic Party and nearly all Liberal MPs supported the motion, 95 out of 97 Conservative MPs voted against it or were absent.

All MPs of the pro-Quebec independence Bloc Québécois (BQ) also opposed M-103. The BQ’s interim leader, Rhéal Fortin, said he couldn’t support the motion because he doesn’t agree with “the idea that there exists a climate of fear and hate” against Muslims. The BQ, like its provincial sister party, the Parti Québécois (PQ), and the Quebec sovereigntist or independence movement as a whole has long promoted anti-immigrant, and particularly anti-Muslim, sentiment.

First proposed by Liberal backbencher Iqra Khalid last December, M-103 was initially debated in parliament in February and subsequently endorsed by the Liberals’ parliamentary caucus. Khalid based her motion on an online “anti-Islamophobia” petition that received some 70,000 signatures. She has reported that she has received numerous death threats, and thousands of sexist and Islamophobic comments since introducing her motion.

The Liberals only decided to champion Khalid’s motion after the Quebec mosque massacre, which was carried out by a 27-year-old Quebec nationalist and self-avowed admirer of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. The massacre came in the midst of a worldwide outcry over Trump’s travel ban targeting people from seven predominantly Muslim countries. In its wake, the Liberals seized on M-103 as a hypocritical maneuver to conceal their growing alliance with the Trump administration and their own anti-immigrant policies, including their refusal to cancel the “Safe Third Country” agreement with the US, which has forced hundreds of asylum seekers to risk their lives by crossing the border “illegally” into Canada.

In Quebec, the political establishment responded to the mosque shooting with hypocritical calls for “unity” and by suggesting that the decade-long, reactionary campaign against “excessive accommodations” to immigrants and religious minorities be toned down. But it didn’t take long for the most chauvinistic section of the elite associated with the Coalition Avenir Québec and the Quebec sovereigntist movement—including the pseudo-left party Québec Solidaire—to renew this campaign. They joined together to denounce a reactionary Quebec Liberal government bill that would ban Muslim women wearing the burqa or niqab from receiving public services, including health care and education, claiming it did not go far enough in restricting minority rights.

The Conservatives’ refusal to oppose Islamophobia, even in such vague and superficial terms as those contained in M-103, was a deliberate appeal to the most chauvinistic and right-wing factions of the ruling class, as well as backward middle class elements.

Conservative MPs legitimized and amplified the arguments of the far right, going so far as to absurdly claim that M-103 would open the door to the introduction of Sharia Law in Canada. Conservative MP and defence critic James Bezan sponsored an e-petition demanding Sharia Law “never have a place in the Canadian Justice System”.

The ongoing Conservative Party leadership contest has accelerated the shift to the right of the Canadian ruling elite’s alternate party of government. Kellie Leitch, a former Harper government minister, has echoed Trump’s anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim appeals with calls for all immigrants and visitors to Canada to be screened for “Canadian values.” Late last month, she took the Conservatives’ opposition to M-103 to its logical conclusion by appearing at a meeting alongside members of the far-right Rise Canada group. Rise Canada rails against the “Islamization” of Canada and “Sharia creep.” Its web site noted that its members had talked with Leitch about “her position on various issues.”

Maxime Bernier, another leadership contender, recently declared that he would deploy the Canadian Armed Forces to prevent refugees crossing the US-Canada border “illegally.”

The Liberal government has no intention of countering the rise of the far right; its policies are, in fact, playing directly into its hands. Prime Minister Trudeau’s support for M-103, along with his “refugee-friendly” posturing, seeks to cover up the Liberal Party’s own responsibility for disseminating anti-Muslim bigotry, including as part of the “war on terror” narrative following 9/11. Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government justified the Canadian participation in the 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan and the clampdown on basic democratic rights within Canada by invoking Islamist terrorism as an ever-present threat to Canadians’ security.

Trudeau adopted a phony pro-refugee pose during the 2015 election campaign, capping it off with a visit to the airport to greet the first plane-load of Syrian refugees to arrive after he took office. But after accepting a mere 40,000 refugees during their first year in office, a significant number of whom were privately sponsored, the Liberals’ true indifference and hostility to towards those fleeing imperialist war and social breakdown has been exposed by their determination to consummate a close working partnership with the Trump administration, the most right-wing in American history. With the backing of the overwhelming majority of the ruling class, Trudeau avoided making any criticism of Trump’s brutal crackdown on immigrants and his discriminatory travel bans during his February 13 trip to the White House.

This polite silence was aimed at ensuring the maintenance of the Canadian ruling elite’s vast economic ties and military-security partnership with the US, both of which are pivotal to the wealth and global geostrategic reach of Canadian imperialism.

Despite growing concerns among legal scholars and refugee advocacy organizations, the Liberals have refused to scrap the reactionary Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which strips most asylum-seekers who enter Canada from the US at an official border checkpoint of the right to even make a refugee claim.

Citing a survey that claimed 97 per cent of asylum-seekers who crossed into Manitoba in recent weeks had spent less than two months in the United States before heading north, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen recently declared that the wave of migrants crossing into Canada is not linked to Trump’s cruel anti-immigrant policies.

Hussen reiterated that the Trudeau government will not suspend the Third Country agreement and would continue to reinforce the border. “If we eliminate that agreement or suspend that agreement, we will have disorder,” said Hussen.

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.