19 Apr 2017

MTNN Graduate Development Programme 2017 for Nigerian Graduates

Application Deadline: 24th May 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
Fields of Study: 
  • Electrical Electronics Engineering
  • Computer Science
  • Computer Engineering
  • Physics Electronics
  • Information  & Communication Technology
  • Telecoms Engineering
  • Mechanical/Industrial Engineering
Type: Job, Other Opportunities
Eligibility: 
Minimum of a second class upper degree (2:1) or HND upper credit from a Nigerian or foreign institution in any of the following field(s) of study above.
Age and Experience
  • Age limit:26 years
  • Must have completed National Youth Service Corps (NYSC)
  • Must be fluent in English
  • Intermediate proficiency level in Microsoft Suite applications
Attributes
  • Customer Focus
  • Fast learner
  • Entrepreneurial thinking
  • Proactivity & self-motivation
  • Willingness to work in any assigned functional area/location
Skills
  • Digitally savvy, result-oriented and innovative
  • Strong numerate and analytical skills
  • Strong inquisitive skills
  • Continuous learning and adaptability to new technologies
  • Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
  • Ability to collect, analyse and interpret complex data
  • Ability to keep up with current developments and trends
  • Excellent relationship-building and teamwork capabilities
  • Ability to prioritize effectively and accept challenging responsibilities
  • Ability to work under pressure
Behavioural Competencies
  • Must exhibit MTN Values of: Leadership, Innovation, Relationships, Integrity, and a Can-Do attitude.
  • Must exhibit MTN Vital Behaviours: Complete Accountability, Get It Done, Active Collaboration, and Complete Candour.
Job Conditions
  • Normal MTNN working conditions
  • Open Plan Office
  • High performance culture
  • Valid international passport
Number of Positions: Not specified
How to Apply: Apply
Award  Provider:  MTN Nigeria

El Salvador Makes History: First Nation to Ban Metal Mining

Ricardo Navarro & Sam Cossar

El Salvador made history last week by becoming the first country ever to ban metal mining.
The success of this decades long struggle is proof that people can take on corporate interests and win.
This is the story of how the people of El Salvador took on mining giants.
Mining has a dark history in El Salvador. Years of unregulated, pro-investor policies coupled with rapid industrialization has led to the widespread contamination of rivers and surface water, poisoning people and destroying farm lands.
Even boiling or filtering the water does not always make it safe to drink. An environmental study showed that the proposed Pacific Rim mine would use 10.4 liters per second, enough to provide water for thousands people.
The dream that failed: mining-led development
Mining was imposed on the Salvadoran people as a dream industry that would aid development, create jobs and taxes to pay for much needed school and hospitals.
The government developed a range of mining friendly policies together with the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) between Central American countries and the US. Signed by El Salvador in 2004, the agreement allowed transnational corporations such as Holcim, Monsanto and Pacific Rim to intensify their operations in the country.
Supported by local ruling elites, these companies began extracting El Salvador’s natural resources for export. Foreign investment increased from US$30 million in 1992 to US$5.9 billion in 2008. Much of this investment was in mining, despite fierce opposition from communities.
El Salvador is a small and densely populated country. Yet by 2012 the government had 22 requests for gold exploration, allowing gold mines to monopolize 4.23% of the land. The appropriation of land for mining often takes the form of land grabbing, with no proper consultation or compensation.
From the start local communities resisted through protests, court cases, meetings and land occupation. A number of communities marched across the country to the presidential palace to demand their rights.
Friends of the Earth El Salvador / CESTA supported community resistance. In 2008 alone, 60 community leaders learned about the impacts of mining and strategies for resistance at CESTA’s Political Ecology School. People started challenging corporate power.
The mining companies respond with violence and murder
Tragically companies responded with violence. The President of Friends of San Isidro Cabañas (ASIC), a hub of anti mining resistance, was murdered, followed by 3 more anti-mining activists, and many more were threatened and harassed. Their families are still demanding justice today.
‘Water is more precious than gold’ became a powerful unifying slogan as the struggle continued. Grassroots coalitions such as the Movement of People affected by Climate Change and Corporations (MOVIAC) and the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining raised the issue of mining to a national level.
Solidarity and shared learnings from movements in Costa Rica, Argentina and Colombia, where partial mining bans have been implemented, were crucial. Friends of the Earth took the El Salvador mining case to the United Nations, in the call for an international treaty on corporations and human rights.
In 2008 the president, Antonio Saca, rejected the Pacific Rim mining project. The project would have led to the use of toxic chemicals including cyanide within 65km of the capital.
Pacific Rim’s response was to sue the government of El Salvador US$301m in a secret trade tribunal. The Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism enabled Pacific Rim to do this, on the basis that they felt their profits were negatively affected by the rejection of their mining application.
Victory is possible!
Yet in this instance, corporate bullying backfired. It garnered wide support against the mining industry. Even politicians with little environmental interest were outraged by this extortionate figure in a country struggling with poverty. El Salvador received a favorable judgment in the case, yet it still had to pay millions in legal fees.
The Catholic Church, an important institution in El Salvador, began actively advocating for a ban on mining. At Sunday masses across the country priests preached the need to protect the natural world and collected signatures petitioning the government.
When the vote came to parliament last week, except for a few abstentions the vote was unanimous: El Salvador voted for a total ban metal mining to protect its people and environment.
As El Salvador celebrates, the fight for a more just and sustainable world is not over. But we can move forwards with hope, in the knowledge that ordinary people working together can change the world.

When Daesh is Defeated: Who Will Fill the Intellectual Vacuum in the Arab World?

Ramzy Baroud

Back in the Middle East for a few months, I find myself astounded by the absence of the strong voices of Arab intellectuals.
The region that has given rise to the likes of Michel Aflaq, George Habash, Rached al-Ghannouchi, Edward Said and numerous others has marginalized its intellectuals.
Arab visionaries have either been coopted by the exuberant funds allocated to sectarian propaganda, been silenced by fear of retribution, or are simply unable to articulate a collective vision that transcends their sects, religions or whatever political tribe they belong to.
This void created by the absence of Arab intellectuals (reduced to talking heads with few original ideas, and engaged in useless TV ‘debates’) has been filled by extremist voices tirelessly advocating a genocidal future for everyone.
It is no secret that Arabs and Muslims are by far the greatest victims of extremism.
Strange as this may sound, religious scholars seem more united in countering the voices that hijacked religion to promote their dark political agendas.
Yet despite repeated initiatives, cries of Muslim scholars who represent majority of Muslims worldwide have garnered little media attention.
For example, in June 2016, nearly 100,000 Muslim clerics in Bangladesh signed a religious decree (Fatwa) condemning the militant group, Daesh.
Such Fatwas are quite common, and many thousands of Arab Muslim scholars have done the same.
Although hardly popular among Muslims in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and the rest of the world, somehow Daesh came to define Islam and all Muslims in the eyes of the West.
The debate in Western media and among academics remains futile, yet pervasive – while the Islamophobes are eager to reduce Islam to Daesh, others insist on conspiracy theories regarding the origins of the group.
Much time is wasted in this demoralizing discussion.
The roots of extremism cannot be found in a religion that is credited with uplifting Europe from its Dark Ages to an era of rational philosophy and the ascendency of science.
Thanks to Muslim scientists during the Islamic Golden Age, Alchemy, mathematics, philosophy, physics and even agricultural methods were passed from the Arabs – Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Persian scholars – to medieval Europe beginning as early as the 12th Century and lasting for hundreds of years.
The developed Arab Muslim city states in Al-Andalus, Spain, was a major gate through which Muslim knowledge gushed into western Europe, affecting a continent then sustained by endless wars and superstitions.
Fortunes had indeed turned with the fall of Granada in 1492. Massacres of Arabs and Jews in Spain ensued, extending for hundreds of years. It was then that many Jews sought a safe haven in the Arab world, continuing a period of relatively peaceful co-existence that remained in place until the mid-20th Century.
While times had changed, the essence of Islam as a religion remained intact.
In the hands of scholars and intellectuals, Islam influenced much of the world. In the hands of Daesh ‘scholars’, Islam has become exploited, offering bloody fatwas and humiliating and enslaving women.
Islam has certainly not changed, but the ‘intellectual’ has.
Most of the answers we continue to seek about Daesh often yields little meaning simply because the questions are situated in American-Western priorities.
We insist on discussing Daesh as a question of Western security, and refuse to contextualize the emergence of Daesh in US-Western interventions in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen.
It seems that extremists (whether Daesh, al-Qaeda or others) are almost always linked to Western military ‘areas of operations’ in the Middle East. Extremism thrives in places in which strong central powers are lacking or have no political legitimacy and popular support, leaving the door wide-open for foreign interventionists.
Yemen had no strong central power for many years, neither did Somalia, nor recently, Libya and Mali. It was no surprise that these places are dual victims of extremists and interventionists.
Foreign interventionists often cite ‘fighting extremism’ to further justify their meddling in other countries’ affairs, thus empowering extremists, who use interventions to acquire more recruits, funds and self-validation.
It is a vicious cycle that has occupied the Middle East since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That relationship – between foreign interventions, ensued chaos, and extremism – is often missing in Western media discourses.
But here in the Arab world the challenge is somewhat different.
In recent years, the ‘marketplace of ideas’ has shrunk to the point that what remains is an alternative marketplace in which the ‘intellectual’ is bought and sold for a negotiable price.
It is quite common that an editor of a newspaper can use his publication to serve as a mouthpiece for a Middle Eastern party, before he changes his loyalty to other competing parties.
It all depends on who pays more.
Many once-promising intellectuals are now victims too, acting as mere mouthpieces.
There were times in which Arab intellectuals fought to articulate a unique narrative – a combination of nationalist, socialist and Islamic ideologies that had tremendous impact on the Arab individual and collective.
Even if the offshoots were sometimes populist movements centered around an individual, or a ruling party, the Arab intellectual movement that emerged during the anticolonial and postcolonial struggles remained relevant, vibrant and massively consequential.
The setback following the upheaval of the 2011 revolts, uprisings and civil wars, has led to massive polarization. Many Arab intellectuals fled to the West, were imprisoned or opted to remain silent.
Pseudo-intellectuals, however, were readily co-opted, selling their allegiances to the highest bidder.
This intellectual vacuum allowed the likes of Daesh, al-Qaeda and others to fill the space with their agendas.
True, their agendas are dark and horrific, yet they are rational outcomes at a time when Arab societies subsist in despair, when foreign interventions are afoot, and when no homegrown intellectual movement is available to offer Arab nations a roadmap towards a future free from tyranny and foreign occupation.
Even when Daesh is defeated on the ground, its ideology will not disappear; it will simply mutate, for Daesh is itself a mutation of various other extremist ideologies.
Neither the Westernized Arab intellectual, nor the co-opted local one is capable of filling the empty space at the moment, leaving room for more chaos that can only by filled by opportunistic extremism.
This is not a discussion that can be instigated by Western universities or state-sponsored Arab media for these platforms will impose a self-serving narrative doomed to prejudice the outcomes.
It is fundamentally an Arab discussion that must be generated by free Arab thinkers – Muslim and Christians alike. It is the birth of that movement that will begin to imagine an alternative future for the region.
Seemingly wishful thinking? I think not. Without such intellectual renaissance, the Arabs will remain hostage to two choices: to remain lackeys to Western powers or hostage to self-serving regimes.
And both options are not options at all.

A Turkey Divided by Erdogan Will Become Prey to Its Enemies

Patrick Cockburn

What critics claim is the openly fraudulent Turkish referendum ends parliamentary democracy in the country and gives President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dictatorial powers. The most unexpected aspect of the poll on Sunday was not the declared outcome, but that the ruling AKP (Justice and Development Party) allegedly found it necessary to fix the vote quite so blatantly.
The tightness of the final outcome of the referendum – 51.4 per cent “yes” to the constitutional changes and 48.59 per cent voting “no” – shows that the “no” voters would have been in the majority in any fairly conducted election.
Late on election day the head of the Electoral Board overseeing the process decided that votes not stamped as legally valid, numbering as many as 1.5 million, would be counted as valid, quite contrary to the practice in previous Turkish elections. An even cheekier ploy was to announce that cities with large Kurdish populations in south-east Turkey, where Erdogan’s security services have brutally crushed dissent, had swung in his direction.
These possible signs of fraud come in addition to the detention of journalists, MPs and activists and the takeover or closure of almost 150 media outlets. Some 145,000 people have been detained or arrested and a further 134,000 sacked for alleged links to the attempted military coup on 16 July 2016 which is the excuse for a purge in which anybody suspected of dissent is targeted as “a terrorist”. Erdogan already holds arbitrary power under a state of emergency under which parliament, the judiciary and other power centres will be brought under the full control of “an executive presidency”.
All of this will be familiar to anybody familiar with the toxic politics of one party or monarchical states anywhere in the world. Syrian elections to this day and Iraqi elections up to 2003 invariably returned overwhelming majorities in favour of their regimes and some found it a mystery why their rulers bothered to hold a vote at all. The answer was that the vanity of autocrats is bottomless and they want to see reports in their state-controlled media that they and their policies are the people’s choice. A subtler and more menacing message is to demonstrate their ability to force their people to perform an electoral kow-tow as a demonstration of raw power and to show the world who is in charge.
In the past foreign observers have often made the mistake of thinking that Turkey was similar to Middle East states. In reality, it was a much more modern state closer in its political history to the countries of southern Europe. There were military coups and military rule, but there were also real elections and powerful parliaments. There was a sophisticated and influential media and an intellectual energy in Turkey superior to most countries in Europe. It is this that is now being eliminated as Turkey becomes yet another member of the corrupt and tawdry club of Middle East autocracies.
The manipulation of the referendum results, claimed by the opposition, is in sharp contrast to the conduct of past Turkish elections which were generally fair. Parts of the process remained legitimate, as witness the majority of “no” votes Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, the three biggest Turkish cities. This was an encouraging show of independence by voters and their representatives in the face of relentless pressure from the authorities to vote “yes”. No act of revenge is too petty or cruel: In one case an opposition MP, who denounced the “yes” voters, found that in retaliation his 88-year-old mother had been discharged from a hospital where she had been under treatment for two-and-a-half years.
Opponents of Erdogan are taking comfort in the thought that a “stolen” election will not legitimise his rule and can be challenged in the courts. But people in the business of establishing authoritarian rule and taking over the judiciary are not going to be deterred by such quibbles. In addition, the leaders of opposition political parties are incompetent, rendered ineffective by state persecution or, as in the case of the pro-Kurdish HDP, in jail awaiting long sentences.
The narrowness and dubious nature of Erdogan’s electoral “success” is unlikely to make him more conciliatory and, going by his actions after failing to get the majority he wanted in a general election in 2015, he will become even more aggressive in stamping out opposition. He is already proposing to bring back the death penalty which scarcely argues any appetite for compromise on his part. Resistance to his rule, deprived of any effective legitimate vehicle for protest through parliamentary politics, may become more violent, but he can use this to demonise all dissent as “terrorism”.
Yet it will be difficult for Erdogan to stabilise his country because he has previously specialised in provoking crises, such as the Kurdish insurgency since 2015 or Turkey’s role in the war in Syria, which supposedly necessitate a strong leader such as himself.
Authoritarian rulers often get away with such justifications for their monopoly of power, particularly if they have full control of the media in their own country. They can deal with domestic opponents by unleashing the security arm of the state against them. The real danger to their rule is when their foreign and domestic enemies combine against them.
Erdogan tried to whip up Turkish nationalist feeling during the election campaign, by carefully-staged theatrical rows with the Netherlands and Germany. But Turkey is surrounded by many actual or potential enemies – Syrian, Kurdish, Iranian, Russian – who see how easy it will be to exploit and exacerbate the country’s hatreds and deep divisions.

BMW autoworkers strike in Britain against decimation of pensions

Robert Stevens

Thousands of workers at BMW-owned auto plants in the UK are striking today for 24 hours in opposition to the planned closure of the company’s final salary pension schemes.
The strikes were called by the Unite union, which says that the plans to close the company’s current pension scheme could see the retirement benefits of workers being slashed by up to £160,000.
The strike is the first by BMW’s British workforce. In a ballot result announced last month, workers across the company’s four manufacturing plants voted by 93 percent in favour of strikes on a turnout of 72 percent.
BMW’s Mini model is manufactured at the Cowley plant in Oxfordshire and the Swindon site, Rolls-Royce cars at Goodwood, West Sussex, and engines at the Hams Hall facility near Birmingham.
BMW plans to end its two defined-benefit pension schemes this June and move all workers over to an inferior defined-contribution pension scheme. This has been in the pipeline since at least 2014, when new starters at the company were hired on the basis of accepting the inferior scheme. The same attacks were imposed on new starters at BMW’s German plants.
This attempt to slash pension benefits is being carried out by a giant transnational firm, which recorded revenues of €94 billion (£100 billion) in 2016 and made more than €9 billion (£7.8 billion) in pre-tax profits in 2015.
Unite did everything possible to prevent any strikes. On February 20, General Secretary Len McCluskey met four senior BMW managers from its European and British operations at the Cowley plant in what Unite described as “a bid to avert industrial action by the workforce.” McCluskey declared, “[T]here is a viable alternative proposal on the table [from Unite] which would resolve this dispute and avert a damaging strike.”
On March 29, just prior to its strike ballot closing, Unite staged a stunt in front of BMW’s headquarters in Munich, Germany, handing in a petition to the company. Unite’s main complaint was that the company would not “negotiate seriously,” and talk about the “affordable options,” which Unite was offering to “keep the scheme open.”
Throughout the so-called negotiations, BMW refused to back down, determined to bring in the changes without modification. It is intent on robbing its workforce of billions of pounds of pension benefits in order to compete against its rivals and protect its rising profits.
Despite this intransigence, McCluskey continued to sow illusions that a settlement to the benefit of its members was still possible. “I urge BMW to step back from its May deadline for the pension scheme’s closure and negotiate seriously to find a settlement which is good for the business and good for the workforce,” he said.
BMW was emboldened to launch its latest attack because of Unite’s previous collaboration in ensuring that new starters were forced onto the inferior scheme in 2014. At the time, Unite was fully aware of the company’s objective, saying, “In our experience moves to close pension schemes to new entrants always end with an attack on existing employees’ pensions. Workers fear that this move by BMW is just the thin end of the wedge.”
Unite made a token threat of strike action, declaring it would “not stand idly by” if the company carried out its plans. Despite this posturing, the union did nothing and the firm successfully imposed its scheme in 2014.
In this latest dispute, BMW workers are not being called out in an all-out strike by Unite, but for eight separate 24-hour stoppages. Different plants will be striking on different days. Even the days Unite has chosen for strike action during April and May are designed to cause the least disruption to BMW’s operations.
At the Mini plant in Cowley, five days of strike action are scheduled, yet two of these will take place on Sundays. The assembly line at Mini only operates from Monday to Friday. Saturdays and Sundays are used for other work, including maintenance.
Since 2001, when BMW took over the Mini brand, Unite has formed a pro-business partnership with the company, under which workers have been fired at will and backbreaking productivity imposed.
In 2009, there was a major rebellion at the plant in Cowley when hundreds of workers denounced union officials over their collaboration in the sacking, with no notice, of 850 mainly agency staff. This followed a BMW edict cutting production from three shifts over seven days to two shifts over five days.
At a meeting videoed by a number of workers on their phones, employees angrily denounced Unite officials and threw food at them. One worker stood up to denounce Unite and demand it return the union dues the sacked workers had paid in.
In 2011, a further 80 job losses as part of more-flexible shift patterns were imposed. A union representative justified the cuts on the basis that “BMW...are in a volatile market and it is a supply and demand issue.”
The attack on pensions has been taking place throughout private industry, with companies pilfering billions of pounds, which workers have paid into their pension pots. BMW’s move follows that by Royal Mail, which was privatised in 2013, and which announced recently that its pension scheme was no longer “affordable.” Over the last year, announcements ending defined-benefit pension schemes in Britain were made by Tata Steel UK, by high street retailer Marks and Spencer and by the US multinational Honeywell.
If any worker remains unconvinced about Unite’s role as a facilitator of BMW’s pension diktats—despite its occasional bouts of hot air—one need only look at its record at Tata Steel.
In January, Unite and the two other unions in the steel industry, Community and GMB, agreed on a sellout deal for the steel conglomerate to close their defined-benefit pension scheme to new accruals. Workers were asked to accept it with a gun held to their head—on the basis that if they didn’t, their already threatened jobs would be lost. Faced with this ultimatum, they reluctantly voted for the defined-contribution scheme.
No guarantee was made that the existing £15 billion British Steel Pension Scheme would be supported and not end up in the state-run Pension Protection Fund. If this happens, Tata steel workers enrolled in it face losing fully 10 percent of their retirement savings.
In return, the company made a worthless “guarantee” that it would keep open blast furnaces at its Port Talbot plant in Wales and invest just £1 billion over a 10-year period and “seek to avoid compulsory redundancies for five years.” This is no way rules out forced job losses because Tata is able to cite worsening trade conditions further down the line to lay off workers. It also allows the trade unions to collaborate with Tata on their favoured means of imposing jobs losses—via “voluntary” redundancies.
In order to prosecute a successful struggle, workers at BMW must fight for the closest unity with auto workers at other plants in Britain—including those employed at Vauxhall and Nissan—and with those in BMW plants in Europe and internationally who face the same attacks. Forging this unity is inseparable from workers taking the struggle out of the hands of the trade unions, which have repeatedly demonstrated their role as a loyal arm of management.

White House divided on future of Paris climate agreement

Daniel de Vries 

Debate is raging within the Trump administration over whether to carry through on the president’s campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord. Both camps are offering reactionary prescriptions in order to ensure that immediate corporate profit interests remain unimpeded by any genuine effort to confront the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.
Trump aides abruptly canceled a meeting of top advisors scheduled for Tuesday, at which officials hoped to arrive at a consensus approach toward the Paris accord. Trump will reportedly decide the future of US involvement in the pact in advance of next month’s G7 summit in Italy.
The Paris agreement, inked in December 2015, requires the more than 190 signatory countries to submit voluntary goals for slowing the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Defenders of the pact often hail it as the capstone achievement of Barack Obama’s environmental agenda. French President Francois Hollande at the time called it “a major leap for mankind,” while former prime minister of Britain David Cameron triumphantly proclaimed, “We’ve secured our planet for many, many generations to come.”
Yet the discussions inside the Trump administration—led by a man who has tweeted that global warming is a concept “created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”—explode that myth that Paris was any sort of landmark agreement to forestall climate change.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are the leading voices advocating for the US to remain a party to the agreement. Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, backed it during his confirmation hearing in January, explaining, “We’re better served by being at that table than by leaving that table.”
Since then, a growing number of fossil fuel interests have entered the fray urging Trump to remain in Paris. Administration officials have met with many of the top energy companies and industry groups in recent weeks. Tillerson’s successor at ExxonMobil, Darren Woods, signaled his support in February, calling the agreement “an effective framework for all countries to address rising emissions.” Rival oil giants Shell and BP have also voiced support.
Likewise, three of the nation’s top coal producers, Peabody, Arch and Cloud Peak, signaled their support for remaining in the agreement. They hope to use US involvement to support investments in coal technology, including the capture and storage of carbon emissions. The support from major coal, oil and gas conglomerates underscores that Paris is no threat to their profits, but rather insulates them and their sponsor governments from pressure for the far-reaching measures to cut emissions in line with the speed scientists warn is necessary to prevent catastrophe.
The “remain” strategy is coupled with a proposed weakening of the voluntary targets set by the Obama administration for greenhouse gas reductions. Obama pledged to achieve 26 to 28 percent reduction in 2025 compared to 2005 levels. Just three months into the Trump administration, many observers have given up hope that the US can meet even this extremely modest target.
There are no penalties embedded in the Paris agreement for revising or missing the goals set by each country. There is concern, however, that withdrawing from the agreement outright could enable countries that tax carbon pollution to place environmental tariffs on imports from the US.
Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt have emerged as the most prominent opponents of the Paris accord within the administration. Pruitt remarked on Fox News last week, “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030. We front-loaded all our costs.”
Pruitt, who refuses to recognize that climate change is primarily driven by human activity, notably did not object to the nature of the agreement so much as a perceived disadvantage relative to potential competitors, especially China. This is, in fact, the main concern for both sides of the debate within the administration, and for that matter, the Democrats as well, despite differing conclusions.
The big energy companies are also not universal in their support for remaining in Paris. Harold Hamm, the billionaire CEO of hydro-fracking giant Continental Resources and link between Pruitt and Trump, bitterly opposes the climate agreement. A collection of ultra-right and libertarian think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity, which Trump has relied upon thus far to formulate his environmental agenda, also oppose remaining.
Regardless of who wins the debate on the fate of US involvement in the Paris climate change agreement, the intent of the Trump administration is to further subordinate the interests of humanity to an increasingly reckless capitalist elite.

America’s longest war drags on in Afghanistan

James Cogan

The US national security advisor, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, was in Afghanistan over the weekend, speaking with President Ashraf Ghani and General John Nicholson, the US military commander in the country. The aim of the talks, the Military Times reported prior to McMaster’s arrival in Kabul, was to “assess whether more military personnel are needed to break the stalemate there.” In February, Nicholson had told a US Congressional hearing that he needed thousands more troops.
McMaster’s visit follows a raft of reports showing that the term “stalemate” vastly downplays the situation. More than 15 years after the US launched its war in Afghanistan, the insurgency against the US-backed government in Kabul and its puppet masters in Washington is gaining the ascendancy. The conflict is by far the longest war in which the United States has ever been involved.
US imperialism and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, on the basis of false allegations that the Islamist Taliban government had collaborated with Al Qaeda in carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The 9/11 atrocities were the pretext for the US to achieve its ambition of a military footprint in Central Asia. As well as Afghanistan being close to oil and gas-rich Central Asian republics to the north, it borders Iran to the west, China to the east and the Indian subcontinent to the south.
The invasion and overthrow of the Taliban took a matter of weeks. An American client state was installed in the capital Kabul with the venal blessing of the United Nations in December 2001. The US military set about transforming the dual-runway airfield in Bagram, in central Afghanistan, into one of its largest bases in the world.
What the American establishment had not anticipated was that by 2003–2004, it would face expanding armed resistance to the foreign occupation by large sections of the Afghan population, especially in the majority ethnic Pashtun provinces bordering Pakistan’s volatile tribal northwest region. By 2008–2009, the fighting was so intense that it led to the Obama administration’s “surge,” which boosted US troop numbers in the country to over 100,000 by 2011, alongside more than 30,000 troops from NATO states and other countries, and thousands of “contractor” mercenaries.
Today, the occupation force has been reduced to 8,400 American military personnel, barely 5,000 NATO troops and some 26,000 mercenaries. The fighting, however, has again reached dimensions that rival those of six years ago.
The Taliban published a map last month showing the areas it controls or is on the verge of controlling. Out of 349 districts, the Taliban claims to fully control 34 and to be “contesting” a further 167. Apart from major cities, the Kabul government exerts next to no authority in the southwest region bordering Pakistan. Entire swathes of the country’s north, including the rural areas around the major city of Kunduz, are also in insurgent hands.
A February report by the US government’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) verified the Taliban’s claims. SIGAR estimated that the insurgency “controls, contests or influences” at least 171 districts and the Kabul government had authority over no more than 52 percent of the country.
Other reports estimate the government’s control to be higher, at between 57 and 62 percent, but there is no question that its grip is crumbling.
In comments this month to USA Today, the Afghan ambassador to the US, Hamdullah Mohib, revealed that the US-trained and equipped Afghan military and police suffered a staggering 29,000 dead and wounded in 2016 alone. Tens of thousands of troops have deserted. As many as 30,000 members of the nominally 200,000-strong Afghan Army may be “ghost” soldiers—they exist only on paper and their pay is taken by corrupt officers and officials.
The dominant force in the insurgency remains the Taliban and the allied Haqqani network, which have fought the occupation since 2001. In recent years, small groupings in Afghanistan have declared their allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its “caliphate” in the Middle East.
A few hundred ISIS supporters in eastern Afghanistan were the ostensible target of the first-ever use in combat of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) conventional bomb on April 13. Unknown numbers of alleged fighters and civilians were killed in the horrific firestorm created by the MOAB detonation.
While clearly intended as an international warning to Syria, Iran, Russia, North Korea and China of American ruthlessness, the use of the MOAB also signalled that the US military will use all the means at its disposal to try to push back the Afghan insurgency.
The prospect of a strategic defeat in Afghanistan is playing into the growth of US rivalries and tensions with Russia. With growing stridency, American military and strategic figures are making provocative accusations that the Russian government of President Vladimir Putin is supporting the Taliban in order to undermine the Kabul government and the US position in the country.
Russia, while acknowledging it maintains communication lines to the Afghan insurgents, has rejected the US allegations that it is giving weapons or equipment to the Taliban. In March, its foreign ministry labelled the claims as “fabrications designed to justify the failure of the US military and politicians in the Afghan campaign.”
Russia sponsored a third conference on April 14—involving Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Central Asian states and the Afghan government—on how to develop talks between Kabul and the Taliban. Moscow is asserting that its main objective is to try to bring about some type of peace settlement that ends the conflict and its destabilising impact on the entire region.
The Trump administration refused to participate, declaring that the conference was an attempt by Russia to “assert influence,” and that the motives of other participants were “unclear.” Instead of attending, the US dropped the MOAB bomb on the eve of the talks. Over the weekend, General McMaster not only clearly implied that Russia was an obstacle to defeating the Taliban “on battlefields,” but so was Pakistan.
The Taliban also refused to take part in the conference, issuing a statement that the precondition for peace negotiations with Kabul was the total withdrawal from Afghanistan of all US and foreign forces.
At this stage, the Trump administration has not announced any additional American troop deployments to Afghanistan.

Snap UK general election called amid continuing Brexit crisis

Chris Marsden

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Theresa May announced her government’s intention to hold an early general election. If two-thirds of MPs vote today to accept abrogating the recent provision for fixed five-year terms in office, parliament will end all business on May 2 and a ballot will take place on June 8.
May’s surprise decision gives a measure of the escalating crisis of British imperialism in the aftermath of the narrow 51.9 percent vote to leave the European Union in last June’s referendum. Since that time, May, who supported the “Remain” camp, has led her party while at the beck and call of the pro-Brexit forces within it based on the constant assertion that “Brexit means Brexit.” But her hard-line pose has never successfully concealed, let alone mended, the deep divisions within the ruling class. Instead, she has been pushed into threatening a “hard Brexit,” including the UK’s exclusion from the Single European Market.
With 44 percent of UK exports bound for Europe and London’s position as a finance centre dependent on access to the continent, the other major parties have generally combined demands that a “hard Brexit” be avoided at all costs with a threat to block any negotiated deal that does not maintain access to the single market.
As a result, May is in a much-weakened position in her negotiations with the EU, reflective of the declining global weight of the UK itself.
In her brief statement announcing the snap election, May castigated the Labour Party for threatening “to vote against the deal we reach,” the Liberal Democrats for threatening to “grind the business of government to a standstill,” the Scottish National Party for its intention to vote against legislation formally repealing Britain’s EU membership, and unnamed “unelected members of the House of Lords.”
All were denounced for betraying the “national interest” at “this moment of enormous national significance,” with May demanding an end to all dissent in a way that earned her several comparisons with Turkish President Erdogan.
The central conceit of May’s speech was that “[t]he country is coming together, but Westminster is not.”
This is a lie. In the first instance, divisions in Westminster reflect those within the ruling class that continue to deepen. These, in turn, are an expression of the growing national antagonisms that first gave rise to the Brexit referendum. May hoped to answer her detractors by forging an alliance with President Donald Trump, whose own embrace of Brexit was bound up with his “America First” protectionism and undisguised hostility to the EU as a German-led trade rival to the United States.
This backfired, as Berlin and Paris met Trump’s challenge with their own hard-line response. The week leading up to May’s announcement saw her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, humiliated as the European powers rejected US-dictated demands at the G7 summit for additional sanctions against Russia, while Moscow poured scorn on Britain as an irrelevance without an independent position.
Finally, and most importantly, no leading politician, least of all May, can speak honestly about the huge social tensions that gave rise to the unexpected “No” vote in last June’s referendum. A significant section of the most exploited and oppressed workers defied all appeals to support EU membership by then-Tory leader David Cameron, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, the Trades Union Congress, the City of London, then-President Barack Obama and every EU head of state.
May calculates that she can exploit anti-EU sentiment to ensure electoral victory. Her working hypothesis is that the government’s slim working majority of 17 will grow to as many as 200 due to a collapse in support for Labour, as foreseen in opinion polls giving the Tories a staggering lead of as much as 21 percentage points. However, this is a high-risk gamble based on the recognition that the underlying opposition to austerity cuts and social devastation can find no progressive expression.
Corbyn offers no genuine alternative to the Tories. He has spent the past year doing all he can to disappoint the millions who looked to him to reverse Labour’s rightward trajectory, handing the initiative to the Blairites, who are now once again discussing his removal or the formation of an alliance with the Liberal Democrats.
Given the extreme instability and combustibility of the situation in Europe and globally, the seven weeks between now and June 8 is, in political terms, a long time. The political landscape on which the current polls are based could be transformed by the time of the snap election.
In its editorial on the election, the Guardian baldly declares: “Britain does not need, and its people are not demanding, this general election. There is no crisis in the government. Mrs. May is not losing votes in the Commons. The House of Lords is not defying her. No legislation is at risk. There is no war and no economic crisis. Brexit is two years away. The press are not clamouring for an early election. The government has not run out of ideas. The opposition is not ready.”
No war and no crisis?
Domestically, the May government confronts an increasingly restive working class, while it has set itself on a collision course with the Scottish National Party, which is demanding a second independence referendum, and with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic in the south, which have mooted their own vote on Ireland’s unification.
Just one month before the planned UK election, France will hold the second round of its presidential election, in which it is expected that Marine Le Pen, leader of the fascist National Front, will likely contest the EU’s favoured candidate, Emmanuel Macron of the Socialist Party-splinter group En Marche!, or possibly Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the nominally left “Unsubmissive France.” Either outcome would have the impact of politically polarising the whole of Europe, with entirely unpredictable consequences for the UK.
Most important of all, events in Britain are unfolding at a time of a build-up to a possible US war against North Korea and unending anti-Russian propaganda. May’s announcement was overshadowed by the outpouring of threats against Pyongyang by Washington, with Vice President Mike Pence declaring that “the era of strategic patience is over.”
Publicly, the UK has positioned itself as the most steadfast ally of Trump. But the day before her election announcement, May’s office let it be known that she had opposed the statements by US defence chiefs that they are confident they can “utterly destroy” North Korea’s nuclear sites. A Number 10 source said, “We’ve been here before... We are urging restraint on military action.” Another senior government source added, “It feels like the Cuban missile crisis all over again. Thirteen days to Armageddon.”
Such warnings from the UK will count for little in Washington. But they point to the grave dangers facing the world’s people.
The central issue posed in any election is to raise the political consciousness of the working class to the level demanded by the deepening crisis of global capitalism. This means rejecting all attempts to corral workers behind one or another faction of the ruling class in what is presented as a “second referendum” on Brexit, and proceeding instead on the basis of understanding the full import of world events.
It is less than a decade and a half since a government and a prime minister with far greater popular support than May’s Tories, Tony Blair’s Labour, was politically destroyed as a result of an eruption of mass anti-war sentiment. In this election, the Socialist Equality Party will utilise every opportunity to explain the necessity of constructing the socialist leadership required to defeat the government’s undeclared agenda of austerity, militarism and war.

Obama, Trump, and Abiding Authoritarianism in Egypt

Derek Verbakel


On 3 April, US President Donald Trump hosted the first ever visit of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to the White House. Many observers have characterised Trump’s praise of el-Sisi's authoritarian governance as engendering a significant policy shift from the more liberal administration of former US President Barack Obama. Yet, others have anticipated a mere extension of Washington’s longstanding pursuit of its perceived interests through supporting repressive regimes in Egypt. 

This prerogative is less obscured by sophistry and indeed clearer in Trump’s conduct, and there are some differences in how the two administrations have engaged with and been perceived by Egyptian governments. Still, broadly, the Trump administration’s approach to Egypt appears to be more a continuation than a disjuncture from Obama’s; and Egypt is set to continue experiencing the long-underway entrenchment of el-Sisi’s authoritarian, anti-democratic rule. 

For three decades prior to his ouster, Washington maintained a strategic partnership with the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak, who in 2009 was called a family friend by the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During the January 2011 uprising, Obama was cautious and indecisive in backing the demonstrators; and US policy invited criticism as US-made military hardware was used against countless Egyptians who took to the streets calling for freedom and democracy. Before finally endorsing Mubarak’s immediate departure, the Obama administration attempted and failed to arrange a transition from Mubarak to his CIA-linked intelligence chief, whose ascension, it was hoped, would sufficiently safeguard ‘stability’ and simulate ‘change’. 

Strong ties between Washington and Cairo transcended the overthrow of Mubarak, and later Mohammed Morsi - who, after one year as president, was viewed unfavourably by many Egyptians as advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood movement from which he came. The then US Secretary of State John Kerry had characterised the ensuing military coup led by el-Sisi against Egypt’s first elected president as a restoration of democracy. The next month, in August 2013, el-Sisi presided over the massacre of over 800 pro-Morsi demonstrators in a single day. 

Following the coup and a months-long crackdown on political opposition, the relationship between the Obama administration and Cairo worsened. In October 2013, in an unprecedented move, Washington imposed a partial suspension of military aid to Egypt while both citing the need for more democratic governance and denying that the move was punishment. Aid that was deemed vital for counter-terrorism was exempted, and the vast majority of military assistance continued nonetheless, but Egyptian officials still lambasted the US for allegedly harming Egypt’s interests.

Military aid was reinstated in April 2015 at a time of heightening US security concerns due to Islamic State-linked insurgencies in the northern Sinai and Libya. This coincided with an intensifying crackdown by the el-Sisi regime on wide-ranging dissidents, which entailed widespread and severe human rights abuses. Indeed, aid suspension and reform-oriented discourse were more consequential in symbolic than material terms, but still the Egyptian government was displeased. Cairo signalled this to Washington by pursuing stronger ties with competing countries such as Russia, for whose leader it hosted a conspicuously adulatory state visit in February 2015. 

Anticipating an even friendlier US administration, el-Sisi avidly pursued President Trump in recent months. The White House visit was considered an opportunity to improve Egypt’s regional geopolitical position in relation to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and Turkey as well as to bolster support for the continued consolidation of power domestically. After Trump was elected, many officials in Cairo expected he would raise annual US military assistance to Egypt from $1.3 billion. 

However, in some respects the more accommodating policy shift that el-Sisi had hoped for did not occur. Rather, in the proposed budget for 2018, US military assistance switched from a grant to a loan and economic assistance was cut completely. The Trump administration also maintained its backtracking – due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s regional political ties – from an initiative to follow Cairo in designating the group a ‘terrorist’ organisation.

Yet despite these developments, Trump's rhetorical support has further validated the style and substance of el-Sisi’s governance, particularly in relation to combating ‘terrorism’. Since Morsi’s overthrow, el-Sisi has used countering extremism and ‘terrorism’ as a pretext not only to target the Islamic State and other militant groups that have in fact grown stronger largely as a result of his rule. Eased by measures such as the 2013 anti-protest law, 2015 anti-terrorism law, and 2016 NGO law, el-Sisi has instead placed priority on repressing those who pose a more significant challenge to his power: the Muslim Brotherhood as well as other activists of all kinds. 

There are approximately 60,000 political prisoners in Egypt, and Trump has outwardly registered no concern over this or the broader escalation of human rights violations by the el-Sisi regime. For el-Sisi, now free of even hollow remonstrations from Washington, welcome is the disabuse of America’s longstanding hypocrisy towards other states while reserving itself the option to violate human rights in the name of national security.

However, neither US policy shifts towards Egypt, nor their implications, should be exaggerated. The Egyptian state under el-Sisi will continue its years-long process of destroying or dominating rival centres of power and organisation – crushing political opposition, suffocating civil society, and deepening military involvement in the country’s fragile economy. However, as authoritarianism breeds disaffection and resistance, it promises to fuel extremism and instability in Egypt, rather than inhibiting it.