20 Apr 2017

US secretary of state issues war threat against Iran

Bill Van Auken

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a threat of military confrontation with Iran Wednesday at a hastily called news conference in which he drew a direct parallel to Washington’s reckless and increasingly dangerous confrontation with North Korea.
Referring to the nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the major world powers, Tillerson said: “This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat that we face from North Korea. The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran. The evidence is clear: Iran’s provocative actions threaten the United States, the region and the world.”
The Trump administration had acknowledged on Tuesday that Iran has fully complied with the terms of the nuclear agreement that it negotiated in July 2015 with the so-called P5+1—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States plus Germany. In the same breath, however, it signaled that it is preparing measures designed to blow the agreement up.
In a formal notification required every 90 days to the US Congress—the first delivered since Trump’s inauguration—Secretary of State Tillerson certified that, as of April 18, Iran was meeting its terms of the deal, which required it to cap its uranium enrichment, reduce its number of centrifuges by two-thirds and submit to international inspections to ensure compliance. These terms were supposed to preclude Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, something which Tehran insisted it had never sought.
The rest of Tillerson’s statement, however, revealed that the Trump administration is conducting a systematic review of all of the economic and financial sanctions that were waived in return for Iran’s reining in of its nuclear program.
Iran, the secretary of state alleged, “remains a leading sponsor of terror through many platforms and methods,” and therefore Trump “has directed a National Security Council-led interagency review of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that will evaluate whether suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the Iran nuclear deal) is vital to the national security interests of the United States.”
On Wednesday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer deflected a direct question as to whether the administration was seeking to abrogate the nuclear agreement, saying that the “inter-agency review” would be concluded in 90 days and would serve as the basis for policy recommendations.
“We're well aware of any potential negative impacts that an action could have,” he added, in relation to the re-imposition of suspended sanctions.
Indeed such “negative impacts” are precisely the purpose of taking this action, which would be designed to provoke Iran into repudiating its own obligations under the nuclear agreement and thereby creating the pretext for US military aggression.
Thus, even as Washington is pushing the world to the brink of a potential nuclear confrontation on the Korean peninsula, it is laying the foundations for another catastrophic war in the Middle East.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly denounced the Iran nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever negotiated” and vowed to “rip it up” once elected.
In February, his since ousted national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn marched into a White House briefing to ominously announce that he was putting “Iran on notice,” implying possible US military retaliation for the Iranian military’s testing of non-nuclear missiles, which is not barred by the nuclear agreement.
And last month, Gen. Joseph Votel, the chief of US Central Command, which oversees the American wars and interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, denounced Iran as the “greatest long-term threat to stability” in the Middle East and advocated a campaign to “disrupt [Iran] through military means or other means.”
The latest escalation of these threats came as Trump’s defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, is conducting a tour of the Middle East, with meetings scheduled with Iran’s principal regional enemies, including the Saudi and Qatari monarchies and Israel.
Mattis has reportedly advocated a policy of increasing the already massive US military aid and arms sales to the Saudi royal dictatorship and providing more direct US collaboration in its more than two-year-old war against the impoverished population of Yemen, which has killed some 12,000 people, the majority of them civilians, turned 3 million into refugees and left large portions of the population on the brink of starvation.
Speaking to reporters in Riyadh after meeting with Saudi King Salman and Deputy Crown Prince and minister of defense Mohammed bin Salman, Mattis declared, “Everywhere you look if there is trouble in the region, you find Iran.” He added, “We will have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah but the bottom line is we are on the right path for it.”
The charges of Iranian “destabilization” stem from Iran’s objective position as Washington’s rival for regional hegemony in the Middle East and its participation, alongside Russia, in defending the government of Syria against the US-orchestrated war for regime change.
The hypocrisy of Washington’s labeling Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and the source of all “trouble in the region” is shameless. US imperialism has carried out a series of wars that have killed millions, toppled governments and devastated entire societies. The CIA has armed and funded terrorist Islamist groups in Libya, Iraq and Syria, including those directly tied to Al Qaeda.
In Yemen, the Pentagon has supplied the warplanes, bombs and missiles that have slaughtered men, women and children, while offering intelligence assistance as well as mid-air refueling to enable round-the-clock bombing aimed at crushing the Yemeni population’s resistance and compelling them to accept the re-imposition of the puppet regime of ousted President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
Now, the Pentagon is reportedly preparing to directly assist a Saudi-UAE offensive to conquer the Yemeni port of Hodeida, the last link between the country’s starving population and the outside world. Aid agencies have warned that such an attack may well tip the country into a full-blown famine.
Speaking alongside the Saudi deputy crown prince on Wednesday, Mattis offered an obsequious tribute to the 31-year-old “royal highness” while vowing to “reinforce Saudi Arabia's resistance to Iran’s mischief and make you more effective with your military as we work together as partners.”
Mattis went on to declare that it was in the US “interest to see a strong Saudi Arabia military security service and secret services,” this in a country where the “secret services” ruthlessly repress any manifestation of dissent and where criticism of the ruling royal family is grounds for beheading.
As with the attack on Syria, the ratchetting up of tensions with Russia and the ongoing nuclear brinksmanship with North Korea, the Trump administration has enjoyed crucial support from the Democrats for the buildup toward war with Iran. Key Democratic members of the House and Senate have joined with Republicans in supporting the imposition of new sanctions. From the 2016 presidential campaign onward, the Democrats’ criticisms of Trump have been focused centrally on foreign policy and have come from the right, particularly over concern that the Trump administration would prove “too soft” on Russia, and, by extension, Iran, which has allied itself with Russia in Syria.

UK parliament votes for snap June 8 general election

Robert Stevens

A June 8 snap general election will be held in the UK after parliament voted overwhelmingly to override the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. MPs voted following Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May’s announcement Tuesday of her intention to call an election with just 50 days notice.
May’s government presently has a slender 17-seat majority, under conditions where it has embarked on two years of negotiations with the European Union (EU) over the terms of the UK’s exit.
Within the Tory Party, its dominant Brexit wing is demanding anti-migrant policies and measures that threaten future access to the Single European Market, while Germany, France and other EU governments are taking a hard line against the UK—creating the scenario for a so-called “hard Brexit”. In contrast, all the major opposition parties, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party (SNP), are threatening to block any deal that doesn’t guarantee continued access to the Single Market—a position supported by a minority within the Tory party.
May took the decision to go for a snap election with the aim of strengthening the government’s majority, largely by exploiting the crisis facing Labour, which is bitterly divided due to the opposition of a majority of its right-wing MPs to Jeremy Corbyn’s nominally left leadership. She hopes that this will strengthen her position in Europe, within her own fractious party and in Britain, enabling her to push through the savage cuts in wages and essential services that are bound up with the drive to secure Britain’s global trading position post-Brexit.
Given the extensive discussions that will have taken place with Washington, the need for a stable allied government in the UK at a time of mounting military tensions against Russia, China and North Korea will also have played a significant part in May’s calculations.
Under the provision for fixed five-year governments, the next scheduled election was set for 2020. This coincided with the end of the Brexit process in a way that could have been highly damaging should a deal be rejected.
In the vote that required the support of two-thirds of the 650 MPs, May’s decision was backed by 522 to just 13. Almost every Tory MP voted for the June 8 poll, as did 174 of 229 Labour MPs. The SNP’s 54 MPs abstained, along with a few dozen Labourites.
Beginning a debate that lasted all of 90 minutes, May declared, “Waiting to hold the next election in 2020, as scheduled, would mean that the negotiations would reach their most difficult and sensitive stage just as an election was looming on the horizon.”
Later, during a speech in Bolton, May said the only alternative to a Tory government was a “coalition of chaos led by Jeremy Corbyn.”
The media was nearly unanimous in its response to the vote, crowing about May’s supposedly unassailable position and pointing to polls showing an 18 to 21 percent lead for the Tories.
The Daily Mail led its front page with the headline that May would “Crush the Saboteurs”, while the Sun said the election would “kill off Labour” and “smash rebel Tories.”
The Financial Times, which supported Remain and is campaigning for the City of London to retain access to the Single Market, also endorsed May’s move. It would secure a “strong mandate” for May’s “pragmatic course” of seeking a “soft Brexit” from a position of strength, it wrote, and not being “held hostage at every stage of the negotiations by minority pressure groups.”
Behind all the talk of May’s omnipotence, the election can only worsen an already profound crisis and intensify political instability.
May’s “master-stroke” was forced upon her because she leads a crisis government, within which divisions over strategic orientation run so deep they have paralysed the operations of British imperialism. More important still, such is the worsening international geo-political crisis that nothing can be predicted with any certainty, including a British election result.
Already the election call has spurred on an initial political realignment that cuts across existing party divisions.
Calls have escalated among the representatives of the Remain faction of the bourgeoisie for a “Progressive Alliance” against the Tories. Leading these demands are former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair and the leaders of the Liberal Democrats and Green Party, Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas.
On Tuesday, Blair wrote a statement on his newly formed Institute for Global Change web site, calling for voters to support any anti-Brexit party in the election, insisting that the task of “holding the Government properly to account in the interests of the country... should cross party lines.”
Blair is clearly identifying himself with the Liberal Democrats, the only party formally committed to reversing last year’s vote for Brexit.
A Liberal Democrats source told the Telegraph, “If any politicians from Tony Blair to [Labour MP] Chuka Umunna agree with us then we will welcome their support.”
Such realignment lays the basis for the emergence of a new right-wing, pro-EU formation based around the Blairites and Lib Dems and possibly some MPs from the Tory party.
Paralleling this is an intensification of the campaign by Blairite MPs to remove Corbyn, if not before the election then after, based on an anticipated electoral disaster for the party that will leave his position untenable. John Woodcock MP said he would stand for re-election, before warning, “But I will not countenance ever voting to make Jeremy Corbyn Britain’s prime minister. ... There is still of course time for Jeremy to stand down rather than lead Labour to defeat.”
The pro-Labour New Statesmen ratcheted up the pressure on Corbyn Tuesday, with columnist Sarah Ditum, a Guardian journalist, urging party members to only campaign for anti-leadership MPs, and declaring, “In the most serious possible way, it is morally intolerable to imagine Corbyn as Prime Minister.”
It should be recalled that in the purge of Corbyn-supporting party members during last year’s leadership contest—provoked by the attempted coup against him—many were expelled for having supported other parties in previous elections. But no moves have been taken against Blair.
By Wednesday evening, at least six anti-Corbyn Labour MPs had resigned their seats. Divisions in the Tory Party are just as deep, if not as open. Stephen Dorrell, the former Conservative health secretary who chairs the pro-Remain European Movement, called on voters to elect only pro-EU candidates.
On Wednesday, the Tory leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, when asked if a large parliamentary majority in the June 8 election would prevent “Brexiteer bastards” holding May to ransom, replied, “I’m not disagreeing with you.”
Nothing will be resolved by the June 8 poll, which will be played out during the build-up to a possible US war against North Korea and the continuing NATO encirclement of Russia in which the UK is playing a major role. Last week, six US-made F-35A stealth fighter jets arrived at RAF Lakenheath, England in preparation for “NATO training drills” across Europe.
Yet not a word was said about the imminent danger of war by Corbyn or any opposition MP either before or during the parliamentary debate Wednesday. This is after the US has bombed both Syria and Afghanistan in recent days, using the most destructive bomb ever used by the US since it obliterated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
In similar fashion, no one has seriously addressed the devastating social crisis afflicting millions in the UK that feeds the growing alienation from the political establishment—that was the central factor in last year’s unexpected Brexit referendum vote. Instead, Corbyn offers only the most pathetic of palliatives, such as a £10 increase in the £60 carer’s allowance for those who look after vulnerable relatives.

Sri Lanka: National Interests in a Globalised World

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera



The first 100 days of the US President Donald Trump's administration revealed the complexity of a head of state’s task. One of his predecessors, former US President John F Kennedy during his first 100 days had learned a costly lesson with the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. His reaction to the event was to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind.” Most presidents realise the gravity of decision-making during the initial 100 days; and this applies to Sri Lanka as well.
 
In this new emerging global order, Sri Lanka, a nation in transition from the third world to the second with a per capita income of USD 3200 will need to craft its path to be able to become a developed country. Even in its current economic state, with 27 per cent of the population living in poverty, a small section in the Sri Lankan society is extremely wealthy. In a recent article, Malinda Seneviratne argues that “beggars can't be choosers.” Sri Lanka will beg more from the international community given the relative weakness of the domestic industries. The Central Bank projection of achieving a per capita income of  USD 7000 by 2020 will be unachievable with the current state of the economy. 
 
In March 2017, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena became the first Sri Lankan Head of State to visit Russia in several decades. President Sirisena's official visit will strengthen Sri Lanka’s relations with a geo-strategically important country. This was Sirisena exercising his own foreign policy, carefully calibrated in the right direction. No previous Sri Lankan president has held in high esteem the values and teachings of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx. In contrast, their pictures are placed in the main boardroom of the current president’s residence. This is a clear indication of the deep socialist values that President Sirisena holds. 
 
These values probably echo in reminding the president not to sell any state resource.  If the United National Party (UNP) is the pro-Western business-oriented party that advocates joint ventures, Sirisena is the inward looking farmer attempting to advocate the importance of an indigenous economy. Russia, with its gilded chambers suffering from the imperial hangover, is a reminder of deep nationalistic values. 
 
Neither the US, Europe or China want it to be strong. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s gesture of handing a 19th century sword belonging to Sri Lanka to President Sirisena was a reminder of the need to preserve the Sri Lankan values and historical treasures smuggled or taken out of the island nation.
 
There have been some recent developments regarding the future of two strategic projects in Sri Lanka, one undertaken by India in Trincomalee and the other by China in Hambantota. According to Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, he has saved the nation from a joint venture with the Chinese. He claimed that he was able to negotiate a better, less harmful deal with China as compared to the one agreed to by former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
 
On these strategic long-term projects, it is unclear how public input has been taken. Elected representatives are appointed for a period of six years for the Executive and five years for Members of Parliament. If they agree upon a deal that will conclude beyond their tenure, it is important to include public observations. If a certain project is awarded for 99 years of lease agreements, most of the policymakers who decide today will not live to see its conclusion. In China, a large-scale strategic foreign project will not be approved if there is no national security clearance. Sri Lanka should also think of national security clearance when deciding on large-scale strategic foreign projects. The clearance or the study report could be preserved for the next generation as a point of reference.
 
Furthermore, the report should also assess if these projects add strategic value to Sri Lanka’s economy. It is important to remember that given the volatile global order, what may be the best strategic option today may not be the same in a few years’ time. A simulator should be designed to deeply understand future events and scenarios. 
 
Foresight analysis is a methodology that Sri Lanka could adopt to predict the best future scenarios. Has Sri Lanka assessed the strategic and economic significance of the Hambantota and Trincomalee port projects in 2030, 2050 and beyond? The Sri Lankan policymakers should take these questions into consideration while making strategic decisions. If they do not have the necessary data sets to decide, they should defer the decision. Due to Sri Lanka’s geographically strategic position, it cannot ignore regional and extra-regional entities' interests in it.
 
The Sri Lankan government should view its national interest as the first point of reference.

19 Apr 2017

Schwarzman Scholars Fully-funded Masters Scholarship for International Students 2018/2019 – China

Application Deadlines: 28th September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Tsinghua University, Beijing, China (students live and study together on the campus of Schwarzman College, a newly-built, state-of-the-art facility, where all classes will be taught in English.)
Fields of Study:  Masters degree programmes in one of these three disciplines:
  • Public Policy
  • Economics and Business
  • International Studies
What will be taught: Business, Social sciences, Leadership skills
About the Award: Enrolling the inaugural class in 2016, the program will give the world’s best and brightest students the opportunity to develop their leadership skills and professional networks through a one-year Master’s Degree at Tsinghua University in Beijing – one of China’s most prestigious universities.
With a $350 million endowment, Schwarzman Scholars will be the single largest philanthropic effort ever undertaken in China by largely international donors. The extraordinary students selected to become Schwarzman Scholars will receive a comprehensive scholarship.
Schwarzman Scholars was inspired by the Rhodes Scholarship, which was founded in 1902 to promote international understanding and peace, and is designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. Blackstone Co-Founder Stephen A. Schwarzman personally contributed $100 million to the program and is leading a fundraising campaign to raise an additional $350 million from private sources to endow the program in perpetuity. The $450 million endowment will support up to 200 scholars annually from the U.S., China and around the world for a one-year Master’s Degree program at Tsinghua University in Beijing, one of China’s most prestigious universities and an indispensable base for the country’s scientific and technological research. Scholars chosen for this highly selective program will live in Beijing for a year of study and cultural immersion, attending lectures, traveling, and developing a better understanding of China.
Type: Masters Degree
Offered Since: 2015
Eligibility: The following criteria must be met by all candidates:
  • Undergraduate degree or first degree from an accredited college or university or its equivalent. Applicants who are currently enrolled in undergraduate degree programs must be on track to successfully complete all degree requirements before orientation begins in 1 August 2018. There are no requirements for a specific field of undergraduate study; all fields are welcome, but it will be important for applicants, regardless of undergraduate major, to articulate how participating in Schwarzman Scholars will help develop their leadership potential within their field.
  • Age. Applicants must be at least 18 but not yet 29 years of age as of 1 August 2018
  • Citizenship. There are no citizenship or nationality requirements
  • English language proficiency. Applicants must demonstrate strong English Language skills, as all teaching will be conducted in English. If the applicant’s native language is not English, official English proficiency test scores must be submitted with the application. Acceptable test options are:
    • Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL PBT)
    • Internet-based Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT)
    • International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
    This requirement is waived for applicants who graduated from an undergraduate institution where the primary language of instruction was English for at least three years of the applicant’s academic program.
Candidate must also be at least 18 but not yet 29 years of age as of 1 August 2017
Number of Awardees: Up to 200 exceptional men and women will be accepted into the program each year. The class that begins in summer 2017 will include 125 scholars, and the program will grow to include up to 200 students in coming years. About 45% of the first class will come from the United States, 20% from China, and 35% from the rest of the world.
Value of Scholarship: Semi-finalist interview expenses, such as economy class air or train travel, group meals and one night in a hotel if needed, will be arranged and covered by the program. Expenses for successful Schwarzman Scholars are also FULLY covered by the program.
It will include Tuition and fees, Room and board, Travel to and from Beijing at the beginning and end of the academic year, An in-country study tour, Required course books and supplies, Lenovo laptop and smartphone, Health insurance, and A modest personal stipend.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: There is no fee associated with applying to the Schwarzman Scholars program. To apply, you will need to complete and successfully submit an online application form, including all required documents and essays before the deadline date.
Visit the official website (link below) for complete information on how to apply to this scholarship programme.
Award Provider: Schwarzman Scholars
Important Notes: More than 300 finalists will be invited to an in-person interview in Singapore (October 27th), London (November 1st), or New York (November 6th & 7th) and will be notified of their acceptance in mid-November 2017.

Helen Lansdowne Resor (HLR) Scholarship for Creative Female Advertising Students 2017

Application Deadline: 14th May 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Applicant’s country
Type:  Undergraduate
Eligibility: To be eligible,an applicant must:
  • Be female
  • Be registered as a student at a participating undergraduate and/or portfolio school and be no less than 12 months from completion of their degree at May 14, 2017
  • Show creative talent and promise
  • Maintain satisfactory academic and creative progress as determined by their school
Number of Scholarships: 5
Value of Scholarship: Each year, the HLR Scholarship seeks to award five female creative students scholarships up to $10,000. In addition, each recipient will receive a paid summer internship at a J. Walter Thompson office in her respective region, an offer of a J. Walter Thompson mentor and “first look” placement consideration upon graduation.
How to Apply: 
  • Application form
  • Personal statement (500 words or less)
  • Letter of recommendation from a faculty member
  • 3-5 maximum creative samples (less than 7 MB) showcasing your best work
  • Ensure that all required creative samples are uploaded or made accessible via a link (Google Drive, Dropbox, portfolio website, etc.) and include this link in your submission
Award  Provider: Helen Lansdowne Resor (HLR) Foundation
Important Notes:
  • Scholarships are paid directly to the university/portfolio school you are attending
  • Tuition payments will be made until the scholarship balance reaches zero or when the recipient graduates
  • Reimbursement payments by J. Walter Thompson will not be made for tuition already paid by the student prior to being awarded the HLR Scholarship

Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Scholarship for Students in Developing Countries 2017/2018 – The Netherlands

Application Deadline: 5th May 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Low income countries
To be taken at (country): The Netherlands
About the Award:  The aim of the KIT Scholarship Fund is that with what they learn they can contribute to improving the health care situation in their country or around the world. This scholarship is made possible thanks to alumni, foundations, friends of KIT and KIT Scholarship Fund who want to support better health around the world.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Candidates must be admitted to either the Master in International Health or Master in Public Health and meet all application requirements of the scholarship. They must hold a passport from an emerging country in South America, Africa or Asia and meet the requirements for obtaining a Dutch visa (MVV residence permit).
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value and Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship is worth €15,000 and is intended as a contribution to the tuition fees of the master’s programme for a maximum period of 12 months. All remaining costs are the responsability of the scholarship holder. The scholarship starts and ends on the dates indicated in the award letter and covers in principle one academic year.
How to Apply: Only accepted applicants for the Master in International Health or Master in Public Health can apply for this scholarship.
Only applicants with a proven source of co-funding can apply for this scholarship. The selection of candidates will be made from applicants with proven funding to cover all costs involved for their studies (For exact costs applicants should read the financial statement that they received with their conditional letter of admission).
Award  Provider: Alumni, foundations, friends of KIT and KIT Scholarship Fund

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.