Mass casualties in latest refugee tragedy off Libyan coast

Martin Kreickenbaum

More than 100 refugees are feared drowned off the Libyan coast during a crossing to Europe. According to a spokesperson for the German aid organisation Jugend Rettet (Youth Rescue), Pauline Schmidt, volunteers discovered an empty inflatable boat off the Libyan coast capable of carrying up to 140 people. In addition, Doctors Without Borders crew members on the chartered ship Prudence pulled five bodies from the sea a few nautical miles away.

On Saturday, the Italian coast guard reported a distress call from a refugee boat in foggy conditions with high waves, prompting the ship Juventa from Jugend Rettet to initiate a search. The crew then discovered the empty inflatable boat near the Libyan port of Suvara.

One could assume an accident had occurred, Schmidt said, because the wreck had not been long at sea and did not show the typical signs left behind by rescuers. It was also unlikely that Libyan fishermen had saved the occupants, since the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has not reported any such operations over recent days. The IOM was also informed about the discovery of some 30 bodies on a beach just 30 kilometres from Suvara.

Following the latest catastrophe, the number of refugees drowned on the central Mediterranean route between Libya and Italy this year rose to almost 1,150. At the same time, around 38,000 refugees have reached the Italian coast via this route, more than in the same period last year. Over the Easter weekend alone, around 8,500 refugees were rescued from the Mediterranean and brought to Italy.

Leading politicians in the European Union (EU) respond with indifference to the daily dramas and tragedies facing refugees on the Mediterranean. They continue to militarily fortify Europe’s external borders to seal them off against refugees. At the same time, they are turning conditions for refugees in the camps on the Greek and Italian islands, or on the Hungarian-Serbian border, into a living hell. Refugees are being deported en masse, and nationalism and xenophobia are being deliberately provoked.

The major powers, France, Germany, Italy, Britain and the United States, have laid waste to entire countries in the Middle East and North Africa with their imperialist wars, forcing millions of people to flee. But in its boundless cynicism, the EU makes smugglers responsible for the movement of refugees towards Europe. The EU is criminalising refugees as illegal immigrants, even though there is no legal route to Europe and the refugees are dependent on the unscrupulous services of the smugglers.

The EU-led operation “Sophia” has been ongoing in the Mediterranean for two years to take action against smugglers and close off travel routes. Warships, planes, helicopters, drones and border guards from 22 European countries have been deployed since then to prevent refugees from reaching Europe. Shortly before, the Italian mission “Mare Nostrum” was halted under pressure from the EU after it was denounced as an additional “pull factor” encouraging refugees to set out by sea.

The Sophia mission was never planned as a rescue operation. Those politicians responsible within the EU consciously accepted the fact that casualties in the Mediterranean would rise drastically. This was even welcomed as a means of deterrence.

Despite this, the number of refugees on the central Mediterranean route has continued to rise, which has not stopped the same arguments from being repeated—this time against the rescue ships owned by international aid organisations operating off the Libyan coast.

In December 2016, the EU’s border and coast guard protection agency, Frontex, filed its first complaint against the activities of international aid organisations in the Mediterranean. In February, Frontex head Fabricio Leggeri went further. He told the daily Die Welt that the work of the aid organisations resulted in “smugglers forcing even more people onto unseaworthy boats than in previous years.”

Yet it is not the smugglers who force refugees onto unseaworthy boats, but the wars and civil wars, repression and persecution by despotic regimes that are closely collaborating with the EU to deter refugees, and the basic struggle to survive.

The “pull factor” is not the rescue boats, but the EU’s own policies of deterrence. Samer Haddadin, head of the UNHCR in Tripoli, stated recently that the more the EU shouts about the invasion of refugees and calls for their deportation, the more refugees are prepared to set off for Europe.

But the attacks on aid organisations have been welcomed by the media and anti-immigrant parties in Europe. A leading role in this has been played by Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) in Italy, which described the boats as “taxis” and accused the aid organisations of being paid by the smugglers.

The M5S received backing from Sicilian state prosecutor Carmelo Zuccaro, who accused the aid organisations in Italy’s La Stampa of having direct contact with people smugglers in Libya, without presenting a single scrap of evidence to back up this claim.

In addition, Frontex head Leggeri complained that the aid organisations were now conducting 40 percent of all rescue missions in the Mediterranean, whereas a year ago it was just 5 percent. “We should review the current concept for rescue measures off the Libyan coast,” he told Die Welt .

An idea of how this would look was provided by a Frontex employee in an interview with T he Intercept: “So as not to become a ‘pull factor’, our ships only patrol north of Malta. We do not travel down to Libyan waters.” This results in refugees being discouraged from setting out for Europe. In other words, Frontex is deliberately abandoning rescue operations so as to deter refugees by allowing them to drown.

Support for Frontex has come chiefly from the Italian, German and Austrian governments. On behalf of his fellow European ministers, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz spoke of “NGO madness”; relying on private rescue operations at sea was “undoubtedly the wrong path.” Austrian Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka went so far as to demand “the immediate closure of the Mediterranean route.”

During a surprise trip to Tripoli, Kurz reiterated his demand to immediately send refugees rescued at sea back to Africa. “Rescue in the Mediterranean ought not to be linked to a ticket to Central Europe,” Kurz told journalists during the trip. They should instead be sent to asylum centres outside Europe, he added.

However, there are conflicts within the EU as to whether such centres should be established in Libya, or in Egypt, Tunisia or Algeria. While Kurz excluded Libya, the last EU meeting of interior and justice ministers agreed to create so-called legal islands in Libya. According to the German daily Tageszeitung, in these legal islands, “especially well-armed police” will be responsible for supervising the camps and repatriating refugees to their homelands.

To this end, Frontex has already expanded the support mission for the strengthening of Libya’s borders (EUBAM Libya) and begun the search for appropriate locations for internment camps. In addition, the EU has made available €90 million to help Libya strengthen its borders and prevent refugees from setting out for Europe.

Italy has also promised to supply 10 patrol boats to the Libyan coast guard. The official unity government supported by the EU, under the leadership of Fayiz as-Sarraj, has dispatched another shopping list to the EU, demanding 130 coast guard boats, including five 100-metre-long offshore speedboats, and weaponry.

However, voices are growing within the EU of not working solely with Sarraj, who controls only a fraction of the war-torn country. The French and Italian governments are currently negotiating with his opponent, General Chalifa Haftar, who controls the east of the country and thus the most important oil ports.

One of the main aims in this is to push back Russian influence in Libya so as to enable the Western powers to exploit the country’s rich energy resources. The Russian oil company Rosneft agreed on a cooperation agreement with the Libyan oil corporation, which is controlled by General Haftar.

EU Foreign Representative Federica Mogherini issued mixed messages on the cooperation with the Libyan unity government when she commented, “We always want to ensure that we train the right people and supply the right equipment.” The EU is therefore continuing to expand its military intervention in North Africa. The refugees face the prospect of being ruthlessly crushed between the interests of the local militias and the closed border policy of the EU.

Writers’ Guild of America reaches deal with major studios

Marc Wells

The Writers’ Guild of America (WGA) reached a tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) in the early hours of Tuesday morning, preventing a strike by 12,000 movie and TV writers on the West and East coasts. The new three-year deal must be ratified by union members.

The WGA made it clear throughout the negotiations that it had no desire to launch a strike, although its members had overwhelmingly authorized a walkout against the Hollywood studios and major broadcast and cable TV networks. While trying to mollify the anger of writers—who have faced years of stagnant or declining incomes—the WGA conceded to a deal that minimizes the financial impact on the entertainment giants.

The six largest studios—Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures—collectively reported more than $50 billion in operating profits in 2016.

In a statement announcing the deal, the WGA wrote, “Did we get everything we wanted? No. Everything we deserve? Certainly not. But because we had the near-unanimous backing of you and your fellow writers, we were able to achieve a deal that will net this Guild’s members $130 million more, over the life of the contract, than the pattern we were expected to accept.”

Just a few weeks ago, the Guild announced its initial demands would cost the producers $178 million over three years.

While the full details are still unknown, several reports say the AMPTP planned to increase its contribution to the union’s depleted health care fund by up to $90 million, leaving little else to meet the writers’ other demands.

The deal reportedly includes a 15 percent increase in Pay TV residuals, roughly $15 million in increases in High-Budget SVOD (Streaming Video on Demand) residuals, a 2.4 coefficient on episodic fees and residuals for comedy-variety writers in Pay TV.

This is a drop in the bucket, in an industry that is quickly shifting towards SVOD. The deal solves none of the issues that caused writers to suffer an average 23 percent decline in living standards in 2015-2016. It also fails to establish any provision that would guarantee substantial residuals in the utilization of new media.

There is another significant factor in the context of this contract renewal: unlike in 2007-2008, outfits like Netflix and Amazon now represent a major alternative to the traditional TV programming system, in fact becoming its rivals.

Preparing for the possibility of a writers’ strike, the streaming giants, who are not signatories of the AMPTP-WGA deal, found themselves in a privileged position. An unnamed executive from one of the streamers stated two weeks ago, “Most of our series in the pipeline to debut in the next six months are already deep in post, so we’re good there.”

Additionally, had a strike occurred, the Netflix/Amazon/Hulu streamers would likely see an instant increase in subscriptions, since Hollywood programming would be affected by the strike and possibly come to a halt. Rumors that Netflix was pursuing a side deal with the WGA were echoing throughout Hollywood’s executive circles during the recent strike vote.

The AMPTP was fully aware of this and relied on the WGA’s services to avoid a scenario where the traditional broadcasters’ competitors would have exploited the strike to gain substantial audiences.

Despite “the pitchforks out among the writers” and “a bigger stick to take back to resumed talks with AMPTP,” as the Editors’ Guild described the situation before the tentative deal was reached, the WGA proceeded in the opposite direction, accommodating the media giants’ demands and, in fact, laying the foundation for even worse future deals.

Writers, like other sections of workers, find themselves caught in the crossfire of major contradictions. As technological advancements offer the possibility of progressive new forms of content distribution, competition among massive corporations in the pursuit of profits determines the course of events.

The WGA, like other unions, accepts and operates within this capitalist framework, ultimately imposing upon its members whatever the corporate giants deem necessary to improve their profitability and competitiveness.

The AFL-CIO, which limited strike activity during the eight years of the Obama administration to the lowest level in modern history, is doing everything possible to suppress the class struggle once again as the unions cozy up to Trump based on their shared outlook of economic nationalism.

Despite overwhelming votes to authorize strikes—at AT&T West, AT&T wireless, UPS aircraft mechanics and other locations—growing anger by teachers and other public sector workers over Trump’s attack on public education, and logistics workers living and working in horrifying conditions, the unions’ watchword is “no strikes.” The labor bureaucracy fears the eruption of the class struggle because it would undermine the corporatist relations it enjoys with the corporations and lead to a direct confrontation not only with Trump and the Republicans, but the unions’ allies in the Democratic Party.

Writers should reject the current sellout agreement and organize rank-and-file committees to mobilize workers throughout the industry and beyond to fight the entertainment corporations. But broader political questions must be raised if a serious struggle is to go forward. The fight for the political independence of the working class and international unity of workers must be the point of departure for a strategy to overthrow the corporate control over culture and every aspect of life.

Indian military given green light to strike Pakistan

Keith Jones

Relations between India and Pakistan are again on the boil, just months after South Asia’s rival nuclear-armed powers came to the brink of war.

India is claiming that Pakistani troops snuck across the Line of Control in disputed Kashmir Monday, killed two Indian soldiers, and beheaded their corpses. The country’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has reportedly instructed the military to retaliate as it sees fit, suggesting an Indian cross-border attack on Pakistan or some other military action is imminent.

Indian Defence Minister Arun Jaitley vowed Monday that the “sacrifice” of the Border Security Force personnel “will not go in vain,” adding India’s armed forces “will respond appropriately.” This language echoes that employed by Prime Minster Narendra Modi and other members of the BJP government last September in the days before Indian Special Forces struck “terrorist launch pads” in Pakistan-administered Kashmir—an illegal and highly provocative action that Modi, his BJP, and the Indian media celebrated as the end of Indian “strategic restraint” in its dealings with Pakistan.

Indian Vice Army Chief Sarath Chand denounced the Pakistani military for carrying out “extreme barbaric acts” not even seen “during war” at a press conference yesterday. He pledged Pakistan would suffer consequences, but said that rather than making threats, India’s military “will focus on our action at a time and place of our choosing.”

The principal opposition party, the Congress Party, has joined in the warmongering. “Give free hand to the army to act against those behind mutilation of two Indian soldiers,” A.K. Antony, the Congress leader who served as India’s defence minister for eight years ending in 2014, told a press conference. For his part, former Congress Minister Kapil Sibal chided the Modi government for being too conciliatory to Pakistan. He urged India’s prime minister to “remove his bangles and show what you can do.”

Pakistan has denied any of its military personnel entered Indian-held Kashmir or clashed with Indian Border Forces on Monday. Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations, Maj. Gen. Sahir Shamshad Mirza, said the Indian claims of a Pakistani incursion, ambush and desecration of dead Indian soldiers were an “attempt to divert the attention of the world” from the popular unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only majority-Muslim state.

Responding to the Indian threats in kind, Mirza said “any misadventure,” i.e. Indian attack, “shall be appropriately responded at a place and time of [our] own choosing.”

The “surgical strikes” that India’s Special Forces mounted inside Pakistan last fall were followed by two months of daily cross-border artillery shelling and gunfire in which scores of Indian and Pakistani villagers and military personnel died. While the clashes subsided in late November, there was no resumption of even the strained ties that for have decades characterized Indo-Pakistani relations. Moreover, both sides have continued to make bellicose threats, including about the possible use of nuclear weapons in an all-out war, and staged tit-for-tat tests of nuclear-capable missiles.

The Indian-Pakistani strategic rivalry is rooted in the 1947 communal partition of the subcontinent, implemented by rival factions of the national bourgeoisie and the subcontinent’s departing British colonial overlords. But since the beginning of this century it has become ever more enmeshed with the increasingly explosive cleavage between US imperialism and a rising China.

Washington has overturned the balance of power in South Asia, downgrading its ties with its longtime ally Pakistan so as to woo India. With the aim of harnessing New Delhi to US global strategy, above all its military-strategic offensive against China, Washington, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, has showered strategic favours on India, including creating a special status for it in the world nuclear-regulatory regime and, more recently, giving it access equal to that of the most-trusted US allies to advanced Pentagon weapon systems.

Under the three-year-old Modi government, India has dramatically increased its integration into Washington’s anti-China “Pivot to Asia.” Last August it granted the US military routine access to Indian air bases and ports to refuel, resupply and repair its warplanes and battleships, and under a recently concluded agreement the ships of the US Seventh Fleet, the naval force at the center of war planning against China, will be serviced in India. India is also rapidly expanding bilateral and trilateral military and security ties with Washington’s principal Asia-Pacific allies, Japan and Australia.

Emboldened by its burgeoning partnership with the US and rattled by the size and tenacity of the anti-Indian protests in Kashmir, the BJP government is determined to change the “rules of the game” in its relations with Islamabad. It is adamant that as a precondition for any resumption of high-level ties, let alone “normalization” of relations, Islamabad must demonstrably prevent all logistical support from Pakistan for the anti-Indian insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir.

As the Indo-US alliance has strengthened and India has become more aggressive, Pakistan and China have responded by drawing closer together. This is exemplified by the $50 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor, which by linking Pakistan’s Arabian seaport of Gwadar with western China will partially offset US plans to impose an economic blockade on China in the event of a war or war crisis.

India’s elite, meanwhile, bitterly resents the economic and military support Beijing has provided Islamabad. The Indian press routinely rails against China and on assuming his new command in January, India’s army head, Gen. Bipin Rawat, boasted about India’s capacity to fight a “two-front” war against Pakistan and China simultaneously.

Last month tensions between New Delhi on the one hand and Islamabad and Beijing on the other continued to sharpen.

The Pakistani high command, apparently without even informing the civilian government, announced that a military court had sentenced to death an alleged Indian spy, Kulbushan Sudhir Jadhav, whom it claims was liaising with anti-Pakistan, Balochi separatist insurgents. India acknowledges that Jadhav is a former naval officer, but denies that he was engaged in spying and even in Pakistan. Rather it claims, he was kidnapped in the Iranian city of Chabahar and transported to Pakistan.

In any event, New Delhi has condemned Jadhav’s conviction and sentencing in the strongest terms and cited it as further reason to freeze diplomatic relations with Islamabad.

China, meanwhile, denounced in very strong terms the BJP government’s welcoming of the Dali Lama, who made a high-profile tour of Arunachal Pradesh, territory claimed by China as “southern Tibet.” The BJP Chief Minister of Arunachal, Pema Khandu, responded to the Chinese criticism by provocatively declaring that India does not share a border with China, but with Tibet.

The Obama administration first implicitly and then explicitly supported India’s “surgical strikes” inside Pakistan claiming that it was a legitimate response to terrorist incursions.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wants to deepen and expand the Indo-US alliance. It has yet to publicly state any position on the legitimacy of Indian retaliation for the alleged attack this Monday, but there is no question the Modi government is taking encouragement from US belligerence around the world, including last month’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal on Afghanistan.

Cambridge-Africa ALBORADA Research Grants for Sub-Saharan African (Including Sudan) Researchers 2017

Application Deadline:  Sunday 25th June 2017.

Eligible Countries:  Sub-Saharan African Countries (Including Sudan)

Fields of Grant: Applications should generally fall into one of these four research-related categories:

1. Workshop/research training course, in Africa
2. Travel between Cambridge and Africa
3. Research Project
4. Equipment

About the Award: The Cambridge-Africa ALBORADA Research Fund competitively awards grants of between £1,000 and £20,000, for:

• research costs (such as reagents, fieldwork and equipment)
• research-related travel between Cambridge and Africa
• conducting research training activities in Africa (e.g. setting up courses/workshops).

To date, 116 awards have been made, to enable Cambridge researchers to engage with African researchers from 14 African countries. Some awardees have been able to use the preliminary results from their seed fund research/collaboration to apply for and win significant funding (e.g. Royal Society/Leverhulme Awards, Global Challenges Research Fund, etc.).

Type: Grants

Eligibility: 

• Applications should be submitted jointly by an applicant based in Cambridge and an applicant based in a university or research institution in sub-Saharan Africa.
• Both applicants must be at post-doctoral level or above, and by completing an 2 application it is understood that they are both doing so with support from their Senior Researcher/Head of Group/Principle Investigator, if they are not in this position themselves.
• Both applicants should have a formal link to a research group/department/faculty in their home institution.
• The Cambridge applicant must be either working at the University of Cambridge, or at a research Institute affiliated with the University. Previous successful Cambridge applicants have included those from: Wellcome-Trust Sanger Institute; MRC Human Nutrition Research; National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB).
• The African applicant must be from a sub-Saharan African research Institution or university. The Cambridge applicants will act as the lead applicants, for administrative purposes, as the awards have to be paid to their Cambridge departments/faculties/institutes.
• Requests for additional support from returning Cambridge or African recipients will only be considered in the following instances:
  • For supporting courses and workshops in Africa that have been previously funded, or are new. Applicants must provide justification that includes evidence that other sources of funding have been sought, and what plans there are for future funding sustainability. Also, a report(s) should have been submitted for the previous funding received
  • Request for funding for research (reagents, equipment or travel) with the old or a new collaborator, but for a new project. Report(s) should have been submitted for the previous funding received.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Grants are between £1,000 and £20,000. Awards will range from £1,000 – £20,000, and limits apply for categories as follows:

• Maximum of £20,000 for applications in the sciences (including equipment)
• Maximum of £6,000 for applications in the social sciences and humanities
• Maximum of £5,000 for a workshop/course in Africa
• Maximum of £3,000 for a travel award

How to Apply: 

• The online application form has been designed to allow both applicants (Cambridge- and Africa-based) to log in, update, save and eventually submit electronically.
• To access the form, the Cambridge based applicant must Register Here. Only applicants with @cam.ac.uk, @sanger.ac.uk and @niab.ac.uk email addresses can register.
• The Cambridge-based applicant must then log in to the ALBORADA Research Fund application form, where they will see the words “Invite a 2nd applicant to view/edit this submission”. Click on this link in order to invite the Africa-based applicant to register and edit the forms.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: The ALBORADA Trust.

Important Notes:  All equipment purchased using the Cambridge-Africa ALBORADA Research Fund must be for use in Africa, and must remain with the African partner institution/university upon completion of the project.

Swansea University School of Management Developing Futures Scholarship Program 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 11th August 2017.

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: Our Developing Futures programme is more than a scholarship package, along with financial support for an academic year you will also get the chance to gain valuable career-enhancing skills.  Recipients of the scholarship will be required to work with the Recruitment and Marketing teams on three events, plus one event for the Student Experience team and the Careers team.  Recipients are also expected to join a society or become a course representative for their degree programme.

Type: Postgraduate (Masters)

Eligibility: Swansea University will take into consideration the student’s:

• Academic competence
• Financial need
• Passion and future plans
• Ability and plans to contribute back to the School and University.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Financial support as well as the chance to gain valuable career-enhancing skills.

Duration of Program: 1 year

How to Apply: You’ll need to download and complete the Scholarship Application Form and return it by email.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Swansea University

Postcode Lottery Green Challenge for Innovative Entrepreneurs 2017

Application Deadline: 1st June 2017.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Amsterdam, The Netherlands

About the Award: The Postcode Lottery Green Challenge is one of the world’s largest competitions in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship. From 1 March 2017 until 1 June 2017, green start-ups from all over the world can submit their promising sustainable business plans to the the 11th edition. The winner will receive €500,000 to further develop the product or service, and to bring it to market. The runner-up will receive €200,000. An international jury selects the winner and runner-up.

The Dutch Postcode Lottery started the competition in 2007, after being inspired by president Clinton to look for those dedicated entrepreneurs with brilliant green business plans. Plans that are ready to speed up the transition towards a low carbon economy. The answers to the issues of our time are already in front of us. But it takes entrepreneurs like the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge finalists to present us with sustainable solutions and get them out into the world.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Candidate should:

• be willing to bring your idea to market yourself, and to commit to working with any organisation necessary for developing the product and/or implementing the service
• be 18 years or older
• agree with all Terms & Conditions
• fully complete all the questions on the entry form in English
• be willing to attend the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge in Amsterdam if you are selected as a finalist to present your idea to the jury (reasonable travel and lodging expenses for one person per finalist will be reimbursed)

Selection Process:  The Plan:

• should have the potential to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by an amount you can roughly estimate
• should be developed enough to execute
• should be realisable as a usable product or service within the next two years
• should preferably have integrated Cradle2Cradle principles in the designs

Besides these criteria, the jury will also look at factors such as: communication potential, courageousness and creativity.

Selection Process: Five finalists will be selected Mid-August for the final round of the competition. If you have been selected you will be invited to come to the grand final Amsterdam on September 14. There you will present your business plan in front of a selected audience and an international panel of experts.

Value of Program: The winner receives €500,000 to further develop their service or product and bring it to market within the next two year. The runner-up will receive €200,000.

Duration of Program: June 2 – September 14, 2017

How to Apply: APPLY

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Dutch Postcode Lottery

Hidden Radiation Secrets of the World Health Organization

Robert Hunziker

Imagine the following hypothetical: The World Health Organization (“WHO”) is deeply involved in a high level cover up of the human impact and dangers of ionizing radiation, intentionally hiding the facts from the public, a chilling storyline!

After all, the world community depends upon WHO as an independent org t0 forewarn the general public of health dangers and to help in times of crises, not hide pivotal health facts from public eye.

As it happens, that nightmarish hypothetical comes to life in an interview with Alison Katz, who claims: “We are absolutely convinced that if the consequences of nuclear radiation were known to the public, the debate about nuclear power would end tomorrow. In fact, if the public knew, it would probably be excluded immediately as an energy option.”

Alison Katz heads a NGO known as Independent WHO, and she spends a lot of time arranging sandwich boards with messages like: “Complicity in Scientific Crime” or “Crime of Chernobyl – WHO Accomplice” in front of WHO headquarters/Geneva. For 10 years now on a daily vigil from 8:00-to-6:00 she and/or other protestors expose alleged misbehavior committed by WHO, right outside of the headquarters building. Imagine this: Ten years on the same street corner every working day. It’s commitment and determination sans pareil.

“The aim of the silent vigil is to remind the World Health Organisation of its duties. It was Hippocrates who formulated the ethical rules for health practitioners. The World Health Organisation ignores these rules, when it comes to protecting the health of the victims of the consequences of the nuclear industry”.

Which brings forth: Ten years of hard work combating a difficult and challenging issue warrants public adulation beyond carrying posters back and forth, come rain or shine, trudging away in the heat of the sun or the freezing cold and snow in front of WHO Hdqs. Hopefully, this article serves that purpose for Alison Katz.

The mission of Independent WHO is to expose WHO’s failings whilst calling for WHO independence away from influence by the worldwide nuclear syndicate: According to WHO Independence’s Web Site: “The World Health Organization (WHO) is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of radioactive contamination.”

Ms Katz worked inside the WHO for 18 years. She insists that WHO, in cahoots with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), dangerously misrepresents the inherent dangers of ionizing radiation, an insinuation that smacks in the face with egregiousness galore.

Ms Katz’s April 2017 interview, which this article is based upon, can be heard in its entirety.

This article condenses and summarizes her one-hour interview. As such, according to Ms Katz: “The health consequences of nuclear activity, whether they are civil or military, are not known to the public… There has been a very high level cover up… including the WHO.”

For over 50 years WHO provided “a clean bill of health for nuclear power.” However, according to Ms Katz, that clean bill of health is not based upon independent science. It’s based upon “pseudo science” manipulated and largely controlled by the nuclear lobby and International Atomic Energy Agency, the Queen Bee of the pro-nuke Hive.

Furthermore, within the “United Nations family hierarchy,” WHO is entirely subservient to IAEA. In turn, IAEA reports to the Security Council of the UN or the very top echelon of the power hierarchy of the world, including France, China, UK, U.S., and the Russian Federation. Far and away, these are the world’s biggest nuke heads.

Connecting the dots leaves one breathless within a telling trail of pro-nuke advocacy of the highest order… hm-m-m, thus raising the question: How is it humanly possible for WHO to objectively, impartially, squarely and soberly analyze and recommend ionizing radiation issues on behalf of the general public?

Is it at all possible, even a little bit?

As it goes, the IAEA has two mandates, which sound innocent enough: (1) to prevent proliferation of nuclear power and (2) promotion of the use of the atom on a peaceful basis, ah-ah-ah… oh well, never mind. In reality, IAEA is a commercial lobbying org promoting use of the atom, yet at the same time, it dictates WHO procedures, standards, and published articles on the matter of nuclear radiation, prompting a very pregnant question: Is this a conflict of interest for WHO? Answer: Yes, it is! WHO is a creature of the dictates of IAEA, which is the world’s largest promoter of the atom. Whereas, WHO is supposed to “independently serve the public interest,” not kowtow to a nuclear advocacy powerhouse that reports to nuclear powerhouse countries that have a deepening love affair with nuclear power, warts and all.

For example, sixty (60) reactors are currently under construction in fifteen countries. In all, one hundred sixty (160) power reactors are in the planning stage and three hundred (300) more have been proposed. That’s a love affaire.

Meanwhile, as for WHO’s mandate: It serves as the leading authority of standards for public health, coordinating research, advising member states, and formulating ionizing radioactivity health policies. However, IAEA has been usurping WHO’s mandate for the past 50 years. In fact, a 1959 Agreement (WHA 12-40) between the two says WHO needs prior approval of IAEA before taking any action or publishing material dealing with nuclear, period!

As a result of this 50-year conflict of interest, which is deeply embedded by now, Ms Katz claims WHO must, absolutely must, become independent, thus breaking the stranglehold of numero uno promoter of nuclear power over WHO, which is mandated to serve the public, not IAEA.

Not only is there a serious conflict of interest, Katz claims WHO fails, time and again, to meet its mandate to the public, as for example:

1) WHO remained absent from Chernobyl for five years even though the WHO mandate requires it to be present the “day after a catastrophe” to evaluate and provide assistance. But, WHO was MIA for 5 years.

2) WHO does not issue independent reports on radiation issues. All nuclear-related reports are written by IAEA but published “in the name of the WHO.”

3) Following Chernobyl, there were two international conferences held to analyze the implications of the catastrophe; one held in Geneva in 1995 and the second in Kiev in 2001. The “Proceedings of the Conferences” were never published by WHO; thus, never made public even though WHO claims the proceedings are publicly available. Confusing? Yes! To this day, the relevant question remains: What did “the analyses” show?

As a result of WHO’s egregious conflicts, the world community has no independent arms-length source on nuclear radiation. That is a situation fraught with conflict and extremely difficult to accept, sans grimacing with a lot of teeth grinding.

Once again, with emphasis: There is no independent international authority reporting to the public on nuclear radiation…. none whatsoever. All information about nuclear radiation ultimately comes from the primary users/promoters of nuclear power even though they have a very big heavy axe to grind.

Of course, there are independent scientists, but they face enormous obstacles in coming forward with the truth, thereby risking monetary grants and risking personal positions, as well as family livelihood.

Not only that, but over the years all departments within WHO that dealt with nuclear radiation have been highly compromised. Even worse, according to Ms Katz, no senior radiation scientists work for WHO, none… nada.

What constitutes the “nuclear establishment” is a fair question; it consists of the major governments of the world like France and the U.S but led by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the top dog, establishing standards for the world. Strangely enough, there are no health experts at ICRP, prompting a logical question: Why not?

There is more to be concerned about, e.g., another shocking fact regarding ICRP, as if there are not already enough shockers with the thread that runs throughout nuclear power’s closely-knit network: Even though “ionizing radiation is mutagenic and always causes mutations, causing damage at the cellular level, there are no molecular biologists working in the ICRP” (Katz). Thus, the world’s largest institution for determination of radiation standards for the public has no molecular biologists on staff. That fact is beyond belief, an eye-opener beyond all other eye-openers.

It’s almost as if the regulators don’t give a damn about the effects of radiation on the general public. Do they?

Fukushima

Just after Fukushima in 2011, Ms Katz met with the Director General and five of the highest-ranking officials of WHO. The mayor of Geneva also attended the meeting; curiously, the City of Geneva, where WHO is headquartered, has an anti-nuclear provision in its city code.

The outcome of that meeting clearly demonstrated to Katz, and to the mayor of Geneva, that WHO abdicated its responsibilities for Fukushima.

However, a small victory ensued during the meetings as some solace was found when the Director General did admit, “there is no safe threshold of radiation.” And, she admitted to differences between internal and external radiation, which was a change of heart.

Remarkably, the Director General also confessed a shocking level of incredulity that only 50 people died from Chernobyl, widely claimed by the Director General’s own organization, WHO. That is the final number (50) of deaths that WHO attributes to Chernobyl. Howbeit, it’s a fabricated number w/o any meaning whatsoever and not supported by observational data.

Consequences of Chernobyl

WHO held a Chernobyl Forum in 2004 designed to “end the debate about the impact of Chernobyl radiation” whilst WHO maintains that 50 people died.

Here’s the final conclusion of that Chernobyl Forum ‘04: The mental health of those who live in the area is the most serious aftereffect, leading to strong negative attitudes and exaggerated sense of dangers to health and of exposure to radiation. Mental health was thus identified as the biggest negative aftereffect.

Because that conclusion is so brazenly bizarre, the Chernobyl Forum ‘04 must’ve been part of an alternative universe, way out there beyond the wild blue yonder, maybe the Twilight Zone or maybe like entering a scene in Jan Švankmajer’s Alice, a dark fantasy film loose adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.

Here’s reality: Chernobyl Liquidators fought the Chernobyl disaster. Eight hundred thousand (800,000) Liquidators from the former USSR, largely recruits from the army, with average age of 33, fought the Chernobyl disaster.

According to an interview (2016) with a Liquidator, “We were tasked with the deactivation of the third and fourth reactors, but we also helped build the containment sarcophagus. We worked in three shifts, but only for five to seven minutes at a time because of the danger. After finishing, we’d throw our clothes in the garbage” (Source: Return to Chernobyl With Ukraine’s Liquidators, Aljazeera, April 25, 2016).

“Estimates of the number of liquidators who died or became ill as a result of their work vary substantially, but the men of the 633rd say that out of the 259 from their group, 71 have died. Melnik says that 68 have been designated as invalids by a state committee, which investigates their health and determines whether or not their diseases are attributable to Chernobyl… Dr Dimitry Bazyka, the current director-general of the National Research Centre for Radiation Medicine in Kiev, says that approximately 20,000 liquidators die each year,” Ibid.

As for total deaths, the Chief Medical Officer of the Russian Federation reported that 10% of its Chernobyl Liquidators were dead by 2001. The disaster occurred in 1986 with 80,000 dead within 16 years. Authorities out of Ukraine and Belarus confirmed Russian death numbers. Yet, WHO claims 50 died.

Eighty-thousand (80,000) Liquidators, as of 16 years ago, dead from Chernobyl, and that body count, according to Ms Katz, leaves out the people most contaminated by Chernobyl, meaning evacuees and also 57% of the fallout for Chernobyl came down outside of the USSR, Belarus, and Ukraine, and in 13 European countries 50% of the countryside was dangerously contaminated.

As for studies of the radiation impact of Chernobyl: “Thousands of independent studies in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation and in many other countries, that were contaminated to varying degrees by radionuclides, have established that there has been significant increase in all types of cancer, in diseases of the respiratory, gastrointestinal, urogenital, endocrine immune, lymph node nervous systems, prenatal, perinatal, infant child mortality, spontaneous abortions, deformities and genetic anomalies….” (Katz)

Hence, WHO’s handling and analysis and work on Chernobyl leaves the curious-minded speechless, open-mouthed, agape, and confounded.

WHO’s Flawed Fukushima Report

WHO issued two reports on Fukushima:
1) Evaluation of exposure
2) Likely health effects

Alex Rosen of Int’l Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War critiqued the two WHO Fukushima reports, found to be extremely problematic, and once again, similar to Chernobyl, shoddy work that sweeps way too much dirt under the carpet.

Here’s the problem: WHO’s estimates of Fukushima radioactive exposure are at least 50% less than any other estimates, including estimates provided by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant operator) itself. But, WHO is supposed to be the guardian of public health concerns, not TEPCO.

Also, two critical population studies are ignored in the WHO reports, i.e., all of the residents within the 20 km exclusion zone are eliminated, even though their radiation exposure would be very high, actually highest. The second group ignored is workers on site… ahem!

Additionally, WHO cavalierly approved the Japanese government’s drastic change in annual maximum radiation exposure allowed for the general population up to 20 mSv per year.

Effects of Radiation

The genetic effects of radiation likely exceed anything understood by the general public, as WHO and other health orgs do not properly educate the public about radiation’s risks: “The genetic effects, far from diminishing with time, increase” (Katz), which is extra bad.

Years of research around Chernobyl show that the genetic impact of radiation to the human body becomes much, much worse as time passes. Thus, “radiation is both a continuing and a worsening catastrophe as time passes” (Katz). Radiation’s impact gets worse over time; it does not heal, does not dissipate, does not go away; it grows progressively worse, like the film sequels to Godzilla, which was conceived as a metaphor for nuclear weapons in the early 1950s.

Indisputably, all organ systems of the human body are affected by radioactive contamination. Cancer is not the only nasty result of radiation exposure. Radioactive contamination affects the entire human immune system from head to toe, thus impacting every organ system in the body, e.g. musculoskeletal, etc. This damage to organs is in addition to the various cancer risks.

After all, consider this, 30 years after the fact, horribly deformed Chernobyl Children are found in over 300 asylums in the Belarus backwoods deep in the countryside.

Equally as bad but maybe more odious, as of today, Chernobyl radiation, since 1986, is already affecting 2nd generation kids.

According to a USA Today article, Chernobyl’s Legacy: Kids With Bodies Ravaged by Disaster, April 17, 2016: “There are 2,397,863 people registered with Ukraine’s health ministry to receive ongoing Chernobyl-related health care. Of these, 453,391 are children — none born at the time of the accident. Their parents were children in 1986. These children have a range of illnesses: respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, eye diseases, blood diseases, cancer, congenital malformations, genetic abnormalities, trauma.”

It’s taken 30 years for the world, via an article in USA Today, to begin to understand how devastating, over decades, not over a few years, radiation exposure is to the human body. It is a silent killer that cumulates in the body over time and passes from generation to generation to generation, endless destruction that cannot be stopped.

Where is WHO is kinda like Where is Waldo, but sadly the effects of ionizing radiation are not part of a game. It is deadly serious, forevermore. In the meanwhile, Fukushima irradiates and irradiates, limitlessly and so far, unstoppable. Where does its radiation go?

Australian budget to slash welfare and education

Mike Head 

Despite intense public opposition to social spending cuts, Australia’s Turnbull government is foreshadowing deep cuts—especially on welfare and education—in next week’s federal budget.

The May 9 budget is being framed under the shadow of escalating dangers of war, driven by US aggression in Korea, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and of the sweeping corporate and high-income tax cuts being pursued by the Trump administration and other governments internationally.

While targeting society’s poorest layers, such as the unemployed, other welfare dependents and students, the Liberal-National Coalition is planning to spend billions of dollars more on the military. It is also proposing huge handouts to big business via company tax cuts and profit-related infrastructure projects. All these measures have the backing of the corporate media.

The expansion in military spending will be paid for through the slashing of essential social programs. Already, the government is committed to doubling the annual defence budget to around $60 billion by 2025-26, enabling the acquisition of new submarines, warships, planes and other weaponry, worth some $195 billion during that period.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull boasted in March that his government was undertaking “massive” military spending and that US President Donald Trump was “very, very impressed.” Any war provoked by Washington in Korea would involve Australia in the resulting conflagration. Last week, Turnbull also declared a readiness to expand the Australian contingent of US-led forces in Syria and Iraq, describing it as a “long-term” commitment.

In the lead-up to the budget, Turnbull’s ministers have been vilifying welfare recipients. With nearly 800,000 jobless workers receiving poverty-line benefits—a product of the accelerating destruction of full-time jobs over the past decade—the government is accusing job seekers of “gaming the system” by attending compulsory welfare office appointments to avoid being cut off benefits, which amount to the contemptible sum of around $290 per week for a single adult.

Turnbull’s government is already conducting an offensive against alleged “welfare cheats,” falsely accusing thousands of people of receiving over-paid benefits and threatening them with debt collectors and imprisonment.

The latest accusations are no less spurious. They are based on data leaked to Rupert Murdoch’s Australian to the effect that last year 7,006 job seekers—out of 759,000 people receiving the Newstart allowance—missed appointments at the government’s Centrelink welfare agency, but still retained their payments by attending interviews before being cut off.

This allegation is being used to spearhead plans to target supposedly “capable” people who refuse to work. Employment Minister Michaelia Cash, who led the drive to cut after-hours wage rates for low-paid workers, declared the welfare system was being abused by those “who have no desire to work.”

Welfare was simply funding “a lifestyle choice,” she told the Australian, displaying the official contempt for those unable to find work. With nearly 20 jobless workers for every employment vacancy, the government and employers want to force the unemployed into ever-lower paying jobs on insecure, super-exploitative conditions.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce told young people last month to “get off your backsides” to find work, while Coalition members of parliament blackguarded “job snobs” who allegedly refused “employment opportunities.” Last weekend, Treasurer Scott Morrison declared that workers who rejected a job offer for any reason “shouldn’t be getting the dole.”

Despite this escalating demonisation of welfare recipients, even the Australian’s own Newspoll recently reported that Australians were overwhelmingly opposed to further welfare gutting, with 61 percent of those surveyed opposing cuts to the welfare sector in the budget.

Morrison and Education Minister Simon Birmingham have also foreshadowed tertiary student fee hikes of 7.5 percent, taking the cost of a four-year course up to $50,000. Moreover, students will have to start repaying their HECS fee debts once they earn just above the minimum wage—$42,000 a year, down from $51,957—and will be charged an extra loan fee at the start of their studies.

Public universities are expected to face annual 2.5 percent “efficiency dividends.” The purpose of these is to claw back the 20 percent funding cut sought by the government’s first budget in 2014, which was blocked in the Senate because of senators’ fears of popular opposition to the measures. According to Birmingham, the cuts will total $2.8 billion over four years. This is on top of the $4 billion slashed from universities by successive Labor and Coalition governments since 2011.

In a bid to address the government’s debt crisis, Morrison declared last week the budget would label social spending as responsible for “bad” government debt, while multi-billion dollar outlays for corporate-related infrastructure, such as freight rail lines, would be reclassified as “good debt.”

In other words, spending on basic social programs, such as welfare, health and education, on which millions of working class people rely, will be branded as “bad,” while satisfying the demands and boosting the profits of the corporations and financial institutions will be deemed “good.”

The diversion of funds into infrastructure projects is a bid to offset the collapse of corporate investment since the mining boom began to implode in 2012. The investment strike, reflecting intensifying global competition for investment since the 2008 financial breakdown and the waning fortunes of Australian capitalism, portends further cuts to jobs and wage levels.

Corporate leaders are, however, warning the government not to employ the “good debt/bad debt” dichotomy as a means of evading the mounting deficit and debt crisis, instead of imposing even deeper cuts to social spending.

The Australian Financial Review cautioned on Saturday that the rising net federal government debt level could imperil the country’s AAA credit rating. It cited reservations by the Moody’s and S&P ratings agencies over the debt, which is already projected to grow to $363 billion by 2019-20, up from $153 billion in 2013 when the government took office.

These pressures have been intensified by the Trump administration’s declaration last week of its intent to transfer trillions of dollars into the hands of the super-rich by abolishing the estate tax, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent; and reducing the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent.

Turnbull and Morrison responded by indicating they would reintroduce legislation, recently blocked in the Senate, to reduce Australia’s company tax rate from 30 percent to 25 percent for all businesses, not just those with turnovers of up to $50 million a year, as already accepted by the Senate.

Morrison said Australia’s high corporate tax rate was a risk to investment and jobs. He highlighted the reduction of the British rate to 17 percent—the same level as that of Singapore—and French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s vow to lower France’s rate to 25 percent.

Corporate leaders are demanding that the Turnbull government go even further. Outgoing Wesfarmers managing director Richard Goyder, the chairman-elect of Woodside Petroleum, said he viewed Trump’s plan “very, very favourably” and that the government’s proposed 25 percent rate would “really only put us in the game.”