The London Conference on Somalia: Imperialists plan military buildup in Horn of Africa

Thomas Gaist 

Although promoted in the name of “political reform,” “economic development,” and “drought relief,” the “London Conference on Somalia,” hosted by the British government in London from May 12 to 13, served as a planning forum for imperialist military projects in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The main outcome of the conference was a Security Pact that commits the United Kingdom and unnamed “international partners” to support the creation of a new Somali National Army (SNA). The SNA force is planned to include 18,000 regular soldiers, 4,000 special forces, and a Somalia Air Force and Somalia Maritime Force, and will be tasked with defending the Federal Government of Somalia (FSG).

In opening remarks to the conference, British Prime Minister Theresa May outlined a “revised federal constitution” and a “political agreement on resource and power sharing,” based on agreements signed by Somalia’s regional elites in April. The revised Somali constitution, May said, will enable the FSG regime in Mogadishu to gain support for a centralized army, by granting greater political autonomy to Somalia’s semi-autonomous regional governments in Somaliland and Puntland.

“Somalia’s forces need to be built up through a federated model that also brings in regional forces,” May said.

In exchange for their collaboration with the security framework, the African national elites assembled in London can expect financial and military backing from the United Kingdom and the “international community,” May made clear.

“In return, the international community will back these reforms with better targeted support for economic recovery. This will include the targeting of donor support on key investment priorities…and support for mobilising development finance and working towards securing debt relief,” May said.

The British PM assured attendees that the SNA will enjoy support from the American and British militaries and their regional allies. She touted the array of foreign military projects under way inside Somalia, including “the UK’s commitment to train Somali forces in Baidoa, the UAE’s development of a state of the art training facility, America’s training and equipping of Danab Special Forces and Turkey’s work to train Somali officers and NCOs.” 

European Union (EU) High Representative Frederica Mogherini offered “reengagement with international financial institutions” as an incentive for Mogadishu’s fulfillment of its pledges to build up Somalia’s security apparatus and enact “structural reforms” to its economy. Mogherini vowed that EU financial support to Somalia will increase from €800 million to €3.5 billion by 2020.

“The European Union is ready and willing to accompany this process. But I want to be very clear; before we can make decisions about our financial support, we need to see effective coordination and burden sharing in managing this transition towards a Somali-owned security system, with full participation by regional countries. We are ready and willing to be fully engaged in this process,” Mogherini said.

In comments outside the London Conference, United States Secretary of Defense James Mattis told reporters he was “heartened” by talks with Somalia’s president, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. The former Marine Corps general, who personally oversaw the US military’s genocidal assault against Fallujah, Iraq, praised President Mohamed as “a very good leader in terms of understanding the need for military security.”

When asked whether the Pentagon is preparing further deployments of US ground troops, beyond the dozens of US paratroopers sent to Somalia in mid-April, Mattis replied: “That’s a decision [more US troops to Somalia] we’ll take if it’s broached to us, and we’ll decide yes or no.”

“The Somali people have to be defended,” said Mattis.

Washington is absolutely determined to maintain its grip over Somalia, even if this means a significantly larger air and ground war, comparable to those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. American imperialism cannot accept the loss of Somalia, which overlooks the Gulf of Aden and the Mandeb Strait, the most important commercial waterway and strategic chokepoint worldwide. The Pentagon’s largest military base in Africa, Camp Lemmonier in neighboring Djibouti, is a central logistical and command hub for US military operations throughout Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia.

“The US government is clearly aiming at a military solution,” retired UN Africa official Peter Schumann told Deutsche Welle, commenting on the attitude of the Trump administration toward the London Conference.

Humanitarian experts are warning that any further military escalation in Somalia will severely disrupt relief efforts, amid record-breaking levels of drought, famine, and disease. The number of malnourished children living in Somalia may grow to nearly 1.5 million in the coming year, surging by more than 50 percent from last year’s total, according to UNICEF. Across Somalia as a whole, “6.2 million are severely food insecure, 439,000 are at risk of famine, and 275,000 malnourished children are at risk of starvation,” the UN secretary general reported Thursday. The worst of the famine is concentrated in “Bay, Bakool, Banadir, Gedo, Lower Shabelle, Nugaal, Middle Shabelle and Banadir regions,” according to ReliefWeb.

“The international humanitarian system is at its breaking point,” Dominic MacSorley of the humanitarian NGO Concern Worldwide said.

The Western and African troops tasked with defending the FSG will confront a Somali population that is increasingly restive, desperate, and sympathetic to the insurgents. The militaries of no fewer than five other African states, with national interests opposed to those of the FGS, are active on Somali territory. In his remarks from London, Somali President Mohamed acknowledged the dire situation confronting his regime by pleading for the major powers to supply his government with heavy weaponry.

“For far too long, our security forces and terrorist groups have been fighting using the same type of light weapons, mostly AK47s,” he said. “Somalia must have qualitatively better equipment and weapons than the terrorists.”

Somalia’s president warned: “If we don’t have more sophisticated and better weaponry, this war will definitely continue for another 10 years.”

US officials brushed aside President Mohamed’s request, pointing to the longstanding arms embargo against Somalia. The Trump administration has nonetheless proven ready to arm the regional powers with high-tech armaments. Last week, the White House approved the sale of $250 million worth of high-tech weapons to the Kenyan government of President Uhuru Kenyatta. The sale includes “12 MD530F Cayuse Warrior light attack helicopters, 24 heavy machine gun pods, 24 HMP400 machine gun pod systems, 24 M260 rocket pods, 4,032 M151 high-explosive rockets, 1,536 M274 smoke rockets, 400,000 rounds of .50 calibre ammunition and communications/navigation equipment.”

Responding to speculation about the withdrawal of AMISOM, President Kenyatta pledged last week that the Kenyan Defense Forces (KDF) will remain in Somalia until al Shabaab is “completely defeated.”

Yemenis dying of cholera as Trump meets with UAE ruler

Bill Van Auken 

Health authorities in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a have declared a state of emergency as a rapidly spreading cholera epidemic has claimed the lives of over 180 people in the span of little more than two weeks. Abdullahkim al-Kuhlani, a spokesman for the health ministry, reported that there have been 11,034 suspected cholera cases reported across several Yemeni provinces.

The disease is rarely seen and easily treatable in populations with ready access to food and clean water. It has the potential to wreak a catastrophic death toll, particularly among children in Yemen. The country’s basic infrastructure, including water, sanitation and health care systems, has been laid waste by a US-backed bombing campaign that has been waged by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for over two years.

An estimated 12,000 civilians have been killed with tens of thousands more wounded and millions displaced in this war, which is being fought by the wealthy Arab Gulf oil sheikdoms against the poorest nation in the Arab world.

Saudi Arabia and its fellow reactionary Sunni monarchies intervened in a bid to restore the US- and Saudi-backed regime of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who was installed in a one-candidate election in 2012 and then overthrown three years later by Shiite Houthi rebels allied with military forces loyal to ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The systematic targeting of health care facilities has left barely 45 percent of the country’s hospitals still functioning, while the blockade imposed upon the country, with the aid of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has cut the supply of essential medicines by more than 70 percent.

Two thirds of the population have no access to safe drinking water, while the cutoff of food imports has placed 17 million Yemenis at imminent risk of famine, while leaving three million malnourished Yemeni children in “grave peril” of death, according to the United Nations. Under these conditions, cholera can spread like wildfire.

In the clearest signal yet that Washington is preparing to substantially escalate the US support for this criminal war—initiated under the Democratic administration of Barack Obama—the Trump White House has organized back-to-back meetings and massive arms deals with the crowned rulers of the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

On Monday, Trump welcomed to the White House Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and the de facto ruler of the UAE. Trump appeared with the royal dictator in the Oval Office, calling Sheikh Mohamed a “very special, very special person, highly respected.” He said that the sheikh “loves his country. And I think loves the United States, which to us is very important.” Sheikh Mohamed, whose regime systematically suppresses all political opposition, subjecting its opponents to forced disappearances and routine torture, remained mum.

On the eve of the UAE ruler’s visit, the US State Department gave its approval for a $2 billion deal under which Lockheed Martin and Raytheon will provide the oil sheikdom with Patriot missile systems.

Trump’s meeting with Sheikh Mohamed is to be followed at the end of this week by his first overseas trip since taking office. The first stop is Saudi Arabia. As with the UAE, Trump’s meeting with the dictatorial Wahhabi monarchy in Riyadh is being accompanied by another massive US arms deal.

A senior White House official told the Reuters news agency last Friday that Washington is close to completing $100 billion worth of new arms sales, including advanced missile systems, fighter jets and other heavy weapons. The official added that over the next decade, the sales could amount to $300 billion.

The weapons sales represent only a slight departure from the policies pursued under the Obama administration, which oversaw the sale of over $115 billion worth of weapons and military services to the Saudi monarchy. At the same time, it established a “Joint Planning Cell” in Saudi Arabia through which the Pentagon coordinated US military and intelligence support for the Saudi war against Yemen. US planes also provided mid-air refueling of Saudi fighter jets to enable the murderous bombing to continue around the clock.

While the Obama administration provided the bombs and missiles and other aid needed to murder thousands of Yemenis as part of a policy aimed at assuaging Saudi Arabia’s anger over the 2015 nuclear deal reached between Tehran and the US and other major powers, the Trump administration has denounced the agreement and threatened to rip it up.

After a horrific Saudi “double-tap” bombing of a packed funeral hall in Sana’a in October 2016 that left 827 civilians killed or wounded, the Obama administration halted a planned sale of precision-guided munitions as a token gesture, while continuing to provide the support without which the war on Yemen could not have continued.

Such minimal restrictions are now being lifted, and the Trump administration is adopting a relentlessly hostile stance in relation to Iran, which both Saudi Arabia and Washington have charged, without substantiation, of providing major assistance to the Houthi rebels.

In March, US Defense Secretary James Mattis formally requested approval for stepped-up Pentagon support for the Saudi war in Yemen. A memo submitted to the White House claimed that such aid would serve to combat “a common threat” supposedly posed by Iran, US imperialism’s principal regional rival for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East.

The immediate aim of an increase in US military aid is to support a planned operation by UAE military forces to seize Hodeida, the country’s main port, through which 70 percent of the country’s imports now flow. The taking of the port would tighten the stranglehold imposed by the naval blockade, potentially condemning millions to death by starvation.

The more far-reaching objective being pursued by Washington is the imposition of US imperialist hegemony across the Middle East through a military confrontation with Iran and the preparation for a global conflict with Washington’s principal rivals, Russia and China.

Palace coup in the Austrian People’s Party

Peter Schwarz 

On Sunday, the Presidium of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) elected 30-year-old Sebastian Kurz as the new party leader, granting him dictatorial powers. Kurz has a free hand in the selection of leading personnel, the content of the party programme, the details of electoral slates, conducting coalition negotiations and the selection of ministers. Editorials speak of a “one-man party.”

The new party leader will take part in the next national election with a slate named after him (The Kurz/New Peoples Party slate), which will be supported by the ÖVP, but which can also nominate non-party members. “The ÖVP will continue to function as a framework and financial donor, but only one person will determine the direction of travel: Sebastian Kurz,” commented the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Kurz, who has been foreign minister for three years in the grand coalition of the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), had been preparing the putsch-like takeover of the party presidency for months. He sought to distinguish himself through an aggressive refugee policy, which hardly differs from that of the right-wing extremist Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), touring through the federal states and conspiring against former party chair Reinhold Mitterlehner.

On Wednesday, an exasperated Mitterlehner finally quit the party chairmanship, as well as his offices as vice chancellor and economics minister, making way for Kurz. Kurz then presented the party with a seven-point ultimatum, to secure himself unlimited power over the party.

Point 3 reads: “The party leader shall have the right to determine personnel decisions, he alone shall be responsible for the federal slate [of candidates] and shall have a veto on provincial slates.” According to point 4, he chooses “the General Secretary and the government team and no longer needs a decision of the executive committee.” Point 5 gives him a “free hand for negotiating coalitions” and point 6, the right to “specify the political direction of the party.”

In an interview with Kronen Zeitung, Austria’s most prominent tabloid, Kurz explained that his conditions were “non-negotiable.” He would be “no longer available to the party” if they were not fulfilled. On Sunday evening, the party presidency accepted the ultimatum at a crisis meeting and unanimously selected Kurz as the new party leader.

Kurz is now seeking the dissolution of the grand coalition and early elections this autumn. Both the SPÖ and the FPÖ have indicated that they agree. The election is expected to pave the way for the right-wing extremist FPÖ into government, which is currently running at 30 percent in the polls, ahead of the Social Democrats (28 percent) and the ÖVP (21 percent). Less than a year after the defeat of the FPÖ candidate Norbert Hofer in the presidential election, the FPÖ would thus be able to enter government.

Kurz has left no doubt that he is prepared to form a government together with the right-wing extremists. However, he only wants to do so if he can take over the office of chancellor. To expand his parliamentary base, he has already begun inviting representatives of other parties to his election slate. Matthias Strolz, head of the liberal NEOS party, which, with 5 percent of the vote, has been represented in parliament since 2013, complained on Twitter: “Sebastian Kurz, stop calling our people. That is shameless and scheming.”

The SPÖ is also prepared to form a government with the FPÖ. It has already done this at state level in Burgenland, and Chancellor Christian Kern, a former manager, has repeatedly made clear that he would also be ready to do so at federal level.

The transformation of the ÖVP into an authoritarian election association serves to prepare the way for an extremely right-wing government, which will pursue anti-working class, anti-democratic and militarist policies. A party leader who neither accepts democratic decisions nor brooks opposition in the ranks of his own organisation will not do so as head of government.

The ÖVP is one of the major, traditional conservative parties of Europe, and has repeatedly headed the Austrian government since 1945. The fact that it is now undergoing such a profound change shows how far advanced is the erosion of democratic principles in ruling circles.

The bourgeois media tirelessly denounces Turkish President Erdogan, Russian President Putin, and Hungarian government leader Orbán for the use of authoritarian methods and heading parties that follow lockstep in their path. But when this happens on their own doorstep, they not only keep silent, but support it.

The daily Die Presse came to the defence of the ÖVP against the accusation that what was now going on in its ranks “was a pre-fascist coup, an authoritarian turn, the return of the 1930s” and that “its protagonist is located somewhere between Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.”

This, according to Die Presse, is pure hatred, because “Every boss of a larger company in Austria has that: sovereignty over personnel questions and the strategic direction of his company. Yes, he can even choose the name of his company. The ÖVP leader is now getting something like this.”

Presenting the command structure of a company as a model for the organisation of a political party—one cannot formulate the breakdown of any form of democracy more clearly. President Donald Trump acts according to the same principles, viewing any unwanted parliamentary or judicial decision as an interference with his authority and the business interests of his family, and is increasingly turning to authoritarian methods of rule.

The erosion of bourgeois democracy is a result of the deep, international crisis of capitalist society and heralds fierce class battles. After decades of a tiny minority enriching themselves at the expense of the majority, social tensions are approaching the boiling point. The ruling elites are reacting by drawing closer together and turning to the right.

In Austria, the mechanisms of social partnership and political compromise were institutionalised after the Second World War in a manner only otherwise seen in Scandinavia or Germany. Time and again, social democrats and conservatives ruled in a grand coalition, developing an impenetrable network of nepotism and corruption. The anger and frustration that this generated are now being exploited by Kurz in the call for a strong man. His politics, however, are not directed against the privileges of the ruling elites, but against the remaining social achievements of the working class.

Sebastian Kurz, who began his political career 14 years ago in the ÖVP youth organisation and who was promoted by today’s European Commissioner Johannes Hahn and other party officials, is often compared with the new French president, Emmanuel Macron. Macron also began his political career in the ranks of the establishment, only now to present himself as a “new face” standing above the old parties. Both look for their real base within the security apparatus and the military.

In Germany as well, Kurz’s authoritarian aspirations meet with sympathy. The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) praised him, saying he stood “for freshness and a new beginning.” Although Austria is smaller than the German states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, it enjoys “nine federal states and countless groups of influence alongside the federal administration.” To “provide fresh wind…these federal structures” should be broken up.” “Only then,” concluded the FAZ, “will Austria modernise, as is urgently needed. This applies primarily to the economy and the state finances.”

In other words, an authoritarian party and a right-wing, dictatorial regime are necessary to restructure the economy and state finances at the expense of the working class.

China hosts international launch of One Belt, One Road initiative

Nick Beams

The two-day international Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) forum, which concluded in Beijing yesterday, has underscored the shifts and conflicts in geo-economic and political relations resulting from the rise of China to the position of the world’s second largest economy.

While it received little attention in the media, the fact that the US was little more than a bit player at an economic gathering, dubbed by some as advancing the 21st century equivalent of the post-war Marshall Plan, points to the historic decline of its economic position.

The forum, which included the heads of 28 states and representatives from 100 countries, was the international launch of the so-called One Belt, One Road project initiated by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013.

Invoking the history of the Silk Road of medieval times, the BRI envisages the construction of a series of ports, railway lines and roads connecting the major economic centres of China with Europe.

The forum was convened in a $1 billion complex constructed north of Beijing and was accompanied by a massive publicity campaign by the Chinese government.

Opening the gathering on Sunday, Xi had two objectives: to win international support for the BRI, which envisages the expenditure of more than $1 trillion on infrastructure projects, thereby enhancing China’s global position, and to cement domestic support for his regime as he enters his second term as president.

“Spanning thousands of miles and years, the ancient silk routes embody the spirit of peace and co-operation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and benefit,” he said, hailing the initiative as the “project of the century.”

“We should foster a new type of international relations featuring win-win co-operation; and we should forge partnerships of dialogue with no confrontation and of friendship rather than alliance.”

Under conditions where both Russia and China face increasing pressure from the United States, President Vladimir Putin was given pride of place among the international representatives at the forum’s opening.

Xi told his Russian counterpart that their countries were the “ballast stone” of world stability. Behind the smiles and handshakes however, there are tensions between the two powers. Russia has its own plan for extending its economic and political influence in central Asia and the former republics of the Soviet Union under its Eurasian Economic Union and there are fears that it could be subordinated to the BRI.

Both Xi and Putin sought to keep the issue in the background, with Putin emphasising that the Chinese and Russian projects were complementary and that Eurasian integration is a “civilisation project for the future.”

For his part Xi said the BRI was not aimed at cutting across the initiatives of other countries. Besides the Russian EEU project, Turkey has a plan to link up Turkish speaking states in a so-called “Middle Corridor.”

Xi insisted that the Chinese project was not intended to replace existing partnerships. “The aim of Belt and Road is not to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it aims to complement the development strategies of countries involved.”

However, for all Xi’s words about the need for greater openness, co-operation, the rejection of protectionism, the need to develop win-win outcomes, coupled with assurances that China is concerned about development for all, international tensions made their presence felt.

Japan the second largest economy in the Asia region boycotted the forum altogether viewing it as a means through which China is seeking to enhance its regional and global power.

India also boycotted the forum because of what it called “sovereignty issues.”

These relate to the Chinese decision to label the $50 billion Xinjiang to Gwadar port project which passes through parts of Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, which India claims, as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The Indian snub came after considerable efforts by the Chinese to secure its attendance, issuing assurances that it would abide by international rulings on the Kashmir question.

Indian external affairs spokesman Gopal Baglay said the CPEC was being promoted as a flagship initiative of the One Belt One Road and “no country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Behind the official reason there are concerns that Chinese investment will strengthen Pakistan economically.

The heads of states attending the meeting came from less developed countries with the major powers sending lesser representatives, reflecting both concerns about whether the project will actually materialise, while seeking at the same time to place themselves in the best position to exploit economic advantages that do arise.

Germany, which is regarded as a key player in the initiative because of its position as the major European economy at the head of the new Silk Road, sent the economics and energy minister Brigitte Zyrpies. She was accompanied by a significant representation of German big business.

But she expressed reservations about the project, saying at the outset that Germany would not sign a joint statement unless certain guarantees demanded by the European Union on free trade and the establishment of a “level playing field” were met.

“Germany does want to take part, but tenders need to be open to everyone; only then will German companies take part,” she said. “It must also be clear what is actually going to be built. At this point, it’s not clear.”

She also noted that Chinese restrictions on allowing foreign companies to buy assets were also a problem. “We want German companies to be able to operate in China in the same way Chinese companies can in Germany.” But at this point there was no clear timetable for dismantling restrictions.

In the event, Germany, along with other European powers, including Britain, did not sign a communiqué on trade because of concerns over transparency over procurement as well as social and environmental standards. There are also concerns among European officials about the growth of Chinese influence in central and eastern Europe.

While it joined other European countries in expressing reservations on how it would operate, Britain expressed its overall support for the project. Its delegation was headed by the chancellor of the exchequer in the May government, Philip Hammond, who was accompanied by representatives of UK banking and financial firms.

In March 2015, the Tory government of David Cameron defied pressure from the US and its own security agencies and decided to join the Chinese-sponsored Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, a decision that reflected the interests of the City of London in exploiting the opportunities, which could open up.

And those interests were very much on display again at the BRI forum. Sherry Madera, the City of London’s special adviser for Asia, said London could play a key role in financing the initiative.

She said that while the UK was talking about Brexit, Asia was talking about business.

“We’ve always been a global financial centre. Banks and investors from the US, Middle East and Asia are all within easy walking distance, and that is the ecosystem that is London. That’s what makes it by far the most important global financial centre, far and away beyond the likes of Hong Kong or New York.”

Initially the United States had decided to send only a minor official to the forum but given the size of the gathering and the fact that countries throughout South East Asia were taking part, it decided to upgrade its representation, sending Matt Pottinger, the senior director for East Asia on the National Security Council.

Powerful sections of the US political establishment regard China and its economic initiatives as the single most important threat to the global position of the United States.

These views were reflected in an opinion piece published on Fox News by John Moody in the forum headlined “China’s silky threat to American leadership.”

It said while the Sunday talk shows were obsessing about Trump and sacked FBI head James Comey, China was hosting a top-level gathering “which will kick off the biggest challenge ever to America’s place in the world economy.” The initiative was a “brazen attempt to seize worldwide economic leadership from the United States” binding emerging trading partners to Beijing “by offering them access to China’s vast consumer market.”

Apart from the potential for international conflicts set off by the project, the Xi regime confronts problems in the Chinese economy itself.

The project is widely regarded in ruling circles not only as a means of expanding China’s global position but also as providing an outlet for excess industrial capacity.

But how willing Chinese firms and banking institutions are to invest in projects that may not earn them a sufficient return, and from which they could even incur losses, is another question.

On the eve of the forum, the Financial Times reported that investment in BRI projects declined last year “raising doubts about whether commercial enterprises are committed to a strategy for a new Silk Road defined as much by geopolitics as by profit-seeking.”

According to the report, foreign direct investment from China to countries identified as being part of the BRI declined by 2 percent in 2016, falling an additional 18 percent so far this year. It cited bankers and representatives of state-owned enterprises who complained that the government was pressuring them to undertake BRI projects that were not profitable.

This development points to a conflict between the motivations of the regime to advance the project in the interests of its domestic and international political concerns and the logic of the market, which pushes investment towards the more developed economies.

There is no question that the unification of the Eurasian landmass through the most modern transportation systems could provide significant economic advancement.

But in a global socio-economic order dominated by the striving for private profit, together with the divergent aims of capitalist nation-states and imperialist great powers, the project has already become a mare’s nest of conflicting interests.

The global ransomware attack and the crimes of the US spy agencies

Andre Damon

Over the past four days, some 350,000 computers have been infected by the so-called “WannaCry” malware, including 70,000 devices such as MRI scanners, blood storage refrigerators and operating equipment used by Britain’s National Health Service. As a result of the attack, the NHS was forced to turn away emergency room patients and divert ambulances, potentially resulting in serious illnesses and even fatalities.

The worm is a piece of “ransomware” that encrypts users’ data until the creators receive a payment. It uses “exploits” developed by the US National Security Agency as just a small part of the NSA’s catalog of hacking tools.

When NSA researchers discovered the vulnerability in the Windows operating system targeted by “WannaCry,” they refused to inform Microsoft. The company found out about the existence of the vulnerability only shortly before the general public, when it was leaked by the Shadow Brokers hacker group on April 14 of this year.

On Saturday, Microsoft President Brad Smith, in a tersely worded blog post, faulted the NSA for failing to share its knowledge of the exploit. “This attack provides yet another example of why the stockpiling of vulnerabilities by governments is such a problem,” he wrote, adding that “this most recent attack represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today—nation-state action and organized criminal action.”

He concluded, “We need governments to consider the damage to civilians that comes from hoarding these vulnerabilities and the use of these exploits.”

Microsoft is far from blameless when it comes to the NSA’s operations. It has established a standing practice of reporting bugs to the US government before they are repaired and publicly acknowledged, allowing the NSA to use these vulnerabilities to break into systems.

Regardless, Smith’s statement represents a stinging indictment of the operations of the US intelligence apparatus, implying that its actions are only once removed from those of criminals.

The hacking tools used in the “WannaCry” malware serve an even more malevolent purpose than any ransomware: illegal spying on the population of the whole world as part of a systematic practice of subversion and cyber aggression.

In May 2013, NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the US intelligence apparatus collects, processes, reads and catalogs a vast quantity of private communications, both in the United States and internationally. Snowden explained that the stated aim of the NSA, the “signals intelligence” arm of the US intelligence apparatus, is unfettered access to all private information. Its mottos are, according to a leaked internal presentation, “Collect it All,” “Process it All,” “Exploit it All, “Sniff it All” and “Know it All.”

Illegal domestic surveillance operations authorized by the Bush administration after 9/11 resulted in the vastly expanded scale of government spying that was exposed by Snowden. With the collaboration, both voluntary and coerced, of the major telecommunications companies, the US government was able to vacuum up nearly all phone conversations, email and chat messages exchanged on digital devices.

In subsequent years, common communications platforms substantially improved their security capabilities, with nearly all Internet communication systems enabling encryption by default. These developments prompted US intelligence officials to complain of the Internet “going dark” to the NSA and CIA, prompting repeated calls by politicians, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, to criminalize the use of encryption.

The NSA responded by vastly expanding its use of “Tailored Access Operations,” the arm of the NSA devoted to “computer network exploitation,” commonly known as hacking. The agency adopted the slogan, “Your data is our data, your equipment is our equipment—anytime, any place.”

The NSA worked to build up a catalog of cyber weapons, known as “exploits,” which allow it to easily break into almost any Internet-connected device. One internal NSA document from 2012 claimed that the NSA worked with the largest telecommunications and technology companies in the world to “insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communications devices used by targets.”

The NSA’s massive team of security researchers—the largest in the world—also worked to discover and exploit vulnerabilities within existing products, keeping these bugs a secret from manufacturers in order to allow the NSA to exploit them to gain access to computers, networks and Internet-connected devices before other researchers could discover them and recommend fixes to manufacturers.

In addition to using these tools to carry out mass surveillance, the NSA weaponized them in order to carry out cyberattacks against Washington’s geopolitical adversaries. The most notorious of these efforts was the release of the Stuxnet worm in 2010, which ruined some 1,000 Iranian nuclear centrifuges. The cyberattack was coordinated with a series of car bomb murders, attributed by the media to the US and Israel, which killed at least three Iranian nuclear physicists.

The fact that over 70 percent of the initially reported “WannaCry” infections took place in Russia raises the very real possibility that the current disaster is the result of a Stuxnet-like cyberattack by the United States. The other country disproportionately affected was China.

Speaking in Beijing on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “As for the source of these threats, Microsoft’s leadership stated this directly. They said the source of the virus was the special services of the United States.”

White House Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert declared that finding those responsible for cyberattacks is “something that sometimes eludes us. Attribution can be difficult here.”

Bossert’s statement contrasts sharply with the declaration by the director of national intelligence in October 2016 that the US spy agencies were “confident that the Russian Government directed… recent compromises” of emails related to the Clinton campaign.

That declaration was part of a vast campaign by the Democratic Party, the media and much of the political establishment aimed at demonizing Russia by claiming it had “hacked” the 2016 US elections. As part of that campaign, media outlets, led by the New York Times, sought to present Russia as a global hacking powerhouse, subverting the spotless US electoral system.

One can only imagine what would have happened if, instead of the current malware attack mainly affecting Russia and largely bypassing the US in its initial stages, the situation had been reversed. The media would be up in arms about Russian “hackers,” with demands that the Trump administration retaliate with sanctions, cyberattacks and more menacing military moves. The Democrats would be in the forefront of calls for new war-mongering resolutions in Congress.

An examination of the facts exposed by the “WannaCry” attack, however, show that the world’s biggest band of cyber criminals by far is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

New NPR: Reducing the Salience of Nuclear Weapons

Manpreet Sethi


As was expected with the arrival of President Trump to the White House, he put all US foreign policy issues under review. He has also called for a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that is likely to be announced in 2018. The last NPR was brought out under the watch of former President Barack Obama in 2010 and much has changed since then, particularly in US-Russia relations. The last NPR had downgraded the threat from near peers such as Russia, reducing the need for retaining the kind of deterrence strategies that had been pursued during the Cold War years. Instead, the challenge of securing available nuclear material and technology worldwide in order to minimise, if not obviate, the risk of nuclear terrorism had been upgraded to the highest level. 

Accordingly, President Obama invested in Nuclear Security Summits even as he reduced the role of nuclear weapons in his national security strategy. In doing so, Obama had reversed some of the recommendations of the earlier NPR brought out by his predecessor in 2002. Drafted under President Bush, the previous NPR had promoted a unilateralist US posture premised on the idea of nuclear pre-emption, support for development of new types of nuclear weapons, retention of the option of nuclear testing, and pursuit of missile defence. While it had reduced the number of US nuclear weapons, it had contributed significantly to increasing the salience of these weapons. President Trump might end up taking the US down that path again as he has mandated the Pentagon to get him a nuclear arsenal that is “safe, secure, effective, reliable and aptly tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure allies.”

While presidential preferences reflect significantly in the nature of the NPR, it is also influenced by the opposing pulls and pushes arising from the interests and concerns of the many stakeholders in the US nuclear arsenal. Concluded after several rounds of inter-agency deliberations, the NPR encapsulates many interests. Prima facie it appears that the Trump NPR will not draw away from the modernisation of the US arsenal that President Obama had approved before demitting office. It is likely to retain a strong focus on US nuclear weapons in order to handle the new threats that have emerged in the form of a more muscular Russia, a more assertive China, a more unpredictable DPRK and an Iran whose long-term intentions the US is still worried about. Given his own proclivity for military might, Trump is unlikely to change course unless some real breakthroughs become possible in the relationships with Russia, China and DPRK. Such possibilities look absolutely bleak at this time. Rather, all indications are that nuclear weapons states are moving towards modernising their arsenals and showcasing nuclear capabilities - in military parades and through cavalier statements. Not surprising then that several analysts are arguing in favour of retaining nuclear capability as a means of credible deterrence and dissuasion against proliferation. Amassing unlimited nuclear power is seen as being more effective to deter enemies, reassure allies, and to dissuade potential proliferators by giving them no hope “of ever achieving nuclear parity with the US.” Trump has made it clear that he is willing to race anyone on nuclear weapons and remain “on top of the pack.” 

While such bluster appears to be the order of the day, these arguments certainly have an adverse impact on international security. As officials prepare the NPR, it may help to remember three things. One, enemies are definitely deterred by the other side's military might but there is no proof that the promise of unlimited nuclear power deters more. Deterrence is a function of many sources and influences including, most importantly, the value at stake. Therefore, when a country attaches a great value to something – territory, survival, or stature – it is unlikely to be deterred even by the threat of nuclear devastation. The desire to possess unlimited nuclear power is a meaningless exercise since for those who want to be deterred, even a few would be enough; and for those who cannot be deterred, even an unlimited nuclear arsenal would be futile. 

Two, nuclear parity is hardly a pre-requisite for credible nuclear deterrence. Deterrence is based on the ability to inflict 'unacceptable damage' and hence is dependent on the unacceptability threshold of a country. There can never be symmetry in these thresholds and some countries could be willing to allow more damage to themselves - including accepting visions of more ‘dying beautifully’ - than others. Equivalence is not required in the nuclear game; not between US and Russia, or US and China. Therefore, an arms race in nuclear warheads is not only unnecessary but also damaging.

Three, far from dissuading proliferation, a commitment to hold on to nuclear weapons infinitely is certain to fuel more proliferation. History illustrates that in order to deter nuclear weapons, a rival has but to acquire the same class of weapons. How then can proliferation be stopped? This is especially so when countries like DPRK have demonstrated that very few weapons are actually needed to achieve a range of objectives such as guarding against regime change, driving a hard bargain, or altering even a big nuclear power’s foreign policy.  Did the US not say early in 2006 that the “US would never live” with a nuclear DPRK? In fact, it has been doing so for the last decade and more.

The dangers arising from the presence of nuclear weapons are many: the risk of nuclear exchange, inadvertent escalation, miscalculation, unauthorised use, the threat of loose nukes, and above all, nuclear proliferation with its attendant risks. Moving to nuclear infinity means living with them in perpetuity. 

The US would do well to heed these risks and recognise the need for accepting and imposing certain mutual limits on weapons and testing. President Obama's dictum was no new nuclear warheads, capabilities, or missions. Retaining this basic thought would not only indicate fiscal prudence, which should appeal to the business-minded Trump, but also lead to better international security. Even if the international climate is averse to the idea of the elimination of nuclear weapons right now, attempts at reducing their salience through a number of bilateral and multilateral initiatives should be the priority. Moving towards more and more advanced capabilities to counter the adversary’s actions could only lead to more security dilemmas. Political dialogue coupled with downplaying military might can be the only win-win solution for the current slew of challenges.

African Development Bank Agriculture Fast Track (AFT) Fund for African Entrepreneurs 2017

Application Deadline: 16th May 2017

Eligible Countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania.

About the Award: The AFT Fund is a multi-donor trust fund managed by the African Development Bank with funding support from the US government represented by USAID (US$ 12 million), the Danish Government represented by DANIDA (US$ 1.8 million) and the Swedish Government represented by SIDA (US$ 10 million). It was launched on 8 May 2013 with initial funding amounting to US$ 23.80 million. The AFT is housed at the Agriculture and Agro-Industry department (OSAN) of the African Development Bank.

The AFT will provide grant funding for the initial project development costs of a broad range of agriculture infrastructure projects spanning the entire value chain – from production to market. These can emanate from the private or public sector and from local or international businesses. The types of projects envisioned range from rural feeder roads to agro-processing and marketing facilities to out-grower schemes. The emphasis will be on projects that contribute to food security and support to smallholders.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: US$ 23.8 million

Eligibility: Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the agriculture sector, government agencies preparing agriculture infrastructure projects, non-governmental and civil society organizations such as farmer organizations and agriculture Fund Managers with clients seeking last mile financing or advisory services to formulate bankable agricultural development proposals.

Eligibility Screening: Applicants are required to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ 6 to questions outlined in the Eligibility Screening. Only grant applicants who pass the Eligibility Screening will have access to the Concept Note Submission stage.

Selection: This stage is preceded by the Eligibility Screening stage. Applicants who pass the Eligibility Screening stage will have 2 weeks to submit a Concept Note through the grant application portal on this website. Applicants will be informed of the evaluation results of their Concept Notes within 4 weeks after the Concept Notes submission.

How to Apply: This is preceded by the Concept Note submission stage. Only applicants whose Concept Notes pass the selection criteria will be invited within 4 weeks to submit a Full Technical Application. Applicants will be informed of the evaluation results of their Full Technical Application within 6 weeks after the Full Technical Application submission.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Providers: US government represented by USAID, the Danish Government represented by DANIDA and the Swedish Government represented by SIDA.

Carnegie/University of Cape Town Postdoctoral and Early-Career Research Fellowships 2017

Application Deadline: 23rd May 2017

Eligible Countries: All African countries

To be taken at (country): University of Cape Town, South Africa

About the Award: The Carnegie Corporation has provided the University of Cape Town (UCT) with a grant to strengthen research leadership capacity in Africa through funding support for African scientists. Research Fellowships are being offered to support seven (7) Postdoctoral Fellows and four (4) Early-Career Researchers, to undertake infectious disease research projects affiliated with UCT’s Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine (IDM). The intention is to develop a cohort of emerging academics and provide support for those transitioning to independent academic scientist positions so as to grow the next generation of academics and strengthen higher education in Africa.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Applications for the Postdoctoral Fellowships are invited from candidates who:

• • have previously been awarded a Carnegie PhD or Postdoctoral Fellowship through the Next Generation of Academics in Africa (NGAA) programme;
• • are a national of any African country;
• • achieved their doctoral degree no more than 5 years ago and/or have completed no more than 2 years of postdoctoral training; and
• • are currently registered or intend to register as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at UCT, linked* to the IDM.

Conditions of Award: Successful candidates will be required to:

• • register as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at UCT, linked* to the IDM;
• • enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with her/his Sponsor and adhere to the plans and agreements therein; and
• • comply with the UCT’s approved policies, procedures, and practices for the postdoctoral sector

Early-Career Fellowships: Applications for the Early-Career Fellowships are invited from candidates who:

• • have previously been awarded a Carnegie PhD or Postdoctoral Fellowship through the Next Generation of Academics in Africa (NGAA) programme;
• • are a national of any African country; and
• • currently hold, or are eligible to be awarded* , a full-time employment contract at UCT, linked** to the IDM, for the duration of the award.

Conditions of Early-Career Fellowship Award:  Successful candidates will be required to:

• • enter into a full-time contract academic appointment at UCT, linked* to the IDM;
• • enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with her/his Sponsor and adhere to the plans and agreements therein; and
• • comply with the UCT’s approved policies, procedures, and practices for the academic sector

Selection Criteria: 

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Applicants applying for their first Postdoctoral Fellowship must have graduated with a Doctoral degree or have submitted a Doctoral thesis for examination (proof of submission required). Existing Carnegie Postdoctoral Fellows can extend their current fellowship up to a maximum of 5 years, or register for a second senior Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Early-Career Fellowships: Applicants for the Early-Career Fellowships are expected to have started making important research contributions and begun to drive their own research (usually evidenced by publications), but require additional support to lead their own independent research group. For these candidates, a minimum of two years’ postdoctoral experience is required, except in the case of clinician scientists – we encourage applications from clinicians who hold, or do not yet hold, a PhD, with the latter on the understanding that they would register for a PhD. Applications will be assessed based on the candidate’s vision, their specific research plan, and its innovation/novelty. Awards will be made based on excellence of the ideas and evidence of appropriate support structures.

Number of Awards:  seven (7) Postdoctoral Fellows and four (4) Early-Career Researchers

Value and Duration of Program: The Postdoctoral Fellowships are valued at R250,000 p/a and the Early-Career Fellowships at R500,000 p/a. Fellowships are initially awarded for one (1) year, and are renewable up to three (3) years total, subject to satisfactory academic progress, compliance with the conditions of award, and on the availability of funds.

How to Apply: Applicants are required to submit:

• • a completed application form (see below);
• • PhD certificate or equivalent documentation (including proof of MBChB where applicable)

Enquiries and requests for application forms should be directed to Ms Jacqui Steadman (Email: jacqui.steadman@uct.ac.za). Completed applications are to be submitted to the same no later than Friday 23 May 2017.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Carnegie Corporation

Important Notes: The Carnegie Corporation funding is aimed at advancing equity. For these awards, we will therefore seek particularly to attract black South Africans and candidates from other African countries.

Stanford University MBA Fellowship for African Students (Fully-funded) 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 7th June 2017 (5:00pm Pacific Time)

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (Country): Stanford University, USA

Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University.

About the Award: Stanford University is offering an MBA Fellowship program to eight Africans who wish to obtain a Stanford MBA degree. The program is set annually to assist citizens from Africa study at the university, acquire essential skill sets for the standard duration of two years and return to the continent, to work in vital positions that directly impact and improve Africa.

Type: MBA Fellowship

Eligibility

1. To demonstrate the primary reason for the program, applicants must be ready to dedicate at least two (2) years to the development of the economy of Africa after the MBA program.
2. The MBA Fellowship will be awarded to Final-year undergraduates and graduates of institutions in Africa as well as African citizens who studied in countries outside of Africa.
3. To be eligible for the fellowship, applicants must also apply to the Stanford MBA Program.

Selection Criteria:

1. Merit
2. Commitment to developing Africa
3. Financial need

Number of Awardees: Eight (8)

Value of Scholarship: $160,000

Duration of Scholarship: Two years

How to Apply:

1. One-page resume or curriculum vitae (CV)
2. A 250-word essay on how applicant plans to effect change in Africa
3. Financial information
4. Awards and honours
5. History of employment
6. Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and/or Graduate Record Examination (GRE)

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Stanford University, United States of America.

GLG Social Impact Fellowships for Individuals and Organisations Interested in Social Work 2017

Application Deadline: 17th July, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Fellows and organisations in Countries in Africa: South Africa, Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda

To be taken at (country): Fellow’s Home country and USA

About the Award: The GLG Social Impact Fellowship leverages GLG’s learning platform to help top social entrepreneurs answer their organization’s critical strategic and operational questions, at no cost. Through the two-year Fellowship, ambitious and visionary nonprofit and social enterprise leaders learn in tailored interactions with experts across GLG’s membership and with each other.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Fellows are leaders with strong records and visions for their organizations. They have great teams and do something innovative that’s likely to scale. They are personally committed to learning, excited to grow professionally, and articulate ambitions for their organizations’ growth which GLG is positioned to support.

Selection Criteria: Characteristics critical to the success of the Social Impact Fellowship programme which will be used as criteria for selection are:

Fellows

• CEOs/Founder that is committed to leading the organization during the fellowship.
• S/he understands the value of GLG, can articulate use cases, and is open to a thought partner in GLG and its experts.
• S/he is relentlessly seeking big impact through their organization, is curious and excited about learning, is open to feedback, and has developed a team and habits to allow for strategic thinking and pursuit of the next phase at the organization

Organizations

• Eligible Organizations
  • Nonprofit organizations with minimum operating budget of $1M and maximum of $12M
  • Mission-driven for-profits with annual operating budget under $500,000
  • Hybrid organizations of comparable size
• At an inflection point
  • Organizations that are a good fit for GLG’s Fellowship are no longer in early stages of development and leadership team members are ready to pursue ambitious growth plans. They have proven the concept of their impact and implemented their program in an initial (set of) site(s). When they come to GLG, they are looking to scale significantly, launch a new product based on the core principles of their initial model, or otherwise iterate on the impact they’ve established to date. Think of it as an organization’s move from 2.0 to 3.0.
• Average 3-5 years in operation
• Minimum 5 full-time staff
• Established leadership team supporting key strategic planning and execution

Number of Awardees: Several

Value of Fellowship : The Fellowship begins with an in-person convening October 16-18, 2017 in Austin, Texas., where Fellows learn how to use the GLG platform. Fellows then work with GLG to identify the top challenges facing their organizations and set learning objectives to meet those challenges.

Duration of Fellowship : Two years

How to Apply: Visit Fellowship page to apply

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Gerson Lehrman Group