14 Jun 2017

Indian authorities seek to imprison more Maruti Suzuki workers on frame-up charges

Shannon Jones

The government of the northwest Indian state of Haryana is set to challenge the acquittal of 117 former Maruti Suzuki auto workers who were exonerated by a court earlier this year on frame-up charges.
The charges arose from a July 2012 management-provoked altercation and fire at the company’s Manesar plant that resulted in the death of a company manager. The Japanese-owned automaker, Indian state and political establishment used the July 18, 2012 events to launch a legal witch hunt against workers at the car assembly plant—which had emerged as a center of opposition to sweatshop conditions in the Manesar-Gurgaon industrial belt on the outskirts of India’s capital, Delhi—and to purge its workforce.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state government has also said it plans to seek stiffer sentences for 18 workers convicted of “rioting” and other charges related to the incident. The men were given jail terms ranging from 3 to 5 years.
Haryana’s Advocate General, Raj Mahajan, told the press last Thursday that the state’s appeal against the verdict has been prepared and will soon be submitted in High Court.
In March, a district court in Gurugram (Gurgaon) convicted 31 former Maruti Suzuki workers on charges stemming from the 2012 events. Thirteen of the 31 were convicted on trumped-up murder charges related to the death of the manager and received life-sentences to be served in India’s brutal prison system. Those jailed for life included the entire leadership of the Maruti Suzuki Workers Union (MSWU), an independent union workers built through a series of militant strikes and occupations in 2011-12 in opposition to a pro-company, government-backed union.
They are victims of a legal vendetta. The workers’ only “crime” is to have opposed the poverty wages and brutal work-regimen the transnational companies impose on workers in India’s new, globally-connected industries.
The court acquitted the 117 workers in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the police and prosecution had fabricated evidence, coached witnesses and illegally colluded with Maruti Suzuki management.
Defence lawyers showed that police had arrested 87 of the 117 on the basis of lists supplied by a senior Maruti Suzuki official who was not even employed at the Manesar plant and was not a witness to the altercation. Later, fearing that this would come out in court, the police fabricated evidence, getting four Maruti Suzuki labour contractors to claim that they had implicated the 87 men.
The police’s illegal actions against the 87 were in keeping with the state’s conduct throughout the case. Police failed to carry out elementary forensic tests on key pieces of evidence. The prosecution changed basic parts of its narrative, including what weapons workers purportedly used in their alleged attack on company managers. The prosecution failed to tie any Maruti Suzuki worker to the mysterious fire that erupted in the factory in the midst of the altercation, although the fire was the crux of the prosecution case as it led to the death by asphyxiation of the company manager.
Yet the judge willfully ignored all this and upheld the frame-up charges against the 31, including the MSWU leaders.
The Haryana state government’s appeal of the convictions and sentence is a further vindictive measure. It is aimed at intimidating workers across India and proving to big business that the authorities and political establishment can be counted on to stamp out any resistance to cheap-labor conditions in the auto plants or other manufacturing facilities. Government and legal officials have themselves repeatedly said that an example must be made of Maruti Suzuki workers so as to reassure investors.
Maruti Suzuki is the Indian affiliate of the Japan-based Suzuki Motor Corporation. Suzuki is Japan’s fourth largest auto company and is typical of the transnational corporations that scour the globe in search of the lowest production costs. As part of its cheap-labor regime, it employs a large proportion of super-exploited contract workers. Indeed, one of the MSWU’s chief demands was to abolish contract labor.
Through the victimization of the Maruti Suzuki workers, management has intensified the exploitation of its workforce and further swollen investor profits. The automaker boasts that it currently produces one car every 12 seconds at its Indian plants.
Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley recently visited Japan to appeal for additional investment. While there, he met with Suzuki Motors chief Osamu Suzuki. Out of this meeting Suzuki promised to invest US$880 million in the Indian state of Gujarat.
The trial of the Maruti Suzuki workers was a sham from beginning to end. A company attorney acted as a co-counsel for the prosecution. None of the workers at the factory were permitted to testify at the trial, while managers were given free rein to provide contradictory and transparently coached testimony.
The presiding judge refused to allow defense attorneys to call back prosecution witnesses for re-examination. A High Court found that this would deny the accused their right to a fair trial. But India’s highest court, the Indian Supreme Court, intervened to sustain the frame-up and overturn the High Court ruling.
To provide a pseudo-legal pretext for convicting the 31, the trial judge made a series of rulings that essentially shifted the burden of proof from the shoulders of the prosecution on to the workers, in violation of basic legal norms.
In explaining why he called for the 13 Maruti Suzuki workers convicted of murder to be sentenced to death by hanging, Special Prosecutor Anurag Hooda declared: "Our industrial growth has dipped, FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] has dried up. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is calling for ‘Make in India,’ but such incidents are a stain on our image."
Likewise the establishment parties in India have thrown their support behind the frame-up. This includes the ruling Hindu supremacist BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the opposition Congress Party.
It was a Congress Party-led state government in Haryana that initiated the legal vendetta against the Maruti Suzuki workers and it is a BJP state government that is now appealing the acquittal of the 117 and seeking to impose harsher sentences on the 18 workers convicted on lesser charges.
The International Committee of the Fourth International and the World Socialist Web Site have launched a campaign to mobilize the international working class to win the immediate release of the framed-up Maruti Suzuki workers and the vacating of all charges against them. Pickets and meetings have been held in India and Sri Lanka and an international petition campaign has garnered significant support.
The ICFI insists that no reliance can be placed on the corporate-controlled courts, the big business political parties or the pro-management official trade unions. Only the independent industrial and political mobilization of the working class can secure the release of the Maruti Suzuki workers.
The campaign by supporters of the ICFI to defend the Maruti Suzuki workers is being carried on in the teeth of attempts by the official Stalinist-controlled unions to divert them into futile appeals to the establishment politicians and to shut down protests in their support. The Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM has sought to sabotage the defense of the Maruti Suzuki workers because they support the Indian government’s drive to attract overseas investment into the country based on holding down wages and suppressing workers struggles. The Stalinists fear the rebellious spirit of the Maruti Suzuki workers, just as they are hostile to any displays of independent initiative by the working class.
If the state authorities now feel emboldened to launch further vindictive measures against the Maruti Suzuki workers, it is a testament to the treacherous role of the Indian Stalinists, who have sought to bury the case. For weeks the CPM’s English-language organ, Peoples Democracy, failed to even report the conviction of the 31 Maruti Suzuki worker and the life sentences given 13 of them, including all 12 members of the MSWU executive.
The ICFI and the WSWS urge workers all over the world to come to the defense of the Maruti Suzuki workers. In challenging sweatshop conditions, they were striking a blow for workers all over the world. Conversely, if Suzuki and the Indian ruling elite are able to successfully frame up and incarcerate these militant workers, it will only strengthen and embolden the transnationals and their political hirelings.
We encourage workers all over the world to sign the online petition to oppose the frame-up of the Maruti Suzuki workers and make this case known widely among workers all over the world.

12 Jun 2017

Government of Nigeria N-Power Youth Empowerment Programme 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
Federal Government N-Power Graduate Teacher Corps Programme 2016 - (N-Power Health)
Eligible Fields of Study: Unemployed Nigerians selected and trained will serve in teaching, instructional, and advisory roles in primary, and secondary schools, agricultural extension systems across the country, public health and community education — covering civic and adult education.
N-Power has 3 main Fields:
• N-Power Teacher Corps
• N-Power Knowledge
• N-Power Build
N-Power Teacher Corps Programmes
The N-Power Teacher Corps programme is an invaluable opportunity for young Nigerians to make immense economic and social contributions to the nation while developing their skills. They will be encouraged to think critically, and be entrepreneurial and creative in applying their skills in their areas of endeavour. The 4 main focus areas are in primary and secondary education, agriculture, public health and community education (civic and adult education).
The graduates will work in their immediate rural communities, where they will assist in improving the inadequacies in the education, health, and agriculture sectors. Among the key selection criteria for the N-Power Teacher Corps will be a predisposition to work in proximate communities.
About the Programme: The Federal Government of Nigeria has designed the N-Power Programme to drastically reduce youth unemployment. The focus is to provide our young graduates and non-graduates with the skills, tools and livelihood to enable them advance from unemployment to employment, entrepreneurship and innovation. The first phase of N-Power will target Nigeria’s critical needs in education, agriculture, technology, creative, construction and artisanal industries. N-Power is also preparing Nigeria for a global outsourcing push where our young Nigerians can export their services to work on global projects that earn Nigeria, foreign exchange.
Through N-Power, young Nigerians will be empowered with the necessary tools to go on and create, develop, build, fix and work on exceptional ideas, projects and enterprises that will change our communities, our economy and our nation. The N-Power programme is for all eligible Nigerians looking to work gainfully. However, the initial programmes have been designed for young Nigerians between the ages of 18 and 35.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: Paid volunteer programme
Eligibility: 
  • Currently Unemployed
  • No degree or diploma requirements
  • Aged between 18-35
  • Interest in teaching, building and creating things
Number of Awardees: Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) graduates
Value of Programme: All trainees would be paid for the duration of their training.
Duration of Programme: Two(2) years
How to Apply: Interested applicants can send in their applications from the 11th of June 2016 through the web portals:
Award Provider: Federal Government of Nigeria

Makarere University NERLP Post-Doctoral Research Grant 2017

Application Deadline: 7th July 2017 5:00pm East African Standard Time.
Eligible Countries: Kenya
To be taken at (country): Kenya
About the Award: The Carnegie Corporation of New York has been one of the big supporters for research at Makerere University, leading to the development of a critical mass of staff graduating with PhDs. There is need to nurture these graduates by providing research funds to train them at Postdoc level so as to enhance their research productivity and create a community of scholars  with the potential to become leaders in their fields.
This will improve the quality of supervision, publication scholarship and contribute to the strategic direction of Makerere as a research led university. Makerere University received a 2-year grant aimed at ,“Nurturing Emerging Research Leaders through Post-Doctoral Training at Makerere University”, This grant focuses on enhancing the research capacity of Makerere University staff by supporting 15 postdoctoral research projects tenable at Makerere University.
It is a requirement for each post-doctoral team to have (a) Principal Investigator (PI), who applies for the grant; (b) a co-investigator, (c) a mentor (a senior researcher in the applicant’s field of specialty who has demonstrated research leadership in form of research output and publication) and (d) a Master student in the 2nd year of study. The successful post-doctoral fellows shall be expected to complete their research project(s) within 24 months from the time of award.
Type: Post-Doctoral, Research
Eligibility: 
1) The Carnegie Corporation-supported PhD graduates in any discipline
2) Evidence of Full-time employment at Makerere University
3) Applications should be accompanied with a research proposal (Maximum 10 pages, 1.5 Line Spacing, Font 12 Times New Roman). The research proposal should clearly indicate a prospective Mentor and the Co-investigator. The prospective mentor should endorse the research proposal.
4) A statement of motivation (Maximum 2 pages)
5) Applicants should have completed their PhD degree within 10 years from the time of the advertisement.
6) At least 20% of the fellowships will be reserved for women
7) A letter of support from the Head of Department.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Duration of Program: 24 months
How to Apply: 
The applicants should submit both:
1. Electronic submission of the full application with supporting documents should be sent to:
The Director, Directorate of Research and Graduate Training, Makerere University.
Email: conference@rgt.mak.ac.ug  Copy to: director@rgt.mak.ac.ug
2. Three (3) hard copies addressed to:
The Director, Directorate of Research and Graduate Training,
Research and Innovations Division; Lincoln House Room B5
Makerere University, P.O.BOX 7062, Kampala.
Award Provider: University of Makarere

Accenture HealthTech Innovation Challenge for HealthCare Startups 2017

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2017
To be taken at (country): San Francisco
About the Award: The HealthTech Innovation Challenge is part of Accenture’s broader HealthTech Innovation program—which will also include acceleration and venture opportunities, innovation labs and more. Through it we support innovative technologies and drive creative solutions to improve the way people access and manage healthcare.
Bringing together startups, life sciences and healthcare companies to tackle the world’s biggest health issues. The Accenture HealthTech Innovation Challenge is in full swing to recognize early stage start-up businesses that can play a major role in improving the way people around the world manage their health and associated costs.
Themes:
  • Help me manage my health
  • Help me get better faster
  • Help me have better and easier access to healthcare
  • Help keep my information private and secure
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: The application process is open to all companies, regardless of size, provided you meet the following criteria:
• You are a growth stage company where access to executives at large, established life sciences and health companies is critical to your business.
• You have, at a minimum, a beta product to demonstrate and are prepared to share access to program partners under NDA (and where reasonable for no additional cost).
• If selected as one of the nalists, you can attend the StartUp Health Festival final event in San Francisco on Monday, January 8, 2018 to present your solution.
• You can demonstrate that access to senior-level executives in the life sciences and/or healthcare ecosystem will have a meaningful impact on your growth.
Selection:  Submissions will be reviewed by Accenture and judged for suitability. Access to all submissions will be available to judges.
• Promising startups will be invited to attend one of the regional pitching rounds as indicated in the submission form.
• At the regional pitching rounds, there will be a workshop in which nalists will participate and have the opportunity to pitch to our judging panel.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Program: 
  • The opportunity to identify and engage with cutting-edge startups with a focus on solving healthcare and life sciences problems
  • Network with peers, investors and leading influencers
  • Access to the StartUp Health Festival (invite only) during the JP Morgan Healthcare Investor conference in San Francisco
  • Media exposure as a partner to the program
  • The opportunity to build deeper relationships with dynamic industry-shapers and industry innovators; including collaboration and co-innovation
  • Practical experience with Accenture’s Innovation Architecture and design-thinking approach
Duration of Program: Selected applicants will be invited to compete in one of our regional rounds in Singapore, Boston or London where they will be judged by an esteemed panel of leading life sciences and healthcare company executives and members of the investment community.
Pitching rounds
Singapore OCTOBER 26, 2017
London NOVEMBER 3, 2017
Boston NOVEMBER 9, 2017
The finalists will be invited to compete in San Francisco at the StartUp Health Festival on Monday, January 8, 2018.
Apply Here
Award Provider: Accenture

Adventist University of Africa Postgraduate Scholarship for African Students 2017

Application Deadline: 30th June 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): Kenya
About the Award: The Brempong Owusu-Antwi Scholarship has been established by Judith Thomas, a major donor to the Adventist Church, especially educational institutions, hospitals, evangelistic funds, communication facilities, etc. The scholarship shall be available to students every year. Scholarships may be granted to students who used this Application Form to apply for the scholarship and are able to meet the submission deadline for this year by June 30, 2017.
Type: Postgraduate
Eligibility: The Brempong Owusu-Antwi Scholarship Fund is established to assist needy but worthy students at the Adventist University of Africa.
1. This scholarship is established to help needy but worthy Adventist students at the Adventist University of Africa.
2. The scholarship shall, each year, be divided equally (50% each) between the two schools, the Theological Seminary and the
School of Postgraduate Studies
3. For an applicant to benefit from the scholarship fund, he/she must first be a registered student at AUA.
4. The eligible student to receive the Brempong Owusu-Antwi scholarship must not be a recipient of any other AUA
scholarship for the year.
5. The student shall have a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 3.0 at the point of entry and would be expected to
maintain no less that 3.0 CGPA throughout his/her studies.
6. Application form shall be filled within a deadline of the year after which the scholarship committee will meet and
recommend beneficiaries to ADCOM for approval.
7. A special consideration shall be given to students from African Countries with few or no students at AUA.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Program: The scholarship will contribute up to half of the student’s tuition and fees each year.
How to Apply: After the Application Form is completed, it should be submitted to the registrar at registrar@aua.ac.ke with copies to the two Deans ganud@aua.ac.ke and nwaomahs@aua.ac.ke . The scholarship Committee will review the applications of every applicant and will forward their recommendations to the AUA Administrative Committee for final approval or denial.
The awarding of scholarships is strictly based on the Guidelines. Therefore, students are encouraged to read these Guidelines carefully PRIOR to completing the Scholarship Application Form.
All applications must include the following:
i. Completed Application Form
ii. One-page personal statement that demonstrates his/her need
iii. A letter of recommendation from the employing organization or the previous university or local Conference.
iv. An employee of the church organization should submit a documented evidence from the employee organization
attesting to his/her financial status
Award Provider: The Brempong Owusu-Antwi Scholarship Fund

Princeton University IAS Post-Doctoral Program for Early Career Researchers in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 15th September 2017
Eligible Countries: Countries in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America
To be taken at (country):  Princeton USA, South Africa and Colombia
About the Award: Conducted in collaboration with the Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER) at the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, and the Escuela de Estudios de Género (EEG) and Centro de Estudios (CES) at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, in Bogotá, this innovative program will take place over a two-year cycle, beginning with a two-week session in Princeton (June 18-29, 2018), followed by one week mid-2019 at one of the two collaborating institutions in South Africa and Colombia, with continuous communication facilitated among the scholars throughout the two year period.
Designed to draw together twenty early-career scholars from countries in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, the program aims to enrich and expand the realm of the social sciences through the confrontation of different intellectual traditions and perspectives; to facilitate and enhance the dialogue between various scientific disciplines and communities; and to strengthen international networks across continents. Fellows will pursue and present their own research projects during the program.
This research is expected to be at an advanced stage of development so as to render discussions of its object, method and conclusions richer and intellectual interactions among the fellows more fruitful. A special attention will be paid to local contexts of production and global modalities of circulation of knowledge and the participants will be invited to exchange their research experiences. The purpose is to constitute a genuinely international and interdisciplinary network of social scientists from the global South.
The program will be led by Didier Fassin, James D. Wolfensohn Professor in the Institute’s School of Social Science, in collaboration with Sarah Nuttall, Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, and Mara Viveros, Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Type: Research
Eligibility: 
  • The program is open to scholars from all social sciences, including anthropology, sociology, history, psychology, economics, law, and political science, as well as neighboring disciplines such as philosophy, political theory, and literary studies.
  • All research themes are welcomed.
  • The workshops will be held in English in Princeton and Johannesburg, and in Spanish in Bogotá.
Number of Awards: 20
Value of Program: All transportation, meals and accommodation expenses for the participating scholars will be covered.
Duration of Program: 2 years (Consisting of a two-week session in Princeton (June 18-29, 2018), followed by one week mid-2019 at one of the two collaborating institutions in South Africa and Colombia)
How to Apply: Applications must be filed electronically through the Institute’s online application system by the deadline of September 15, 2017. The selection process will be completed by November 1st.
Application instructions can be found here
Award Provider: Andrew W Mellon Foundation

Britain Refuses to Accept How Terrorists Really Work

Patrick Cockburn

The Conservative government largely avoided being blamed during the election campaign for its failure to stop the terrorist attacks. It appealed to British communal solidarity in defiance of those who carried out the atrocities, which was a perfectly reasonable stance, though one that conveniently enables the Conservatives to pillory any critics for dividing the nation at a time of crisis. When Jeremy Corbyn correctly pointed out that the UK policy of regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya had destroyed state authority and provided sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and Isis, he was furiously accused of seeking to downplay the culpability of the terrorists. Nobody made the charge stick that it was mistaken British foreign policies that empowered the terrorists by giving them the space in which to operate.
A big mistake in British anti-terrorist strategy is to pretend that terrorism by extreme Salafi-jihadi movements can be detected and eliminated within the confines of the UK. The inspiration and organisation for terrorist attacks comes from the Middle East and particularly from Isis base areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Their terrorism will not end so long as these monstrous but effective movements continue to exist. That said, counter-terrorism within the UK is much weaker than it need be.
The attacks in London and Manchester come very much from the Isis playbook: minimum human resources deployed to maximum effect. Overall direction is distant and at a minimum, no professional military skills on the part of the killers are necessary, and the absence of guns makes them almost impossible to forestall. Tracing the movement of a small number of weapons is usually easier than following a large number of people.
There is a self-interested motive for British governments to portray terrorism as essentially home-grown cancers within the Muslim community. Western governments as a whole like to pretend that their policy blunders, notably those of military intervention in the Middle East since 2001, did not prepare the soil for al-Qaeda and Isis. This enables them to keep good relations with authoritarian Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, which are notorious for aiding Salafi-jihadi movements. Placing the blame for terrorism on something vague and indefinable like “radicalisation” and “extremism” avoids embarrassing finger-pointing at Saudi-financed Wahhabism which has made 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims, a quarter of the world’s population, so much more receptive to al-Qaeda type movements today than it was 60 years ago.
Deliberate blindness to very specific places and people – Sunni states, Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Syrian and Libyan armed opposition – is a main reason why “the War on Terror” has failed since 9/11. Instead, much vaguer cultural processes within Muslim communities are targeted: President Bush invaded Iraq, which certainly had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, and today President Trump is denouncing Iran as the source of terrorism at the very moment that Isis gunmen are killing people in Tehran. In Britain the main monument to this politically convenient lack of realism is the ill-considered and counter-effective Prevent programme. This not only fails to find terrorists, but actively assists them, by pointing the security agencies and police in the wrong direction. It also poisons the waters for anybody trying to improve relations between the British state and 2.8 million Muslims in the UK by generating a mood of generalised suspicion and persecution.
Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, people who work in public bodies – teachers, doctors, social workers – have a legal duty to report signs of terrorist sympathy among those they encounter, even though nobody knows what these are. The disastrous consequences of this are explained, with a wealth of devastating supporting evidence, by Karma Nabulsi in a recent article on the Prevent programme in the London Review of Books entitled ‘Don’t Go to the Doctor.’ She tells the story of Syrian refugees, a man and his wife, who sent their small son, who spoke almost no English, to a nursery school. Because of his recent traumatic experiences in Syria he spent much of his time there drawing planes dropping bombs. The staff of the nursery might have been expected to comfort the young war victim, but instead they called the police. These went to see the parents and questioned them separately, shouting questions like: “How many times a day do you pray? Do you support President Assad? Who do you support? What side are you on?”
If Isis or al Qaeda were asked to devise a programme least likely to hamper their attacks and most liable to send the police off on wild goose hunts, they would find it difficult to devise anything more helpful to themselves than Prevent and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. The great majority British people have as much idea about how to identify a potential terrorist as their ancestors 400 years ago did about detecting witches. The psychology is much the same in both cases and 2015 Act is in effect a crackpots’ charter in which five per cent of the British population are vaguely regarded as suspicious. Nabulsi writes that a Freedom of Information request to the police “revealed that more than 80 per cent of the reports on individuals suspected of extremism were dismissed as unfounded”.
The Government may persuade the gullible that turning everybody working for the state into a potential informant produces lots of useful intelligence. In fact, it serves to clog up the system with useless and misleading information. On the rare occasion it produces a nugget, there is a good chance that it will be overlooked.
The oversupply of information explains why many who say they reported genuinely suspicious behaviour found that they were ignored. Often this action was very blatant and revealing such as the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi shouting down a preacher in a mosque who criticised Isis. He was also associated with the extreme jihadi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of three killers on London Bridge and in Borough Market, Khuram Butt, had even expressed his pro-Isis views on television and another of the three, the Italian-Moroccan Youssef Zaghba, was stopped by Italian police at Bologna Airport on suspicion of trying to go to fight for Isis or al-Qaeda in Syria. Yet none of these were picked up by the police.
In most cases, potential terrorists do not have to be sniffed out, but have made their Isis sympathies only too apparent. The government’s obsessive belief that terrorists are isolated individuals “radicalised” by the internet without being a member of any network is simply untrue. Dr Peter Neumann of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at Kings College London is quoted as saying that “the number of cases where people have been entirely radicalised by the internet is tiny, tiny, tiny.”
Absurdities like the Prevent programme mask the fact that Isis and al-Qaeda type terrorists are closely interlinked, mostly by participation in or sympathy for the jihadi armed opposition in the Libyan and Syrian wars. “If you start connecting the dots,” says Professor Neumann, “a very large number of those in Britain who went to Syria were connected to each other, people who had already known each other.” Contrary to conventional and governmental wisdom, terrorist conspiracies have not changed much since Brutus, Cassius and their friends plotted to murder Julius Caesar.

Al-Nusra’s Name has been Removed From Terror List After Rebranding

Nauman Sadiq

According to a recent report by CBC Canada, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, which was formerly known as al-Nusra Front and then Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) since July 2016, has been removed from the terror watch-lists of the US and Canada after it merged with fighters from Zenki Brigade and hardline jihadists from Ahrar al-Sham and rebranded itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in January this year.
The US State Department is hesitant to label Tahrir al-Sham a terror group, despite the group’s link to al-Qaeda, as the US government has directly funded and armed the Zenki Brigade, one of the constituents of Tahrir al-Sham, with sophisticated weaponry including the US-made antitank TOW missiles.
The overall military commander of Tahrir al-Sham continues to be Abu Mohammad al-Julani, whom the US has branded a Specially Designated Global Terrorist with a $10 million bounty. But for the US to designate Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist organization now would mean acknowledging that it supplied sophisticated weapons to terrorists, and draw attention to the fact that the US continues to arm Islamic jihadists in Syria.
In order to understand the bloody history of al-Nusra Front during the Syrian civil war, bear in mind that since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to April 2013, the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front were a single organization that chose the banner of “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Although al-Nusra Front has been led by Abu Mohammad al-Julani but he was appointed as the emir of al-Nusra Front by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, in January 2012.
Thus, al-Julani’s al-Nusra Front is only a splinter group of the Islamic State, which split from its parent organization in April 2013 over a leadership dispute between the two organizations.
In March 2011, protests began in Syria against the government of Bashar al-Assad. In the following months, violence between demonstrators and security forces led to a gradual militarization of the conflict. In August 2011, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was based in Iraq, began sending Syrian and Iraqi jihadists experienced in guerilla warfare across the border into Syria to establish an organization inside the country.
Led by a Syrian known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country. On 23 January 2012, the group announced its formation as Jabhat al-Nusra.
In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq. Al-Baghdadi declared that the two groups were merging under the name “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.” The leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Muhammad al-Julani, issued a statement denying the merger and complaining that neither he nor anyone else in al-Nusra’s leadership had been consulted about it.
Al-Qaeda Central’s leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, tried to mediate the dispute between al-Baghdadi and al-Julani but eventually, in October 2013, he endorsed al-Nusra Front as the official franchise of al-Qaeda Central in Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, however, defied the nominal authority of al-Qaeda Central and declared himself as the caliph of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
Keeping this background in mind, it becomes amply clear that a single militant organization operated in Syria and Iraq under the leadership of al-Baghdadi until April 2013, which chose the banner of al-Nusra Front, and that the current emir of the subsequent breakaway faction of al-Nusra Front, al-Julani, was actually al-Baghdadi’s deputy in Syria.
Thus, the Islamic State operated in Syria since August 2011 under the designation of al-Nusra Front and it subsequently changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in April 2013, after which, it overran Raqqa in the summer of 2013, then it seized parts of Deir al-Zor and fought battles against the alliance of Kurds and the Syrian regime in al-Hasakah. And in January 2014 it overran Fallujah and parts of Ramadi in Iraq and reached the zenith of its power when it captured Mosul in June 2014.
Regarding the rebranding of al-Julani’s Nusra Front to “Jabhat Fateh al-Sham” in July 2016 and purported severing of ties with al-Qaeda Central, it was only a nominal difference because al-Nusra Front never had any organizational and operational ties with al-Qaeda Central and even their ideologies are poles apart.
Al-Qaeda Central is basically a transnational terrorist organization, while al-Nusra Front mainly has regional ambitions that are limited only to fighting the Assad regime in Syria and its ideology is anti-Shi’a and sectarian. In fact, al-Nusra Front has not only received medical aid and material support from Israel, but some of its operations against the Shi’a-dominated Assad regime in southern Syria were fully coordinated with Israel’s air force.
The purpose behind the rebranding of al-Nusra Front to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and purported severing of ties with al-Qaeda Central was to legitimize itself and to make it easier for its patrons to send money and arms. The US blacklisted al-Nusra Front in December 2012 and pressurized Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ban it too. Although al-Nusra Front’s name has been in the list of proscribed organizations of Saudi Arabia and Turkey since 2014, but it has kept receiving money and arms from the Gulf Arab States.
It should be remembered that in a May 2015 interview with al-Jazeera, Abu Mohammad al-Julani took a public pledge on the behest of his Gulf-based patrons that his organization only has local ambitions limited to fighting the Assad regime in Syria and that it does not intends to strike targets in the Western countries.
Thus, this rebranding exercise has been going on for quite some time. Al-Julani announced the split from al-Qaeda in a video statement last year. But the persistent efforts of al-Julani’s Gulf-based patrons have only borne fruit in January this year, when al-Nusra Front once again rebranded itself from Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (JFS) to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which also includes “moderate” jihadists from Zenki Brigade, Ahrar al-Sham and several other militant groups, and thus, the US State Department has finally given a clean chit to the jihadist conglomerate that goes by the name of Tahrir al-Sham to pursue its ambitions of toppling the Assad regime in Syria.

Dubious Results Of The Presidential Elections In Iran

Akbar E. Torbat

Iranians voted in the presidential as well as the city and village councils elections on May 19, 2017. The two elections were arranged to be on the same day to boost participations and show support for the clerical regime in Tehran. The Guardian Council had handpicked six candidates and rejected the rest of more than 1600 applicants who had registered to be presidential candidates. The candidates selected by the Council were Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, Mostafa Hashemitaba, Eshagh Jahangiri, Mostafa Mirsalim, Ebrahim Raisi, and Hassan Rouhani.
In three presidential debates which began on April 28, the candidates discussed their plans for solving the country’s problems. In the first and second debates, Hassan Rouhani and his deputy Eshagh Jahangiri came under attacks for corruptions in the executive branch and their failure to solve the country’s problems.[i] The third debate on May 12, was focused on economic issues such as high rate of unemployment, smuggling foreign products imports, banking system insolvencies, bankruptcy of many factories, the country’s dependence on crude oil exports, increase in food prices, and tax collection plan. Other issues discussed were lack of success in promoting self-sufficiency in industrial and agricultural sectors, and rent-seeking in the public sector, a form of corruption common within the regime which involves selling public properties below market value to government officials or their relatives and cronies.[ii]  Ghalibaf accused Rouhani and Jahangiri of buying public properties for minimal prices. He mentioned that Rouhani’s close relative (his brother Hossein Fereydoon) had engaged in financial corruptions and criticized Rouhani for increase in unemployment rate, high food prices, and his failure to collect taxes. Mirsalim accused Rouhani for increasing export of raw materials and failing to promote manufacturing industries.[iii]  Raisi accused Rouhani of increasing the payments to retired employees and welfare recipients just before the elections to promote his campaign.
Few days after the debates, Jahangiri dropped out of the elections in favor of Rouhani and Ghalibaf left in favor of Raisi, the protégé of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Mirsalim did not get enough public support from a conservative camp he was representing. Also, Hashemi Taba did not gain support from his reformist camp and later he said he voted for Rouhani himself. That meant the election was mainly about choosing the president between two clerics: the incumbent Rouhani from the so-called reformist wing of the regime and Raisi from the conservative wing.
The Questionable Results
The government announcement of huge turnout on the Election Day was highly questionable. The results of presidential elections were announced by the Interior Ministry on May 21. From the 56 million eligible Iranian voters, 41.22 million or 73% voted in the election. Rouhani received 23.55 million (57.1%) votes, his closest rival, Raisi 15.79 million (38.3%) votes, Mirsalim 0.478 (1.2%), and Hashemitaba (0.52%).[iv]  Critics called to question the figures announced by the Ministry. They claimed the voters’ population announced was far beyond the capacity of the polling places.  The 73% voters’ participation in the election was too high to be true. Since the voters had to write the candidates’ names whom they were voting for on the ballots and the limited number of available polling places throughout the country, it was highly unlikely that so many people could have voted in one day. Especially, since the city and village councils elections were simultaneously conducted, and checking and stamping of the voters’ birth certificates, and filling out the ballots by so many voters required much more time than one day. As compared to the past elections, this time in the Capital Tehran the poor who mostly reside in south of the city did not crowd the polls at all, while the rich in the north parts had crowded some polls as were shown on the state television. That meant the conservatives have lost support among their traditional constituencies who are the poor.
After the elections, there were some complaints from the conservative camps concerning miscounting the votes and manipulating the results. The conservatives accused Rouhani of engineering the election in favor of himself. Raisi complained to the Guardian council for violations (takhalof) in conducting the election. He said in some polling places there were not enough ballots and his name had not been printed correctly on some of the ballots.
Assessment of the Election Outcome
A number of factors affected the outcome of the elections. First, despite failure of Rouhani in economic and other matters, since the media was organized to promote him, he gained more votes. Also, the Western powers had planned to promote Rouhani’s re-election. Europeans wanted Rouhani to win the second term because he had signed some lucrative contracts with their firms after the nuclear agreement was finalized in January 2016. Europeans have opposed President Donald Tramp’s plan to confront the clerical regime. Second, Khamenei’s pushing of Raisi as his favorite candidate backfired. Raisi’s record of being involved in mass executions of the political prisoners in 1988 and frustration of Iranians with the conservative clerics led to more votes for Rouhani who had promised to promote political reforms. Third, some supporters of the former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad either did not vote or did not vote for Raisi, despite Raisi’s efforts to absorb some of Ahmadinejad’s supporters into his campaign. Fourth, some secular political groups thought boycotting the elections would lead to worst outcome if Raisi was elected. Fifth, some celebrities were shown on state TV and social media, saying they planned to vote for Rouhani. Also, the former president Mohammad Khatami endorsed Rouhani.
Overall, regardless of the highly questionable turnout reported by the Iranian government, it was a surprised election outcome. Despite Rouhani’s disastrous economic policies, his re-election against Khamenei’s favorite candidate Raisi shows how Iranians are frustrated with the theocratic dictatorship of the Supreme Leader.

Sri Lankan government to tighten police-state laws

Pradeep Ramanayake

After posturing as a proponent of “good governance” and democratic rights, the Sri Lankan government is moving to introduce a range of repressive new anti-terror laws. Last month, Prime Minister Rani Wickremesinghe’s cabinet approved a new draft of its Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) that will soon be submitted to parliament for approval.
The CTA legislation— a slightly modified version of a previous draft that came under heavy international and domestic criticism—is even more repressive than the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The PTA was enacted by President J. R. Jayawardene’s government in 1979 as part of its crackdown on the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and an escalation of Colombo’s repression of the working class.
During the January 2015 president ial election campaign, Maithripala Sirisena promised to replace the hated PTA. His government’s alternative legislation, the CTA, however, extends the anti-democratic provisions of the previous laws, providing a range of deeply repressive powers to the state, the police and the military. Under bogus claims of curbing terrorism, the new laws are aimed at suppress ing the developing struggles of workers, the poor and young people, and laying the foundations for a police state.
The draft law states that it will “prevent, detect, investigate and coun t er terrorism and associated offences, protect the security of Sri Lanka and its people and other sovereign countries.” Its aims include:
* Protecting the unity, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of Sri Lanka
* Preventing, combating and responding to attacks and threats ag ainst the interests of Sri Lanka
* Preventing attacks and threats against other countries
* Preventing the use of Sri Lanka for terro rism on other sovereign nation.
“ Offences of terrorism” are defined as any act of violence, endangering the life of any person, serious damage to Sri Lanka n private and public property, and obstruction of essential service and supplies. It also includes any act used to “intimidate a population” or wrongfully or unlawfully compel the government to abstain from carrying out any action, or prevent the state from functioning. Other so-called terrorist offences involve causing harm to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign state.
These definitions are so broad that they could be used to arbitrarily suppress political or industrial action against the government, including strikes or demonstrations by workers and the poor by, branding them as a terrorist act, or as aiding and abetting terrorism.
Protection of the unity, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of Sri Lanka, and national security, are catch phrases that have been regularly used by successive governments to suppress the democratic rights of political parties, the media, the Tamil population and the entire working class. Socialists seeking to mobilise the working class in defence of their jobs, working conditions and basic rights will be clear targets.
One section of the draft, entitled “Exclusion from criminal culpability,” declares that no action will be taken against anyone if their writings or speeches are made in “good faith and with due diligence.” But the final arbiters of this “good faith” clause will be the government and state authorities.
An earlier draft of the CTA defined the collection of confidential information—i.e., whistleblower exposures—as “espionage.” The new version of CTA drops the word espionage but restates the same offences: gathering confidential information “for the purpose of supplying such information to a person who is conspiring, preparing, abetting, or attempting to commit terrorism or any terrorism related acts.” In other words, the unearthing and exposure of illegal activities and actions by the government and the state apparatus, including the military and police, will be deemed an act of terrorism
The CTA also gives Sri Lankan police and the armed forces virtually unlimited powers of arrests, interrogation and detention. The planned law states: “Any police officer or any member of the armed forces or a coast guard officer, may arrest without a warrant any person who commits an offence.” It continues, “a statement made by any person to a police officer holding a rank not below a Superintendent of Police either by himself or in response to questions” will be “admissible” against those arrested.
Suspects could be detained for up to six months through an order from a deputy inspector general of police on the request of an officer in charge of a police station. The detainee does not have to be brought before a magistrate if he or she is taken into custody under the terrorism laws. The place of detention can be determined by police.
After arrest, suspects would have no right to seek legal advice for 48 hours or until the individual is brought before a magistrate. This is a further tightening of the existing law and creates the conditions for confessions to be obtained through torture. Sri Lankan police are notorious for torturing “confessions” from so-called suspects. Admissions of guilt obtained through torture were commonly used to convict hundreds of people arrested during the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
The CTA contains severe penalties for those found guilty of terrorism offences, including up to 20 years’ imprisonment, fines and possible confiscation of property. Anyone who fails to provide information about those “committing, abetting and preparing” terrorism or related offences can be imprisoned for three years and fined.
Unsurprisingly, former President Mahinda Rajapakse and his supporters in the “joint opposition,” who are attempting to bring down the current administration, are silent about the new laws. Rajapakse regularly used the PTA and Emergency Laws against Tamils during the long-running communal war against the LTTE and in suppressing the democratic rights of the working class and the poor.
The Sri Lankan pseudo-left, who previously denounced Rajapakse and promoted Sirisena and Wickremesinghe as democrats, has said nothing about the “anti-terror laws.”
The government, which faces a deepening economic crisis, is ruthlessly imposing austerity measures dictated by the International Monetary Fund that place the burden on the backs of working people. This social assault has produced a wave of strikes and student protests.
Confronted with this growing popular opposition, President Sirisena recently suggested that Sarath Fonseka leave his current ministerial position and resume his role as Sri Lankan army chief, or take up another senior position in the state apparatus, in order to “discipline the country.”
When this proposal drew sharp criticism, Sirisena claimed that he planned no such appointment. Notwithstanding Sirisena’s denial, the new CTA makes clear that the Sri Lankan ruling class and its government are preparing for ruthless class war against workers and the poor.