18 Jun 2017

US Senate health bill drafted in secrecy: A conspiracy against the health care of millions

Kate Randall

The US Senate is moving forward with its drafting of legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) behind closed doors. Little information has been revealed about the contents of the bill being drawn up by the Senate’s 13-member “working group,” aside from several leaks to the media.
Senate Republicans plan to bring the legislation to a floor vote without a single committee hearing, and without a formal, open drafting session. They hope to pass the bill by an expedited reconciliation procedure, which requires only a simple majority and avoids the possibility of a filibuster by Senate Democrats.
Only a small group of senators know what is in the bill. Those being kept in the dark include not only Democrats, but Republicans who are not in the working group. An aide to one of those senators in the group told Axios that no draft would released because “we aren’t stupid,” an apparent allusion to the draconian features contained within it, including the gutting of Medicaid and its attack on the health care of millions of poor, older and sick Americans.
The apparent plan is to send the finalized Senate bill to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for scoring before it is then released to the press and the public, with a goal of a vote on the Senate floor before July 4.
The House Republicans’ bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), is deeply unpopular. Recent Public Policy Polling shows that only 24 percent of voters support the AHCA and 55 percent oppose it. Senate Republicans are well aware that a bill that bears any resemblance to the AHCA will face similar public opposition.
The secrecy surrounding the bill has been bolstered by a significant curtailing of on-camera interviews within the Capitol. According to the Washington Post, the prohibition of televised interviews was issued Tuesday at the point when senators were reportedly going to be informed about some of the features of the bill at a luncheon on Capitol Hill. The prohibition apparently came from the Senate Rules Committee.
At a closed-door White House lunch Tuesday with 15 Republican senators, President Trump reportedly referred to the House plan as “mean,” and according to sources said he wants the Senate version to be “more generous.” This seemingly bizarre statement by Trump—after praising the AHCA as “a great plan” at a White House Rose Garden celebration last month—is an indication of the perceived unpopularity of the Republicans’ planned “repeal and replace” of the bill popularly known as Obamacare.
The ACHA builds on the free-market foundations of the ACA, which gives the for-profit health care industry free rein to charge as they see fit for premiums and to pull out of markets that they find unprofitable. As a former Medicare administrator in the Obama administrator admitted recently about the ACA, “We elected to have a system that is completely market-based so companies get to make individual decisions.”
The Senate plan, like the Republican, takes its cue from the central features of Obamacare, which cuts costs for the government and corporations while rationing and degrading health care for the vast majority of Americans.

The gutting of Medicaid

The biggest change in the AHCA is the gutting of Medicaid, the health care program jointly administered by the federal government and the states. The CBO estimates that the AHCA would cause 23 million people to lose health insurance by 2026, mainly because the House bill would effectively end the ACA’s Medicaid expansion for low-income adults.
The Senate plan reportedly maintains the AHCA’s per capita cap or block granting of federal Medicaid funds, which would effectively end Medicaid as a guaranteed program based on need. It would also put an end to the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, but would allow a longer phase-out of the expansion, possibly up to seven years, i.e., prescribing a slow death as opposed to the House plan’s quicker demise.
According to a new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), coverage losses under the AHCA would affect people of all ages and income levels, including families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. It would also sharply cut government subsidies for individual market coverage, and allow insurers to charge sharply higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions.
About 3 million children would lose coverage, CBPP says, increasing the uninsured rate for children by about 50 percent. Another 6.4 million young adults (age 19-29) would lose coverage, or about one in eight people in this age group. This runs counter to claims that the House bill would favor younger, healthy people.
More than 8 million people, age 30-40, would lose coverage, increasing their uninsured rate by a staggering 84 percent. About one in five of this age group would be uninsured, compared to one in 10 under current law, according to CBPP.
The uninsured rate for older adults (age 50-64) would more than double under the AHCA, reflecting the fact that the bill would allow individual market insurers to charge older people premiums five times higher than for younger people. While the Senate plan reportedly will offer some additional premium assistance to this age group, it will be inadequate to make a significant difference.
The majority of those losing coverage under the AHCA would have low incomes. Some 14.7 million adults with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $50,000 for a family of four) would become uninsured. But 5.1 million adults with incomes above 200 percent of the poverty level would also lose coverage.

Preexisting conditions

While Trump has claimed that people with preexisting conditions would be “taken care of” under any final Republican health care bill, this is not the case. The Senate bill, unlike the AHCA, would not allow states to obtain waivers to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. However, it would maintain the AHCA provision allowing states to waive coverage of essential health benefits.
Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, writes in the Washington Post that maintaining the waivers for essential benefits will have the effect of denying coverage for people with preexisting conditions.
Allowing states to ditch coverage of essential services such as hospitalization, and emergency care, maternity care, substance abuse treatment, mental health care and prescriptions drugs would also allow waivers of the ACA’s ban on lifetime and annual limits on coverage related to the essential health benefits.
Also, Spiro notes, if insurers cannot markup premiums for people with preexisting conditions, they could alter their benefits packages to screen out sick people by excluding the benefits they need. The list of possible benefits they could drop from coverage is vast, including treatments for cancer, diabetes and heart conditions. Simply being a woman puts a person at a disadvantage, as prenatal and maternity care, contraception and abortion services could be excluded.
According to the CBO, about 19 million people are enrolled in the individual market nationwide, and about half of them live in states that would seek essential benefits waivers. As about 55 percent of individual market enrollees have a preexisting condition, this means about 5.3 million people with preexisting conditions could see their coverage severely deteriorate and their premiums skyrocket.
While congressional Democrats have made some noise about the secrecy surrounding the Senate deliberations on the health care bill, there has been virtually no comment on the reactionary content of the legislation.
As their attention is focused on the Trump-Russia connection and investigation of the president on obstruction of justice, there is general disinterest by politicians of both big business parties in legislation that will eviscerate Medicaid and leave 23 million more people uninsured and at the mercy of the health care giants and their profits, leading to unnecessary suffering and increased deaths.
Jacob Leibenluft of CBPP commented in an interview in the Post on the lack of congressional hearings and coverage in the media on the Senate bill, “I hate to think that looking back on this period, we’ll realize that the most regressive piece of social legislation in modern American history was passed, and no one was paying attention.”
Posted by at No comments:

The political significance of the shooting attack on US congressmen

Eric London

On Wednesday morning, James Hodgkinson opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen, lobbyists, staff and police at a baseball field in a Washington, D.C. suburb, injuring Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others. Hodgkinson, a supporter of Bernie Sanders, was shot and killed by police at the scene of the attack.
Scalise remains in critical condition and has undergone three surgeries. This is the second time in less than a decade that a congressperson has been shot. In 2011, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a right-wing attacker, Jared Loughner.
As is usually the case when an event of this sort takes place, the media is long on moralizing hypocrisy and short on political analysis. The New York Times took time out from its hysterical anti-Russian campaign to solidarize itself with Trump, stating: “President Trump said just the right thing after the attack on Wednesday: ‘We may have our differences, but we do well in times like these to remember that everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, they love our country. We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans, that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace.’”
This unadulterated cant was published the same day the Times reported that Trump is now the target of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged ties to Russia.
The Washington Post denounced Hodgkinson as a “madman.” Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri called the attack “unspeakable evil,” while Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio said it was an act of “senseless violence.” On Wednesday afternoon, Bernie Sanders stated that he was “sickened by this despicable act” carried out by a former volunteer in his presidential campaign.
Dismissing Hodgkinson as deranged, let alone evil, is a facile and false explanation for Wednesday’s shooting. This is an event that requires a political explanation. While it is legitimate for Sanders to clearly reject the act, he made no attempt to explain why it may have happened. Rather, he merely poured scorn over this unfortunate man’s corpse.
The World Socialist Web Site opposes acts of violence directed against political figures and representatives of the state, not on shallow moral grounds, but on the basis of firm political principles. Long historical experience has shown that such acts do nothing to defend or advance the interests of the working class. Rather, they are counterproductive. They create confusion and provide an excuse for the buildup of the state’s repressive forces.
The fight against the capitalist system is not advanced by assassinating individual political representatives, but rather by raising political consciousness in the working class and mobilizing its political power in the fight for socialism.
In providing a political explanation of this political act, it is important to look at the background of the man who carried it out.
James Thomas Hodgkinson’s story contains elements of a social tragedy. His life odyssey provides an insight into life in America today, and how an apparently decent man could wind up carrying out such a violent act. Born in 1950 and known to his friends as “Tom,” he was raised in the small town of Belleville, Illinois, across the state line from St. Louis, Missouri.
Hodgkinson’s friends responded with shock to Wednesday’s news. Childhood friend Dale Walsh told the Belleville News-Democrat that Hodkinson was “a fun-loving guy” who “never backed down” on his political convictions, which had become more pronounced in the last decade. “I want people to know that he wasn’t evil,” Walsh said. “I guess he was tired of the politics.”
He graduated from West Belleville High School in 1968, the same year he became eligible for the military draft and possible deployment to fight in the ongoing war in Vietnam. In the mid-1970s, he opened a small construction business, switching to home inspection in the 1990s. Like tens of millions of American men, Hodgkinson had his share of minor run-ins with the law.
His childhood friends point to his decision to take in foster children as a sign of his generous character. His foster daughters bore the indelible marks of the deepening social crisis of the 1990s and 2000s.
One committed suicide by self-immolation at the age of 17 in 1996. The other overdosed on heroin as a 25-year-old in 2015. The impoverished southern Illinois area—formerly home to tens of thousands of militant miners and an active socialist movement—is one of the hardest hit epicenters of the heroin and opioid crisis. Belleville currently has a per capita income of just $18,990.
In recent years, Hodgkinson lived with his wife in a small home off a dirt road outside of town. He had few neighbors, but he liked to garden and perform odd jobs around the house. His backyard looked out across a half-mile of empty cornfields to the northwest. He would sometimes take his guns into the woods and shoot at targets or trees, as is common in rural parts of the Midwest.
He developed an interest in history and politics. He was deeply opposed, above all else, to war and social inequality. He began writing letters to the local Belleville News-Democrat toward the end of the Bush administration. These provide insight into his political outlook.
On July 12, 2008, Hodgkinson wrote: “I believe that anyone who increases his wealth in time of war is a war profiteer, and as such should be brought up on such charges. I also believe this includes President Bush, Vice President Cheney, most of their cabinet, all the people of Halliburton and anyone in the oil business.”
Like millions of Americans, he was initially hopeful with the election of Barack Obama, but became disillusioned when the administration failed to raise taxes on the rich. “I don’t know why the Democrats don’t propose a specific change to the tax laws to get the ball rolling. Maybe they don’t care about the working man either,” he wrote in 2011. “It looks like the super-rich have bought their vote as well.”
Around this time, Hodgkinson began to regularly employ the term “working class” in his letters. “I don’t envy the rich,” he wrote. “I despise the way they have bought our politicians and twisted our laws to their benefit.”
He continued, “These guys are cheating everyone in this country while telling us all the time that they are broke, when it is the super-rich with all the money.”
The outbreak of the Occupy Wall Street movement aroused Hodgkinson’s enthusiasm. He wrote to the Belleville News-Democrat, “I love seeing the protesters in New York, Boston and other big cities get their voices heard. This should have happened sooner.”
Contrary to press reports that he was a Democrat, he began to identify himself as politically independent, and in 2012 wrote, “Long live Bernie Sanders.”
Hodgkinson’s support for Sanders’ 2016 election campaign has been well documented. “I will NEVER vote Hillary,” Hodgkinson wrote on Facebook, adding that “a nomination for Hillary equals a win for Trump.”
The election of Trump left him angry and embittered and became a destabilizing factor. His brother Michael told the New York Times that Hodgkinson left for Washington, D.C. roughly in March. He stayed there longer than expected. His brother said Hodgkinson recently called and “told his wife he would be returning home soon because he missed her and their dogs.”
He was a troubled man, motivated by the intersection of immense personal difficulties and disoriented political anger. NBC News reported that Hodgkinson slept on a mattress in the back of his van, where he kept the semi-automatic rifle used in the attack. He had evidently been watching the Republican baseball team practice for weeks. In the time he was in D.C., and in the days preceding the attack, the unfolding political events did not assuage his anger.
Many in the political establishment have expressed shock and disbelief over Wednesday’s events. They have no right to be surprised. Such events are now a common feature of American life, with 372 mass shootings reported in 2016 alone.
The United States is dominated by violence and inequality, and yet the vast majority of the population has no way to express its social anger through the institutions of government, the courts, the trade unions, the corporate press or the political parties.
The political battles in Washington are utterly remote from the real concerns of masses of people. At a time when the Democratic Party expends all its political energy on an hysterical anti-Russian campaign aimed at bringing about a shift in Trump’s foreign policy, what motivates popular anger in the working class is not lurid claims of a Russian conspiracy, but social inequality and war.
There are lessons to be drawn. Social anger is real and it is building. Millions of workers will be looking toward the development of social struggle—not individual terrorism—to address the many problems of personal and social life. The task of the International Committee of the Fourth International is to unify all of the disparate social struggles of workers and youth in a mass political struggle for the socialist reorganization of the world economy.
Posted by at No comments:

UK: May forced to call public inquiry into Grenfell Tower fire

Robert Stevens

In the face of growing anger locally and nationally at the scale of the death and destruction in the inferno that consumed Grenfell Tower in West London, Prime Minister Theresa May was forced to call a public inquiry.
With many people still to be accounted for from a block that was home to between 500 and 600 people, London’s Metropolitan Police announced that the death toll from Wednesday’s fire had reached 17. According to several accounts, many or even all who lived on the highest floors perished.
The police said such was the difficulty in searching the blackened and scorched 24-storey shell that finding and identifying the remaining victims could take weeks. Of the people who managed to escape or were rescued by emergency services, nearly 30 are being treated in six hospitals, with 17 in critical condition.
Nine firefighters were hurt in the rescue. Fire Commander Dany Cotton said she was “concerned longer term about the mental impact on a lot of people who were here. People saw and heard things on a scale they have never seen before.”
The deaths are the political responsibility of the government, the local authorities and big business. The Grenfell Action Group (GAG) and residents have been warning of the risk of a serious fire at the flats for more than a decade. Just seven months ago, the GAG warned that failings in the estate management organisation’s health and safety practices were a “recipe for a future major disaster.” These warnings were dismissed by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which manages the property on their behalf.
The anger among residents is palpable. In some cases, local residents have denounced and even chased off representatives from the media reporting from the scene, as they are viewed as mouthpieces of those responsible for the fire and deaths. One male resident speaking to the Guardian said, “They really don’t care about working class citizens.”
A young woman pointed at the destroyed tower and said, “A building like that wouldn’t fly in a rich area. But because everyone who lives here is poor and working class, that’s why it’s happened.”
Maria Virgo, who has lived opposite Grenfell Tower for 11 years, told the BBC, “There’s a lot of separation between classes and people are telling me that it’s down to social cleansing.” Virgo said of an estate which is adjacent to some of the most affluent areas in the capital, “This area’s always been working class. It’s starting to become a bit less so now, and the working class are feeling that they’re being left without a voice.”
Another resident, Christina Simmons, said “They don’t listen to us. We’re being neglected and ignored. I’m bloody angry.”
May announced the inquiry once safely back in Downing Street after carrying out a perfunctory visit to the Grenfell site. Her handlers ensured she was in and out of the area in just 30 minutes, not daring to meet a single local resident.
Such is the ruling elite’s visceral hatred of the working class victims of the fire that she would not guarantee when asked if the families would be rehoused in Kensington and Chelsea. She said through gritted teeth only that “the government will make every effort to ensure that they are rehoused in London, and as close as possible to home.”
Fully 600 firefighters’ jobs and 10 fire stations were lost when Boris Johnson—May’s foreign secretary—and then-London mayor ran the capital. The cuts resulted in response times of firefighters rising in more than half of London’s wards. Johnson issued the obligatory crocodile tears over the victims of the Grenfell fire. However, a clip shows a Labour Party London Assembly member telling Johnson in 2013, “How can cutting fire stations, cutting fire engines, cutting firefighters’ posts not be a reduction in fire coverage?” The Assembly member continued, “You’ve lied to the people of London in your election.” In reply Johnson said, “Oh, get stuffed.”
Another item circulating on social media is a list of 312 Conservative MPs who refused to support a parliamentary bill last year that would have forced landlords to ensure their properties were “fit for human habitation.” At least 71 were themselves private landlords.
The Tories blocked recommendations from coroner’s reports into two tower block fires in London and Southampton in 2009 that included proposals to have information for firefighters on site about complex tower blocks, to encourage the wider use of sprinkler systems and a review of fire safety regulations.
Despite residents demanding it for years, no centralised fire safety system existed in Grenfell Tower as the result of such callous disregard for the living conditions of the working class. A report by the trade journal Inside Housing claimed that fire safeguards were temporarily removed from Grenfell Tower during refurbishments in 2016. It is not clear whether the “fire-stopping systems,” designed to prevent the spread of fire between floors, were replaced.
Anti-Tory sentiment was evidenced in Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s warm welcome when he visited the Grenfell estate. However, Labour is implicated just as much as the Tories in the horrific deaths at Grenfell and in other fires.
In 1999, under the Labour government of Tony Blair, a Parliamentary Select Committee promised an urgent review of building regulations governing the design and installation of external cladding on tower blocks after a fatal fire in Ayrshire, Scotland that noted “one of the main areas of concern was the cavity between the cladding and the concrete, or other material, behind it. This created an air channel that contributed to the rapid upward spread of fire.”
Most of London’s borough councils are Labour-run. Camden council in northwest London had to admit that it was now conducting “additional fire safety checks” of tower blocks after it emerged that the firm responsible for the cladding and another firm involved in the “refurbishment” of Grenfell Tower were also involved in recladding five blocks consisting of 706 homes in Camden.
There are around 4,000 high-rise residential towers in the UK. Based on an estimate of around 500 people living in a block, this represents at least two million residents. Many are clad with the same cheap or similar materials as Grenfell. The vast majority do not have sprinkler systems and other centralised alarm systems.
Announcing a “full, independent public inquiry” that “needs to produce an interim report by the end of this summer at the latest,” May continued, “We need to ensure that this tragedy is fully investigated.”
Nothing of the sort will ever happen. As with every public inquiry called by the ruling elite it will end in a whitewash.
In 1989, 96 Liverpool football club supporters were crushed to death at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield, as a result of police opening a main gate and directing them into two already dangerously overcrowded terraces. The official report into the deaths ordered by the then-Tory government resulted in no one being charged, made to stand trial, or even disciplined. It took 27 years for the families of the victims to even have the truth uncovered, let alone secure prosecutions, through the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in the face of bitter hostility from successive Tory and Labour governments.
Posted by at No comments:

Responsibility to Protect: Quo Vadis?

John Schabedoth


The concept of responsibility to protect (R2P) intends limit state sovereignty in favour of a more effective protection of human rights. It does not have a legal effect that goes beyond the existing norms of public international law (PIL). Rather, the strengths of R2P lies in its call to use the already existing legal possibilities for interventions under the UN Charter more frequently.
 
The concept of R2P emerged in light of the UN not being able to prevent many humanitarian crises in the 1990s (e.g. the genocide in Rwanda). It was meant to reconcile the peacekeeping norms of the UN Charter that prohibit the use of force and interventions with the increased need for an effective protection of human rights. At the same time, the concept should end the legally and politically highly controversial practice of military humanitarian interventions by individual or several states without the explicit authorisation by a UN resolution.

At the 2005 UN World Summit, the concept was politically confirmed by the international community, i.e. states. According to the adopted resolution, every state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. If a state does not comply with this responsibility, it forfeits its sovereignty. In this case, the responsibility to protect is transferred to the state community, which fulfils it by diplomatic, political, economic, humanitarian, and ultimately, military measures.

With regard to the legally binding effect of the R2P concept, one has to distinguish between the responsibility of each state for its own population and the shared responsibility of the global community for the population of one particular state. 
The responsibility of states to protect their own populations from the most serious human rights violations has been part of PIL for a long time. The novelty of R2P is the implication that this responsibility can be shifted to the state community. Even today, a legal framework exists that enables the Security Council to act in cases of grave human rights violations on a large scale. However the R2P concept implies a duty to act in these cases. This contradicts with the current practice of veto powers that exercise their veto right in their own political discretion. 

A responsibility to protect of the state community for the population of a particular state is not part of PIL. The 2005 UN World Summit Resolution did not have any legally binding effect.

However, binding PIL can also be created by customary law, if a general practice exists that the states accept as law. In 2011, when the UN Security Council authorised a military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, it was the first time protection of civilian population was used in the reasoning. In the resolution, the Security Council stressed the responsibility of the Libyan authorities for the protection of the Libyan population. However the resolution neither explicitly mentioned a transfer of this responsibility to the state community nor the concept of R2P in general. The UN Security Council rather reasoned the intervention with the established legal norms of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. 

In the resolution on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, the Security Council did not refer to a violation of Syria’s R2P but to already existing international legal norms concerning the protection of its population. Therefore, a responsibility of the state community to protect the population of another state is not a legal obligation that affects the discretionary nature of exercising the Security Council member’s respective voting right.

The Syrian case in particular shows the blurriness of R2P, which makes it hardly suitable for an application in a specific case: It is unclear who examines the facts to which the concept is applied to. 

It is also open whether the responsibility to protect is actually an obligation to intervene and if so, in which form, by whom and with what military and political objectives. The proposals range from civilian aid measures to military interventions including regime change. Whether the need for intervention by the Security Council exists in a conflict, and if so in favour of whom and in what form, seems to depend strongly on the result of a political analysis of the circumstances and a future forecast of the further development of the conflict. Such an analysis can hardly be regulated by law. 

Political interests and values are different within the state community. Therefore it is questionable whether a shared responsibility to protect will become a legal concept in the near future, especially since a large part of the “Global South” but also countries like the US are critical of the concept.

The concept of R2P does not solve the tension between human rights and the prohibition of use of force. Nevertheless, R2P has a future as a political concept: though the intervention of the Security Council in domestic conflicts was legal before the development of the R2P concept, it was often politically highly controversial. The R2P concept reinforces the “authority” of intervening measures by the Security Council. The focus is no longer on the question of whether or not to intervene, but on how the state community can fulfil their R2P. This increases the diplomatic and political pressure on members of the Security Council to use the existing legal possibilities for interventions more frequently. 

The discretion enjoyed by the states with veto powers to use their voting rights could be politically restricted by a “behavioural expectation” shared by the veto powers. In particular, it should be noted that the R2P concept is by no means confined to military measures. In fact there are numerous peaceful, effective but less controversial measures to fulfil the states’ R2P. The community of states should focus on elaborating them and to apply them, where possible, on humanitarian crises of the future.
Posted by at No comments:

Dealing with Left Wing Extremism: No Permanent Solution?

Bibhu Prasad Routray


On 3 June 2017, India's Home Minister Rajnath Singh summed up his government's performance in the past three years with regard to the challenge of Left Wing Extremism (LWE), and said "A 25 percent reduction in Naxal attacks in 2014-17 as compared to 2011-14 and 42 percent reduction in deaths in Naxal attacks in the same period." He also claimed major development in Naxal-affected states including Chhattisgarh have taken place has completely destroyed ('Kamar tod di hai') the support system for Naxal activities. 

While the data is indisputable, its presentation, as a comparison to the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime, is interesting. It does make the official achievements vis-a-vis the LWE challenge impressive. However, two key questions remain. First, is the official achievement as impressive as the home minister claims? Second, has the official policy indeed been successful in weakening the extremist movement?

2014-2017
In May 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government came to power. That year, 1091 incidents of Maoist violence took place, which was lower than 1136 incidents recorded in the previous year during which the UPA had been in power. 

Such incidents of violence have continued to decline. The BJP claiming credit for the reduction in violence, however, is unsustainable as the declining trend in Maoist violence had already started in 2012. In fact, data from the Ministry of External Affairs (MHA) demonstrates that the rate at which Maoism related incidents declined was much higher during the UPA regime (1760 incidents in 2011 to 1091 incidents in 2014) than what took place during the NDA regime (1091 incidents in 2014 to 1048 incidents in 2016). 

A comparison of the data of 2015 and 2016 further demonstrates that the LWE situation could actually be beginning to worsen rather than improve in the past two years. Fatalities among the civilians and security forces have increased by 20 per cent in this period. The first five months of 2017 have witnessed the killings of more civilians by the extremists than in all of 2016. Two high profile attacks by the CPI-Maoist in 2017 in Chhattisgarh's Sukma district and other incidents have already resulted in the death of 62 security forces, which is almost equal to the number of security forces who lost their lives in 2016. Over the past three years, the area under CPI-Maoist domination has shrunk. However, the core areas that support the outfit's activities in a variety of ways have more or less remained intact. This does not unveil a spectre of optimism as far as the LWE scenario is concerned.          

From an Action plan to a Doctrine
The BJP's manifesto for the 2014 parliamentary elections had promised that the party, if voted to power, would "chalk a national plan in consultation and participation of the state Governments, to address the challenges posed by the Maoist's insurgency." After coming to power, in June 2014, the home minister spoke of an 'integrated action plan' and sought 'commitment' of the states to 'eliminate' LWE. A 29 point action plan finalised by the MHA included measures to make "full use of media — social, electronic and print — to demystify" the local populace from the CPI-Maoist's propaganda. The Ministry floated the concept of 'smart counter-insurgent" by seeking to improve the tactical skills of security forces. It also called for a legal crackdown against NGOs that act as front organisations of Maoists. Some more improvements were brought in the next couple of months, when the home minister called for a new counter-Maoist doctrine with a goal to eliminate LWE "within the next three years." This was in 2014.

It took three years to unveil such a doctrine. Launched by the home minister on 8 May 2017, the new LWE doctrine, named SAMADHAN, stands for eight ways of combating LWE by ways of making the security forces more capable and making the counter-Maoist operations intelligence based. The doctrine was hurriedly launched within two weeks of the 24 April attack in Sukma that claimed the lives of the 25 CRPF personnel. Although for the uninitiated the doctrine is impressive and serves as a demonstration of the government's resolve to get rid of the LWE problem, SAMADHAN, in its entirety, including the advice to the Intelligence Bureau to infiltrate the Maoist ranks, remains a mere compilation of the home minister's unimplemented directives since 2014. 

Imposing a Solution Vs Finding a solution
There can be variety of explanations regarding why the government has been unable to find a solution to the problem despite setting several optimistic timeframes. These range from the persisting weaknesses among the police and central forces to issues of intelligence gathering. Also apparent is a disjointed effort at the national level aptly demonstrated in the complaints made by various state governments governed by non-BJP parties like Bihar and Odisha that New Delhi is not adequately supporting them either financially or logistically in their endeavour to deal with the problem. The larger problem with the approach to countering LWE, however, is at the doctrinal level. 

New Delhi, instead of working towards evolving a solution with the participation of tribals affected by violence, community organisations, and grass roots politicians and activists, has been trying to impose a solution scripted in the national capital. Even while criticising the UPA regime's failure to deal with the LWE challenge, the NDA regime's policies appear to be a mirror image of its predecessor. Use of vigilante groups, increased deployment of central forces, and persecuting NGOs and activists working for the tribals in the remote areas have remained the hallmark of anti-LWE campaign. None of these strategies worked for former Home Ministers Mr P Chidambaram and Mr Sushilkumar Shinde; and these are unlikely to work for incumbent Home Minister Mr Rajnath Singh. Mr. Singh may justify such measures against the NGOs and activists as destroying the Maoist support system, but in reality these only alienate the tribals further and drain the security forces off the much needed local support.

In recent times, New Delhi has spoken of a 'permanent solution' to the militancy problem in Kashmir as well as India's north-eastern states. Interestingly, no such promises have been made with regard to the LWE issue. Perhaps, the government, while indulging in self praise, realises that tackling the threat and imposing a solution of its liking would not be easy.
Posted by at No comments:

15 Jun 2017

INK Fellows Program for Young Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 31st July 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
About the Award: The INK Fellows Program brings together a young, global and cross-disciplinary community of path-breakers who we believe will be the shapers of tomorrow. Every year, INK identifies the minds that are redefining their field of work, and the world around them. The Program aims to provide them the  support necessary to leverage their impact.  The INK Fellows Program is an initiative of Ixoraa Knowledge Foundation, the nonprofit arm of Ixoraa Media Private Limited. Tata Trusts is a key partner of Ixoraa Knowledge Foundation in supporting the INK Fellows Program.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: The INK fellowship is open to all individuals across the globe.
  • Applicants must be between the ages of 18 and 40
  • We’re looking for gamechangers who’re redefining their fields of work and have the potential to make a significant impact on the world. We want to bring your stories to a wider audience.
  • Applications should be emerging innovators specializing in any field; for example (but not limited to) technology, entrepreneurship, health/medicine, architecture and design, science, art/culture/literature, energy and environment, research and academics, education, sports, film/music, and social impact. Have a look at our past Fellows’ profiles here to get an idea of the diversity of the program.
  • Your work should speak for itself.
  • Selected INK Fellows must be present for the entire duration of the INK Conference (for theyear they are selected) and prepare to be present 2 days earlier for onsite curation.
Selection Criteria: All Fellows have:
  • Demonstrated the capacity to think differently, to listen with an open mind, and to keep learning
  • A vision for the world or their field of work
  • Serious accomplishment (not necessarily academic!) at a young age, in any field
  • The desire and ability to enrich the INK Community through active participation
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Program: 
1. Tell your story to the world
Learn how to tell your stories to the world and let us give you an audience that want to hear them.
  • Master the art of storytelling through in-depth coaching and bring your ideas to center stage at the INK Conference and other INK events worldwide.
2. Amplify impact
We provide you audiences and platforms to help increase your impact.
  • Talks delivered by Fellows from the Conference, are promoted on INK’s digital platforms – inktalks.com and YouTube.
  • Exposure on INK’s social media channels throughout the Fellowship year and beyond.
  • Opportunity to be a Fellow with partner organizations.
  • Fellows are eligible to apply for INK’s Fellowship grant.
3. Unlock your potential
Learn from some of the world’s game changers on best practices and more.
  • Learn from some of the world’s game changers on best practices and more
  • Fellows Mentor Connect and expert workshops.
  • Meet a powerful network of innovators who you can work with on collaborative efforts.
How to Apply: Please fill out the application form available here.
Award Provider: Ixoraa Knowledge Foundation.
Posted by at No comments:

University of Pretoria MasterCard Scholarship (Undergraduate & Masters) for African Students 2018

Application Deadline: 30th August 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): South Africa
Fields of Study: 
Faculty of Engineering
  • BEng (Industrial Engineering)
  • BEng (Chemical Engineering)
  • BEng (Civil Engineering)
  • BEng (Electrical Engineering)
  • BEng (Electronic Engineering)
  • BEng (Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering)
  • BEng (Mining Engineering)
  • BEng (Computer Engineering)
Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences
  • BCom (Accounting Science)
  • BCom (Financial Science)
  • BCom (Economics)
  • BCom (Informatics)
  • BCom (Agribusiness Management)
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences 
  • BScAgric (Food Science and Technology)
  • BScAgric (Agricultural Economics/Agribusiness Management)
  • BScAgric (Animal Science)
  • BScAgric (Plant Pathology)
  • BScAgric (Applied Plant and Soil Sciences)
Postgraduate Study Programmes
Master’s degree applicants in the above-mentioned fields may also apply.
Honour’s candidates will be considered if they are prepared to commit to continuing to a Master’s degree.
About the Award: The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program (MCFSP) targets academically qualified, yet economically disadvantaged young people in South Africa, SADC and the rest of Africa, who will contribute to the transformation of the continent. Community service is a necessary component of the Program with all students giving back to disadvantaged communities.
Type: Undergraduate and Masters (Taught)
Eligibility:
  • Candidates should be citizens from Sub-Saharan African country.
  • Applicants should come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and demonstrate financial neediness.
  • Candidates should demonstrate leadership potential and ought to be involved in a giving back project eg. in a community, at school, church etc
  • Academic excellence is paramount and students have to maintain a high academic average at all times.
  • Candidates need to be first time applicants as first year students in the degree programme
Selection Criteria:  The identified scholars need to demonstrate a commitment to making a difference in their communities, having faced significant barriers to accessing and completing quality tertiary education. The Program provides a comprehensive scholarship, mentoring and counseling, academic support and access to work readiness skills.
Number of Awardees: Several
Value of Scholarship: The Program will cover the following:
  • Full tuition fees
  • Accommodation in a UP residence
  • Meals
  • Books and printed material
  • A modest monthly stipend
  • Medical aid (Ingwe only)
  • Travel costs (one return trip for the duration of the study period)
  • Cost of one visa application for the duration of the study period.
Duration of Scholarship: Period of degree
How to Apply: Students who are interested in studies at the University of Pretoria and wish to apply for The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program must follow the application process in the Scholarship webpage (Link below)
Award Provider: Mastercard Foundation, University of Pretoria
Important Notes: All potential MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program (MCFSP) applicants for academic year 2018 have to apply at the respective faculty FIRST before applying for the MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program.  Once your application has been approved then you may apply for the MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program.
No MCFSP applications will be considered if you have not applied at the faculty first.
Posted by at No comments:

Women in Africa (WIA) Club Entrepreneurs’ Hub for Women Entrepreneurs in Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 5th July 2017
Eligible Countries: African country
To be taken at (country): Marrakesh, Morocco
About the Award: WIA CLUB PHILANTROPY is a non-profit structure aiming at supporting and funding businesses led or managed by African women, through two main projects : the Women in Africa Entrepreneurs Hub and the Women in Africa Revelations Night.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: 
  • The companies or initiatives meeting the following criteria can apply to the Entrepreneurs’ Hub:
  • Companies or initiatives based in one of the 54 African countries.
  • Created or managed by an African woman.
  • With a strong market traction (turnover, number of users, funds raised)
Selection Criteria: We will select the most innovative and high-growth potential companies or initiatives with already proven traction:
• Innovative product, service or technology and/or a strong human impact.
• With a first traction on the market (turnover, number of users, raised funds…).
• Proven business model, scalability.
• Large growth potential (in own country, Africa and globally).
• Ambitious team with deep execution skills.
Number of Awards: 15-20 women
Value of Program: Pitch or have an exhibition space during the next Women In Africa Club Annual Meeting
Duration of Program: 25-27 September 2017
Award Provider: Women In Africa (WIA) Club
Posted by at No comments:

DAAD Postgraduate Scholarship for Development-Related Courses 2018/2019 – Germany

Application Deadline: Each chosen course has its deadline (Sept-Dec).  Please consult scholarship brochure for more information (See link below).Only exception is Cameroon. Students are to apply before 31st July 2017 through the German embassy.
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing countries
To be taken at (country): Germany
Fields of Study: Individual scholarships exclusively for Postgraduate courses in Germany that are listed on the “List of all Postgraduate courses with application deadlines”.
About the Award: With its development-oriented postgraduate study programmes, the DAAD promotes the training of specialists from development and newly industrialised countries. Well-trained local experts, who are networked with international partners, play an important part in the sustainable development of their countries. They are the best guarantee for a better future with less poverty, more education and health for all.
The scholarships offer foreign graduates from development and newly industrialised countries from all disciplines and with at least two years’ professional experience the chance to take a postgraduate or Master’s degree at a state or state-recognised German university, and in exceptional cases to take a doctoral degree, and to obtain a university qualification (Master’s/PhD) in Germany.
Type: Master’s, PhD
Eligibility: 
  • Candidates fulfil the necessary academic requirements and can be expected to successfully complete a study programme in Germany (above-average result for first academic exam – top performance third, language skills)
  • Candidates have a Bachelor degree (usually a four-year course) in an appropriate subject
  • Candidates have at least two years’ professional experience
  • Candidates can prove their motivation is development-related and be expected to take on social responsibility and initiate and support processes of change in their personal and professional environment after their training/scholarship
Selection Criteria: 
  • The last academic degree (usually a Bachelor’s degree) should have been completed no longer than six years previously
  • At least two years’ relevant professional experience
  • Language skills: Depending on chosen study programme; please check scholarship brochure or the website of your chosen study programme.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Program: 
  • Depending on academic level, monthly payments of 750 euros for graduates or 1,000 euros for doctoral candidates
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
  • Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding
Duration of Program: 12 to 36 months (dependent on study programme)
How to Apply: It is important to go through the Program Webpage before applying.
Award Provider: German Exchange Education Services (DAAD)
Posted by at No comments:

AAHPM Scholarships for Doctors and Palliative Care Physicians from Developing Countries 2017 – USA

Application Deadline: 21st August, 2017 11:59am CST (US Central Standard Time).
Notification of awards: November 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Low and middle income countries (as defined by World Bank)
To be Taken At (Country): Arizona, USA
About the Award: This scholarship program provides financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to help them access the latest clinical information and research updates in hospice and palliative care from leading experts in the field. This scholarship program is intended to facilitate Annual Assembly participation and cover ordinary costs associated with meeting registration, travel-related expenses (airfare, cab fare, meals), and lodging.
Type: Short Courses/Training
Eligibility: Scholarships are available to physicians who work in hospice and palliative medicine and who care for seriously ill patients. Eligible physicians must permanently reside in low and middle income countries as defined by World Bank. It is our hope that the scholarship recipients will share the knowledge attained from the Annual Assembly to improve the palliative care offerings in their home country. Preference will be given to applicants who are
  • members of the AAHPM – physicians who reside in a low or middle income country as defined by the World Bank & the HINARI list of eligible countries are eligible for a complimentary international membership.
  • have not previously attended the Annual Assembly
  • are junior in their career with 2-10 years of experience primarily in palliative care, including a resident or fellow, focused on studying palliative care, and
  • whose organizations are considered least able to afford this opportunity.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: This scholarship program will provide financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to cover ordinary costs associated with meeting registration, travel-related expenses (air fare, cab fare, meals), and lodging.
How to Apply: 
  1. Prepare your Cirriculum Vitae (CV) – 2 page limit
  2. Prepare a one-page letter of recommendation and support from your supervisor or person of authority in your organization on your organization’s letterhead
  3. Complete the application in one of two ways:
All documents must be received by August 21 at 11:59am CST (US Central Standard Time).
Important Note: Scholarship recipients will be asked to participate in a presentation during the Annual Assembly to share the practice of hospice and palliative medicine in their country. In addition, recipients will also be required to submit a written report describing how their attendance at the Annual Assembly benefited their organization.
In addition, scholarship recipients will be required to secure their own US visa.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)