Is Overt Display Of Religion Tearing The Fabric Of Indian Society?

Siddharth Sreenivas

“This is Gandhi’s land!” people often tell me. Where multicultural acceptance is a part of every Indian’s day to day life. This is the land which has a tradition of accepting into its fold all divergent views including religions. They tell me that Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, even Zoroastrianism have flourished for millennia under the benevolence of the majority religion. And then they also tell me that the radicalization of the Hindus is in response to the intolerance of the Semitic religions. That the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS in particular and also a range of fringe elements are a necessary force to bolster Hinduism from “attacks”.

But when I look back at the 60+ years of Indian independence, I see a very strange pattern emerging from India’s inclusive secularism.Nehru and others might have felt India needed its own brand of secularism in inclusive secularism, but where has it got us?

This Indian idea of secularism is strangely skewed towards the majority religion in all spheres of life. It’s widely accepted that offices, schools, work places have to be bedecked in pomp during festivals like Diwali. Ayudh Pujas are done at all government institutions, even in police stations. It is ok for warships or submarines to have coconuts broken before their launch. The institution which is the beacon of our technological prowess- the Indian Space Research Organization conducts Pujas before any mission launch. Politicians make bee lines for religious institutions, in this case across all religions, and seek endorsements prior to elections.

This level of involvement and state patronage are sorry to say, from at least a rationalist’s point of view, highly disturbing. It is almost as if Savarkar’s  vision and RSS’ mission of grounding India in Hindutva has been pushed and promoted by every political leader, single state institution and private sector enterprise from the word go. It is also significant to note that the threat perception from such overt display of religion arises from the fact that Hinduism has in many ways been institutionalized and standardized in a more radical form in the past century. The earlier form of the religion which was rooted in taboo like caste, child marriage, caste etc was replaced with not the free thinking, accommodating religion (considering the leeway and diversity in belief systems) reflected in the vedas and puraranas but into a rigid, narrow religion mirroring the Semitic religions. This tendency to regress can also be seen in other eastern religions like Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka or Myanmar.

These days people are complaining about the rise and rise of intolerance in our country and I have this to tell them- it’s not just the fringe right which has promoted this state of intolerance. There is every reason to hold you, as common citizens, guilty of the crime of peddling soft hindutva by accepting and adhering to these antiquated and antediluvian (“aha, a biblical reference” would say a right winger J) notions of secularism, separation of state and religion and of mixing the temporal with the spiritual.

And people, mainly folks with a liberal bent of mind, I often talk to about this agree with me on what is happening and that this has to change. Their solution- lets become even more inclusive and celebrate all religions equally.

I pity individuals who feel this could even be a partial solution to what ails this nation.

Let me point out the examples of “liberal” states like Kerala and in the North East. Kerala has a history of this so called inclusiveness- a state where all 3 major religions- Islam, Hinduism and Christianity are on a more even footing and where you have ministers refusing to light lamps at functions because it is not in consonance with their religious beliefs. And where Christmas and Id are as big for the state and the institutions and the general populace like Onam and Vishu. “Exactly what we should be aiming for! My point stands vindicated” is what the folks seeking greater inclusiveness immediately respond with.

But then I ask them to explain the facts that the highest number of RSS shakhasare in Kerala and how the Muslims and Christians still vote en masse for parties that seemingly represent their “interests”

But I think it’s important for me to not get carried away by my own beliefs and seek enforcement but leave it open for you all to decide on this.

Will greater inclusiveness as suggested by some really bridge the divide and give a sense of security to the people who are at the receiving end of the Hindutva baton? Or would a move to remove all religious symbolism from public spaces be the best bet?

Debatable yes, and also a very superficial and insignificant point not addressing the root issues is what some have been telling me. But I think we should all ponder on the need to address this aspect earlier rather than later since the very fabric of our society is being torn apart at this point.

German parliament passes Internet censorship law

Justus Leicht 

On June 30 the German parliament (Bundestag) passed a law, the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), which establishes censorship of the Internet.

The measure was introduced by Justice Minister Heiko Maas (Social Democratic Party--SPD) and was passed with the votes of the Grand Coalition parties, the right-wing Christian Democratic Union-Christian Social Union (CDU-CSU) and the SPD.

The Network Enforcement Act is a major attack on freedom of expression in Germany. It turns giant corporations such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube into prosecutors, judges and juries determining what is and is not permitted on the Internet. If these firms fail to delete alleged “manifestly unlawful” statements within 24 hours and “less manifestly” unlawful items within seven days, they face fines of up to 50 million euros [$US 57 million].

The short deadlines for the removal of allegedly unlawful content, under the threat of horrendous fines, will facilitate the erasure of legitimate statements of opinion. The user whose entry is deleted must merely be informed about the erasure. Any refusal to accept deletion then involves a lengthy and costly legal action during which time the deletion remains in effect.

A regulation on the authority empowered to act for platforms, which collaborates with government institutions, has been tightened up. If the responsible authority fails to comply with a request for information within 48 hours, then fines are applicable. This is to ensure that deleted utterances--which the provider must store--can also be effectively prosecuted.

In addition, platforms will be required to provide information on who wrote the controversial statements. The government claims this will make it easier to pursue lawsuits. In fact, it is an invitation for all kinds of stalking, bullying and intimidation of political opponents. A provision allowing for judicial oversight changes little in this respect. Any input by those persons whose data is demanded is not provided for--the platform operator merely has to “inform” the victim of censorship. In practice all it requires is a request from a lawyer to justify judicial approval.

Until now establishing that an utterance was insulting, disparaging or slanderous was often the subject of a lengthy legal dispute. Not infrequently, charges and legal cases have been used to criminalise or silence personal or political opponents and critics. In numerous cases the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled--not always consistently--in favour of the importance of free expression and discussion.

In view of the extremely short deadlines and large penalties, it is clear how corporations like Facebook or Google will respond to reports of allegedly criminal content: deletion. A serious examination of whether or not the assertion is actually unlawful or punishable is neither possible nor intended, given the time limits and draconian fines. Any sharp, critical, polemical, ironic or satirical contribution on a social network can then “disappear” immediately following a denunciation.

The law is such an obvious attack on freedom of expression that even the Scientific Services of the Bundestag (WD) referred in an opinion to a “constitutionally unjustified interference with the basic right of freedom of expression.” The parliamentary jurists warned “that there are already considerable difficulties involved in the conceptual delimitation of illegal content to be deleted and criminally false reports (‘fake news’). … Guidance, examples or references to examples of obviously unlawful or criminal content” are not specified in the draft law.

In other words, a law that lacks any concrete basis or justification has been rushed through parliament. When asked, government officials could not name a single example of criminal “fake news.”

In fact, the issue is not about “hate speech” or “fake news”--and it is certainly not about opposing the far right. The issue is censorship of the Internet. Broad sections of the population have lost confidence in the capitalist parties and the bourgeois media and are using the Internet and social media to inform themselves and exchange information. The ruling elite increasingly regards this as a threat.

“Hate crimes”--an all-embracing concept in the current law--“which cannot be effectively combated and persecuted, represents a great danger to the peaceful coexistence of a free, open and democratic society,” the law states. The American presidential election is cited as an example. “After the experience in the US election campaign, the fight against criminally false reports (‘fake news’) has assumed high priority in social networks in the Republic of Germany.”

The fact that such a far-reaching law has been enforced so quickly within the space of a few months, and in the face of broad criticism, reveals the extent to which the powers that be in Germany feel under pressure. They are responding to growing political and social discontent as they have always done in the past--with the erection of a surveillance and police state.

All of the parties in the Bundestag are on board. The Greens abstained in the vote, mainly because they had not been involved intensively enough in preparing the law. “The process up to now has not been good. It was not good that you first had internal discussions without the involvement of the parliament,” declared Green Party spokeswoman Renate Künast. This “has nothing to do with the level and seriousness required.”

The Left Party voted against for the same reasons, while making clear in the Bundestag debate that it approved the general direction of the legislation. “Of course, Mr. Maas is right: there are problems with hate and false news and the role played by social networks as platforms. But these did not just crop up yesterday, and they must be taken very seriously. It is precisely for this reason that a serious and thorough examination of possible solutions is necessary,” declared Petra Sitte, parliamentary manager of the Left Party in the Bundestag.

Mexican government uses malware to spy on journalists and political opponents

Alex González 

On June 19, a report by the New York Times and research center Citizen Lab revealed that Israeli software purchased by the Mexican government was used to spy on prominent journalists and human rights activist in the country, including one minor. The software, known as Pegasus, collects all communications of a targeted phone if the recipient opens a malicious link sent via text message.

Pegasus spyware lets hackers silently monitor all emails, texts, contacts, and locations of an infected phone, as well as activate a phone’s microphone and camera at will, even when the device is off. Over 76 text messages containing the Pegasus malware were sent to lawyers working on the investigation of the 43 missing Ayotzinapa students, lobbyists working on anti-corruption and consumer health legislation, political opponents of the government and journalists critical of the Peña Nieto administration. A few individuals reportedly opened the malicious links and fell victim to this targeted surveillance.

According to the New York Times, at least three federal agencies—the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the General Prosecutor, and the Center for Research and National Security—have purchased over $80 million worth of the spyware from the Israeli cyber arms firm NSO Group, itself owned by US private equity firm San Francisco Partners. NSO Group sells products exclusively to governments under the guise of fighting crime and terrorism.

The hacking attempts coincided with key investigations critical of the government led by the targeted individuals between January 2015 and August 2016, after which Citizen Lab published a report linking Pegasus spyware to the targeting of a human rights advocate in the United Arab Emirates. Due to media coverage of the incident at that time, it is possible that the Citizen Lab investigation led to the termination of the program on Mexican soil.

Although records indicate the Mexican government began purchasing Pegasus spyware in 2011, the first known instance of NSO surveillance in Mexico dates from early 2015, when prominent journalist Carmen Aristegui began receiving suspicious messages appearing to be Amber Alerts, or sent from her bank and her colleagues. A few months earlier, Aristegui had broken a national conflict of interest story related to the purchase of a $7 million house by Peña Nieto’s wife from a government subcontractor, which was awarded lucrative contracts when Peña Nieto was governor of the State of Mexico.

After targeting Aristegui for over a year and a half, the hackers began contacting her 16-year-old son while he was in the United States. One message impersonated the embassy of the United States to Mexico, which may have violated US law. Overall, Aristegui and her son received over 45 messages containing Pegasus malware.

Other hacking attempts targeted journalists who were investigating possible military killings and corrupt officials. Carlos Loret del Sol, a journalist for national television channel Televisa, received text messages with Pegasus malware while reporting on extrajudicial killings by the military in western Mexico and the their subsequent cover up by government officials. Salvador Camarena and Daniel Lizárraga, both journalists for Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity (MCCI), were targeted while investigating Mexican officials and prominent businessmen named in the Panama Papers.

Other charges of NSO government spying shed light on the growing role of surveillance in defending the ruling elite’s business and political interests. In February, a separate investigation by Citizen Lab revealed that proponents of a national soda tax—including a scientist at the Mexican National Institute for Public Health and directors of consumer rights NGOs—were sent Pegasus malware. In the eyes of the ruling elite, this was deemed an unacceptable encroachment on the profit interests of soda companies in a country where 40 percent of the population is obese.

Last week, it was also revealed that NSO spyware was found on the phones of leading members of the right-wing opposition Party of National Action (PAN), including the phones of party president Ricardo Anaya, potential presidential candidate Roberto Gil Zuarth, and party spokesperson Fernando Rodríguez Doval. These messages were received in June 2016, the same month that the PAN won 12 governorships in the country, three of which were previously held by the ruling PRI.

“It is unacceptable that attempts to infect the phones of PAN members was carried out by a program whose license can only be acquired by the government to fight organized crime,” stated PAN president Ricardo Anaya. Despite Anaya’s feigned opposition, the software was reportedly purchased in 2011, when the PAN’s Felipe Calderón was president.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, presidential candidate of the “left” Movement of National Regeneration (Morena), also postured as an opponent of spying and claimed he would eliminate surveillance programs if he won the presidency: “Instead of dealing with public security issues, they are spying on opponents and now journalists…when Morena wins, [the Mexican spy agency] Cisen will disappear, there will be no political espionage, freedom will be guaranteed, there will be no phone surveillance.” López Obrador’s mention of “public security” proves he is a firm defender of the military and is merely proposing a tactical shift to give a facelift to the corrupt Mexican political establishment.

Mexico’s president responded to the investigation by threatening those making accusations against the government and doubling down on claims the surveillance technology was used to “ensure the security of all Mexicans.”

“None of the injured parties can prove their life has been affected or hurt by these supposed interventions and by the alleged espionage…I hope justice can be served against those who have raised false claims against the government,” stated Peña Nieto.

Following the New York Times article, the Office of the General Prosecutor (PGR) started an investigation into the spying allegations, despite being one of the agencies that reportedly purchased the software. The PGR has ignored calls for an independent investigation of the surveillance program and has refused to release a list of targeted individuals.

Despite broad popular opposition, the crisis-ridden government has been pushing to expand its surveillance capabilities. The Interior Security Law, introduced by both the PRI and the PAN during the last legislative session, was aimed at further institutionalizing spying measures by granting the military the ability to engage in data collection without any form of accountability and forcing private companies to hand over user data.

In Mexico, attempts to spy on journalists take place in the context of broader attacks against freedom of the press. Mexico is the third deadliest country in the world for journalists, with many targeted for their coverage of organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption. Not a single conviction has resulted from the 103 journalist killings in the country since 2000.

The efforts of the Mexican government to curtail freedom of speech and of the press are by no means an isolated phenomenon. All around the world, the capitalist system is resorting to mass spying of the population to attempt to monitor and control rising social discontent under the framework of protecting “national security.”

Gulf crisis poised to escalate as Saudi-led Qatar ultimatum expires

Roger Shilton & Keith Jones

The ultimatum Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf states issued to Qatar twelve days ago expired midnight Tuesday with no indication that Doha is prepared to accept its provocative terms.

The Saudi-led bloc has confirmed it has received a formal Qatari response to their 13 demands, via Kuwait, which has been acting as a mediator. But this response is almost certain to be rejected by the Saudi regime and its allies. Just minutes before the deadline expired, Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani described the demands of the Saudis, Egypt, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates as “unrealistic” and “not actionable.”

On Sunday, Kuwait secured a 48-hour extension of the ultimatum’s deadline to allow further negotiations. The US and various other western powers have been trying to defuse the crisis, which pits monarchical and authoritarian regimes they have long back-stopped against each other.

Yesterday British Prime Minister Theresa May called the newly installed Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, to press for “de-escalation.”

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel travelled to Doha Tuesday evening from the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi. He had spent much of Monday meeting with Saudi officials in Riyadh.

Although the Saudis and their allies have claimed that military action against Qatar is not imminent, Gabriel, after meeting with the Qatari Foreign Minister, made a point of saying the “sovereignty” of a country is among the “boundaries that you should not cross.” Gabriel praised Qatar for the “restraint” it has shown in the face of a month-long Saudi economic blockade and urged further dialogue.

On June 5, Saudi Arabia and its allies imposed a diplomatic and economic blockade on Qatar that stopped just short of war with the aim of forcing Doha to adhere to their belligerent anti-Iran policy and otherwise recast its foreign policy in accordance with Riyadh’s wishes.

Although the Saudi regime, often working in concert with Washington, has funded Islamist terrorist groups for decades, it has railed against Doha for supporting terrorism.

In addition to demanding Doha downgrade its relations with Iran, including ceasing all military and intelligence cooperation, the Saudi-led coalition’s ultimatum insisted Qatar must break all ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and the successor to the al Qaida-affiliated al Nusra Front in Syria. The ultimatum also called on Qatar to pay reparations for the consequences of its policies, shutdown the broadcaster Al Jazeera, and close a recently opened Turkish military base in Doha.

These demands, as Qatari officials have pointed out, would turn the energy-rich peninsular sheikdom into a vassal state and, having clearly been formulated with the expectation that they would be rejected, raise the danger the standoff could quickly escalate into a military clash. Speaking Sunday to Britain’s Sky News, Qatari Defence Minister Khalid al Attiyah declared, “I hope we don't come to a stage where a military intervention is made but we always stand ready.” He continued, “We are here to defend our country,” then accused Qatar’s neighbours of plotting regime change in Doha.

In a move that will no doubt further raise the ire of Riyadh and its allies, Qatar announced Tuesday that it will dramatically increase its natural gas production over the next five years, a step that will require it to intensify cooperation with Iran. Doha and Tehran share ownership and jointly manage a Persian Gulf gas field, South Pars, that is the world’s largest.

The Saudi-led blockade has backfired. Rather than causing it to capitulate, it has driven Doha into a closer alliance with Iran and Turkey, states Riyadh views as rivals for regional dominance.

But the Saudi absolutist regime is heavily invested in bringing Qatar to heel. Installed in the midst of the crisis, the new Crown Prince, who has served as Saudi Defence Minister since 2015, is said to have both orchestrated the blockade of Qatar and the Saudi war in Yemen.

Two days after the start of the Qatar crisis, Turkey announced that it was sending 5,000 troops to Doha and it has joined Iran in shipping food supplies to help break the blockade.

In comments Monday, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus warned against connecting Turkey’s military presence in Qatar to the Gulf crisis, declaring, “Turkey has a base there as part of the area’s safety. The presence of Turkish soldiers will remain.”

Neither Saudi Arabia nor its allies have stated publicly what their next steps will be, but they are meeting in Cairo today to plot strategy. Further economic reprisals, including a strengthening of the economic and air blockade, disinvestment from Qatar, and a run on Qatar’s banks are rumoured. So too is Qatar’s expulsion from the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC).

The Gulf crisis has not only inflamed relations between GCC members. It has increasingly exposed the competing agendas and interests of the regional and major imperialist powers and deepened differences in Washington over US strategy in the region and how it relates to the drive to maintain American imperialism’s world dominance.

Riyadh’s aggression against Qatar was enthusiastically endorsed by US President Donald Trump. Indeed he immediately claimed credit for it, saying that when he had travelled to Saudi Arabia in May he had called for a tougher stand against “terrorism.” Trump has repeatedly made bellicose threats against Iran and warned that he could repudiate the nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with Tehran.

Washington’s determination to isolate, bully and threaten Iran is increasingly opposed by the European imperialist powers, led by Germany and France. Berlin has struck a noticeably different tone in its intervention into the Qatar crisis. In an interview just days after the Saudi-led blockade was imposed, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel warned against a “Trumpification” of relations between the Gulf states.

Reflecting the growing divergence between European and US policy in the region, French energy giant Total concluded a $1 billion agreement with Iran Monday in what is the first major energy deal between a Western company and Teheran since sanctions were lifted in January 2016.

The US military-intelligence apparatus and political establishment, Democrat and Republican alike, view Iran as an unacceptable impediment to unbridled US domination of the world’s most important oil-exporting region.

However, Trump’s very public support for the Saudi campaign to strong-arm Qatar—a stance that apparently has been encouraged by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and chief strategist, the alt-right patron Stephen Bannon—has caused major rifts within his administration and is widely viewed in Washington as a blunder.

Defence Secretary General James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have repeatedly distanced themselves from Trump’s position. Mattis has lauded Qatar for hosting two major US airbases, more than ten thousand US troops, and the “forward” headquarters of the US Central Command. Tillerson, for his part, has been urging America’s Saudi allies not to imperil the “unity” of the US aligned GCC and to scale back, if not shelve, most of its demands.

For these strategists of US imperialism, the Saudi-led campaign against Qatar is an unwanted diversion from, and potential disruption of, their plans to confront Iran and Russia in Syria.

With the fall of ISIS-controlled Mosul, in Iraq and the impending fall of Raqqa the US is rushing to gain control, directly in southeastern Syria, and through proxy forces elsewhere of eastern Syria. Its first aim is to prevent Tehran from establishing a “land bridge” from Iran through Iraq and Syria and extending into south Lebanon. Its longer term objective is to position itself to be able to mount a direct military assault on the Russian- and Iranian-backed regime in Damascus.

UN endorses International Court of Justice hearing on Chagos Islands/Diego Garcia

Jean Shaoul

The UN General Assembly has backed a resolution to refer the legal status of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague.

The Chagos Islands, which make up the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), are located halfway between Tanzania and Indonesia. Diego Garcia, the largest island in the chains, is the site of a US airbase.

The UN resolution concerns one of the most disgraceful incidents in post-war British colonial history.

Mauritius, which holds a sovereignty claim over the islands, brought the resolution on behalf of the Chagos Islanders, who have long disputed British rule, their illegal eviction in the 1960s and subsequent inhumane treatment.

Last November, the UK restated its refusal to allow the Chagossians to return to their homeland, precipitating the appeal to the UN General Assembly.

Although any decision by the ICJ will be non-binding, the resolution is a humiliating defeat for Britain. Ninety-four countries supported the resolution, with only 15, including the US, opposing it. A further 65 countries abstained, including many European Union states, Canada and China.

The UN rejected Britain’s arguments that the Chagos issue is about security and a bilateral matter between it and Mauritius. Anerood Jugnauth, Mauritius’ Defence Minister, insisted that Mauritius had no problem with the US operating on Diego Garcia. Britain’s ambassador to the UN Matthew Rycroft effectively conceded that Britain had no claim to the islands, telling the UN that Britain had told Mauritius that it would “cede” its claim to the Chagos Islands when they were no longer required for military purposes. No date has been set for this supposed end-point.

Making clear the broader considerations involved, Rycroft warned of possible challenges to other colonial powers that still maintain small territories around the world. The General Assembly should not interfere in a dispute between countries, he said, but let Britain and Mauritius resolve the dispute themselves. “Just think: How many other bilateral disputes left over from history could be brought before the General Assembly this way? The present draft resolution could set a precedent that many of you in this hall could come to regret.”

The US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley intervened to support Britain, sending out a similar warning in a letter urging members to vote against the resolution as it would set a “precedent for future bilateral disputes.”

For more than five decades, Britain has carried out one crime after another against the Chagossian Islanders, lying, ignoring court decisions, and covering up its actions in pursuit of its imperialist interests.

Harold Wilson’s Labour government separated the islands from Mauritius prior to its independence in 1965, in breach of a UN resolution 1514 passed in 1960, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies before independence, to form a new colonial entity, the BIOT.

It went on to evict approximately 1,500 inhabitants of Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon, in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, in a sordid deal struck with Washington that official papers show was even kept secret from Parliament and the US Congress.

The US military would lease Diego Garcia for 50 years, with an option to renew, from the British and establish a launch base there for its operations in the Middle East and Asia. In return for the islanders’ removal and exclusion from the British colony, which was an unspoken condition for the deal, the US gave Britain an $11 million discount on the purchase of the US-made Polaris nuclear weapons system, which Labour had pledged to scrap when in opposition.

Sir Paul Gore-Booth, a leading figure in the British Foreign Office, wrote at the time, in a document that later became public, “We must be very tough about this” and that “there will be no indigenous population [on Diego Garcia] except seagulls.”

One diplomat declared in another document, “Unfortunately along with the birds go a few Tarzan and Man Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully whisked on to Mauritius.”

Britain justified the forcible removal of the Chagossians with a downright lie: that there was no indigenous population, only “contract” or “plantation” workers on the island.

Established in 1971, Diego Garcia became a strategic base for the US military during the Cold War and the Vietnam War. Following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the base was expanded and used for operations in the wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 and elsewhere. It became notorious for its use in the CIA’s illegal “extraordinary rendition” and torture programme, with which Britain has fully collaborated.

The 1,500 Islanders were illegally deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, another former British colony, where they have lived in desperately impoverished conditions, with a few being allowed into Britain. Since then, they and their descendants, who now number 10,000, have campaigned vociferously for their rights against a conspiracy of silence, obfuscation, temporising and lies. In the 1990s, the few who settled in Britain finally won the right to British citizenship.

In 2000, representatives of the Chagossians came from Mauritius and the Seychelles to pursue a case against the then Labour government of Tony Blair, whose foreign secretary Robin Cook had supported them when in opposition and famously espoused an “ethical foreign policy,” over their illegal deportation.

When they won a historic ruling that agreed that the eviction was illegal, British government officials--duplicitous as ever--declared that the indigenous citizens were free to return but to the “outer homeland islands only.” They could visit Diego Garcia as part of a handpicked group of up to 100 to see the graves of their families, but would then have to leave. Even this pitiful decision was opposed by the US government.

The British government will stop at nothing to protect its imperialist interests. In 2009, it unilaterally declared the Chagos Islands a Marine Protected Area (MPA), thereby outlawing fishing and the extractive industries, including oil and gas exploration. The MPA was deliberately created to prevent Chagossians from returning to their homeland by destroying their potential livelihoods.

WikiLeaks cables exposed this ruse in 2011. A Foreign Office official’s note stated that the creation of the MPA was “the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT [the Chagos Islands].”

In 2015, Mauritius won a ruling at the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague that stated Britain had acted illegally in the way it had exercised control over the Chagos Islands, criticizing London for failing to consult over establishing an MPA around the BIOT. But this did not change anything.

Last November, after years of delays, the British Foreign Office finally announced that Chagos islanders would not be given the right of return to resettle, arguing that the cost and US objections made it impossible. Furthermore, it would be economically unviable for them to do so, since the MPA had stripped them of their livelihoods, contradicting a recent independent government-commissioned consultation that confirmed the MPA could be maintained with just minor adjustments alongside a returned Chagossian population. Instead, the government offered a derisory £40 million “support,” equal to £4,000 per person.

None of this has stopped the government from harassing and issuing deportation orders against the islanders. In May, Chagossians demonstrated outside Taylor House in London to protest against the deportations that continue to plague many Chagossian families living in Britain.

North Korean missile launch intensifies war danger

Peter Symonds

North Korea’s test launch yesterday of a long-range missile has markedly heightened the danger of a war in North East Asia that would have catastrophic consequences for the region and the world.

The launch was followed by threatening missile tests by the South Korean and US militaries, as well as condemnations by the US and its allies and a call for an emergency session of the UN Security Council to impose tougher sanctions.

Pyongyang boasted it was a “proud nuclear power that possesses not only nuclear weapons but also the most powerful ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] that can target any part of the world.” The missile reportedly flew on a very steep trajectory to a height of more than 2,500 km before landing some 900 km away in the Sea of Japan.

Such a missile could not hit every part of the world. However, various estimates indicate that on a normal trajectory it could travel between 6,500 to 8,000 km, placing Alaska and Hawaii within its scope. The US media seized on the launch to hype up the danger of a North Korean nuclear attack on the American people, fuelling a climate of fear to create the conditions for US military action.

While the North Korean nuclear missile program as a whole and yesterday's test launch in particular are defensive responses to decades of US threats, provocations and sanctions and an intensifying US-led buildup toward war, they have no progressive content. The North Korean test, along with the regime’s bragging, are reactionary. They hand Washington a pretext for escalating the American build-up in Asia, do nothing to defend the North Korean people from a devastating US attack, and sow divisions between workers in North Korea and those in South Korea, Japan, the US and around the world.

The Pentagon initially reported that North Korea had test-fired an intermediate range missile. In that context, Trump lashed out in a tweet: “Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!”

Over the past week, the Trump administration has adopted a confrontational attitude toward China, making a series of provocative moves: a major arms sale to Taiwan, another incursion by a US destroyer into Chinese-claimed waters in the South China Sea, and the imposition of US penalties on Chinese companies and individuals for trading with North Korea.

In a phone call this week, Trump told Chinese President Xi Jinping the US would act on its own if Beijing failed to force Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons and missiles. Having already imposed harsh sanctions on North Korea, however, the Chinese government is reluctant to go further, fearing it could provoke a political collapse in Pyongyang that Washington would exploit.

President Xi and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin met in Moscow yesterday prior to the G20 summit later this week. A joint statement of the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries condemned the North Korean missile launch and reiterated China’s call for North Korea to freeze nuclear and missile tests in return for a halt by the US and South Korea to large-scale joint military exercises—a proposal the US already rejected.

The joint statement also opposed the installation of a US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea, declaring it “seriously damages [the] strategic security interests of regional powers, including Russia and China.” Moscow and Beijing are acutely aware that the US military build-up in the Asia Pacific is not primarily directed against the small, impoverished country of North Korea, but is the preparation for war against their countries.

Having acknowledged that North Korea tested an ICBM, the US adopted a more menacing stance. In a press statement yesterday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson branded the missile launch as “a new escalation” of the threat to the US and its allies, and demanded “global action” including the adoption of “stronger measures” by the UN Security Council.

In an implicit threat of US action against countries that failed to implement its dictates, Tillerson declared: “Any country that hosts North Korean guest workers, provides any economic or military benefits, or fails to fully implement UN Security Council resolutions is aiding and abetting a dangerous regime.” The remarks were clearly aimed against China and Russia, which have significant ties to North Korea.

Tillerson concluded with a warning. The US would “never accept a nuclear-armed North Korea.” Trump officials, including Tillerson, have repeatedly warned that “all options”—including pre-emptive military strikes on North Korea—are “on the table.”

Last week, Trump’s national security adviser, General H.R. McMaster, declared that the North Korean “threat is much more immediate now.” He said he had been directed by the president “to prepare a range of options, including a military option, which nobody wants to take.”

In reality, it is the threat of a US attack on North Korea that is much more imminent. The US Army and South Korean military responded today with a barrage of missile tests into South Korean waters. The US Pacific Command said the missiles involved provided “deep strike precision capacity.” A US Army statement declared the armaments could “engage the full array of time-critical targets under all weather conditions.”

Already the US has assembled what Trump boasted was “an armada” near the Korean Peninsula, including two aircraft carrier strike groups and an undisclosed number of nuclear submarines. These naval forces are backed by US bases in South Korea, Japan and Guam and further afield in northern Australia and Hawaii. US Defence Secretary James Mattis has warned that any attempt by North Korea to use its tiny nuclear arsenal would be met with an “effective and overwhelming” response—that is, nuclear annihilation.

The American and international media continue the drumbeat for war with a deluge of propaganda demonising North Korea and grossly inflating the threat it poses. The real threat to the world, however, is US imperialism, which in its increasingly reckless bid to stave off its historic decline has launched one war of aggression after another in the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and the Balkans.

It is Washington, and a succession of US administrations, not Pyongyang, that is primarily responsible for creating the explosive situation on the Korean Peninsula. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US has intensified the isolation imposed on North Korea after the end of the Korean War in 1953, in a thinly-disguised bid to precipitate a political collapse in Pyongyang.

While incessantly accusing North Korea of bad faith, the US effectively sabotaged agreements reached in 1994 and 2007 for Pyongyang to denuclearise. The US has deliberately backed North Korea into a corner, by imposing one of the harshest sanction regimes in the world and threatening military strikes.

In May, Defence Secretary Mattis branded North Korea “a direct threat to the United States,” declaring the US did not have to wait until Pyongyang had an ICBM with a nuclear warhead. He warned that any war with North Korea would be “catastrophic” and involve “probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes.”

Yet that is exactly what the Trump administration is planning, preparing for and actively considering. Ominously, Trump has said he has no intention of signalling in advance US military action against North Korea, or any other country. As a result, the world is precariously perched on the brink of a war that would devastate the Korean Peninsula and drag other major powers such as China and Russia into a wider conflict.

Three weeks after the Grenfell inferno: Official cover-up and callous indifference

Robert Stevens

Three weeks after the Grenfell Tower inferno in west London, the initial shock and horror at the huge loss of life has given way to seething anger. The intervening period has only underscored the ruling elite’s callous contempt for the traumatised survivors of the fire and the working class as a whole.

In the early hours of Wednesday, June 14, a small fire in a fourth-floor apartment in the Grenfell residential tower block rapidly became a raging inferno, engulfing the entire 24-storey building. The tower housed some 600 residents, many of whom had no chance of escape.

The building housed workers and poor people living in one of the most deprived areas of the UK, situated at the same time in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the wealthiest district in London. Nothing could more starkly sum up the colossal growth of social inequality not only in Britain, but internationally. The burnt-out husk of Grenfell stands within a stone’s throw of “ghost” homes worth many millions that have never been occupied by their owners. It is only a few miles from Buckingham Palace.

The building was a death trap. There was no sprinkler system, no central fire alarm system and just one stairwell, which quickly became filled with highly toxic fumes. The fire spread so rapidly because the building was wrapped from top to bottom in flammable cladding material, which emitted deadly hydrogen cyanide. The toxic covering had been installed to provide a more pleasant view for the rich residents nearby and keep real estate values high.

When firefighters arrived to tackle the blaze, they were unable to deal with it due to poor access to the building and inadequate equipment and manpower. The Fire Brigade nationally has suffered devastating cuts over the last decade, with 11,000 firefighter jobs lost. Former London mayor and now Tory Foreign Minister Boris Johnson bears major responsibility for Grenfell, having closed 10 fire stations, withdrawn 14 fire engines and cut 522 firefighter jobs during his tenure.

The Grenfell fire was not simply a disaster or tragedy, it was a crime.

Today, three weeks later, it is still unknown to survivors, family members and friends and the public how many people perished in the blaze. The true fatality figure is being concealed by the government out of fear of a social explosion. But the silence of the authorities can only mean that the death toll is appallingly high.

The Metropolitan Police say the 80 acknowledged to have died came mainly from 23 flats, yet there were 129 flats in the building. As of Tuesday evening, rescue teams had still not accessed the top three floors of the building, where it is understood that almost all of the occupants perished. The police say it will take well into next year before any accurate figure can be arrived at.

The survivors of the inferno and people forced to evacuate their housing in the tower’s immediate vicinity have met with inhumane treatment from the authorities. Just £5 million have been offered by the government to Grenfell survivors, with less than half of this distributed so far.

Despite Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May's pledge that all survivors would be temporarily rehoused in the borough within three weeks, virtually nobody has been rehoused. Instead, entire families are being forced to sleep in hotels, with some sleeping rough in cars and parks.

Behind the crocodile tears of the government and borough council at the death and destruction at Grenfell, their real attitude was summed up last week when they banned survivors, local residents and the media from attending the first meeting of the council to be held since the fire. The since-resigned Tory council leader, Nick Paget-Brown, insisted that to allow the public entry would “likely result in disorder.”

Grenfell Tower was hardly unique. Testing on 181 tower blocks out of 600 identified as potentially covered in highly flammable material met with a 100 percent failure rate. Even after the Grenfell inferno, it is reported that the unsafe cladding may not be removed. According to the BBC, an “Independent Advisory Panel” set up by the government after the fire “said it would ask experts whether the material could stay on a building ‘under certain approved circumstances.’”

The ruling elite is perpetrating a massive cover-up. Not a single person has been charged or arrested in a supposed “criminal investigation” ongoing since June 15.

The public inquiry into the fire announced by May has already been exposed as a fraud. As with every other such inquiry held in response to a loss of life at the hands of the state, it will do nothing to establish the truth or bring the guilty to justice. The judge selected to chair it, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, let the cat out of the bag when he said the inquiry could be “limited to the cause, how it spread, and preventing a future blaze.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the nominally “left” leader of the Labour Party, is doing all in his power to prop up May’s crisis-ridden minority government and contain popular anger. He immediately declared his support for May’s inquiry. Only when popular hostility made this position untenable did he send a friendly letter to May suggesting that the inquiry be held in two stages—the first along the same lines as Moore-Bick’s proposal, the second to deal with broader national issues.

Speaking on the weekend before tens of thousands of anti-austerity protesters in London, many carrying signs demanding “Justice for Grenfell,” Corbyn avoided any suggestion of mass action to bring down the Tory government. He did not make a single proposal for bringing to justice those responsible or providing for the needs of the victims. There was not a hint of a challenge to the wealth or property of the British ruling elite.

How could he make such a challenge, presiding as he does over a right-wing capitalist party that, with the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, is no less implicated than the Tories in gutting all regulations on the corporations and banks and fuelling the growth of social inequality?

Three weeks after the event, the historical and global significance of Grenfell is becoming ever more clear. It will not be forgotten. It will be seen by historians in the future as a significant turning point, fuelling the growth of anti-capitalist, socialist and revolutionary sentiment in the working class and the resurgence of class struggle.

For masses of workers in Britain and internationally, their own lives will be divided into before and after Grenfell.

The Grenfell fire is a crime of capitalism. The Socialist Equality Party insists those implicated in political and corporate circles must be immediately arrested, charged and put on trial. The mass requisitioning of accommodation must be organised to house those made homeless and denied access to their homes because of lack of heating, hot water and gas. Hundreds of billions of pounds must be allocated to strip the cladding from unsafe tower blocks, and a mass public works programme enacted to make all public buildings safe. This must be paid for through the expropriation of the billionaires and the nationalization of the building industry and the banks under workers’ control.

The protests of residents in London against Kensington and Chelsea Council and the government over Grenfell and the sympathy and solidarity this has elicited among millions internationally is indicative of the new stage in the class struggle. This must be consciously directed toward the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.

China’s Maritime Strategy in the South China Sea

Tapan Bharadwaj

The maritime dimension is one of the most important elements in the making of China’s grand strategy in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s maritime strategy has primarily three components directed towards three geographical areas:

 South China Sea (SCS)

 East China Sea (ECS) 

 Indian Ocean Region (IOR)

This commentary examines China's maritime strategy in the SCS region.

China’s maritime strategy in the SCS has two facets – militarisation and negotiation. On the one hand, China continues to militarise the SCS and on the other hand, it negotiates with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) at a multilateral level on the issue of framing a Code of Conduct (COC) in the SCS, and bilaterally with countries directly involved in the territorial disputes in the region. China’s main objective is to dominate the SCS waters and establish its hegemony in the region.

Militarising the SCS

China does not recognise the freedom of military navigation in the SCS and at the same time continues to increase its presence in the region through its coastguard. 

The Chinese coastguard is equipped with highly sophisticated equipment like the combative ship CCG3210, machine guns, light cannons and (likely) advanced hardware capable of jamming communications. They are not any different from a naval force. The headquarters of the US Department of Defense in Pentagon has reported China’s militarisation of the SCS region in its 2017 annual report to Congress: “China’s Spratly Islands outpost expansion effort is currently focused on building out the land-based capabilities of its three largest outposts – Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief Reefs – after completion of its four smaller outposts early in 2016.” 

China has responded that the defence facilities, built in their 'sovereign territory', represent China’s right to self-protection and self-defence and have nothing to do with the so-called "militarization." In future, China would aggressively use its coast guard to secure its construction activities and police the activities of littoral countries in the region. China’s asymmetric military rise in the region would make it the most powerful maritime power in the region.

Two-Track Negotiation Strategy

Currently, China is also engaged in negotiation processes at two levels. First, it has been negotiating with ASEAN for framing a COC in the SCS. To that end, both sides agreed to a framework on COC on 18 May 2017. Second, in an effort to break the deadlock at SCS, China is also negotiating separately with those countries with whom it has territorial disputes in the sea; it recently conducted a bilateral meeting with the Philippines, the first ever consultation meeting with a regional country on the SCS dispute.

China's Carrot and Stick Approach 

China is luring regional countries in the SCS with its "21st Century Maritime Silk route economic belt" project, which is a part of its ‘Belt & Road Initiative’, to earn their silence at the making of COC draft. China's offer is quite tempting for the littoral countries, as they are small developing nations, witnessing a rise in the middle class and looking forward to becoming developed countries by 2020. China’s proposal to invest or grant financial loans to the countries involved in the territorial disputes is another proverbial ‘carrot’. It is offered to induce good behaviour during the negotiation process at the bilateral level that would be used at the multilateral level to pass a favourable COC’s draft. China would then use the COC as the stick to rein in its opponents and pursue its maritime aspirations in the SCS region. 

Michael Vatikiotis, Asia Director, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, explains that the COC draft intends “to provide a ‘rules based framework containing a list of norms to guide the conduct of parties and promote maritime cooperation in the South China Sea’.” He says “the first item under the heading of ‘Principles’ states that the code is ‘not an instrument to settle territorial disputes or maritime delimitation issues’.”

Favourable Regional Conditions

China is witnessing improved bilateral ties with regional countries over the past year. For example, China and the Philippines have come closer after the Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte began reorienting the country’s foreign policy toward China since late 2016. Also, the China-Vietnam relationship has been improving since the General Secretary of Communist party of Vietnam (CPV) Nguyen Phu Trong’s visit to Beijing in January 2017. The presidents of the Philippines and Vietnam both also attended the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing on 14-15 May 2017. The so-called alliance of some ASEAN countries against China’s assertiveness in the SCS region has weakened so much that there was no reference to China’s construction activity in the SCS at the ASEAN Summit in Manila on 28-29 April 2017.

The China-ASEAN decision to agree to the framework on the long mooted COC on 18 May 2017 reflects that regional claimants to the territorial disputes in the SCS region are willing to downplay the July 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the SCS dispute. The PCA ruling had demolished Beijing’s territorial claims in the SCS region. This shows that currently China is succeeding in both dimensions of its maritime strategy and the regional conditions are favourable for China to establish its hegemony in the SCS, potentially kick-starting its long awaited effort to dominate the Asian waters.

Hewlett Packard (HP) Start2Grow Sales Graduate Program 2017 for Young Graduates

Eligible Countries: Greece, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Russia.

To Be Taken At (Country): Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; Warsaw, Poland; Sofia, Bulgaria; Bucharest, Romania; Prague, Czech Republic; Russia; Turkey; Ra’anana, Israel; Athens, Greece; Almaty, Kazakhstan; Zagreb, Croatia

About the Award: Within HP, the CEMA region (Central & Eastern Europe, Middle-East and Africa) represents a massive business territory, covering over 100 countries, with a population of 2 billion people. CEMA represents 10% of HP’s global sales volume, with an annual revenue of $5bn. To give an order of magnitude, HP sells over 14,000 PC’s & 12,000 printers per day across the CEMA region.

As part of the Start2Grow Graduate Program, you will be an active member of the CEMA Sales team.

Whilst you will get exposed to roles across Sales and Product management, you will have the opportunity to gain a clear strategic vision of the printing and computing markets and to help your customers and partners to take their business to the next level with the HP products and solutions.

The program will also give you the opportunity to improve your soft skills by creating your own development plan to shine, including-sales and leadership trainings, on-the-job stretch assignments, feedback sessions, and coaching with world class IT leaders.

Type: Internship/Job

Eligibility: 

• Graduate degree obtained in the last 12 months in Business Administration, Marketing, Economics, Finance or similar
• Passion about technology and innovation
• Self-motivation, confidence and fast learning skills
• Creativity, proactivity and inter-personal abilities
• Excellent communication, negotiation and presentation skills
• Fluency in English (other languages are a plus)
• Advanced Excel and PowerPoint knowledge

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Join us, we offer you:

• A competitive 2-year contract (to start with)
• In-company development programs and platforms
• International and cross-functional exposure
• Future development opportunities building your own career across different businesses and functions.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: APPLY to introduce yourself with a CV and any other document to showcase your super-powers.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Hewlett Packard (HP)

TWAS─Abdool Karim Prize for Women Scientists in Low Income African Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 10th July 2017

Eligible Countries: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Equatorial, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Field of Study: Biological Sciences

About the Award: This new prize, named after TWAS Fellow Quarraisha Abdool Karim, carries a cash award of USD5,000 generously provided by Professor Abdool Karim. It is designed to honour women scientists in Low Income African countries for their achievements in Biological Sciences.

Type: Contests/Award

Eligibility: Eligible candidates are female scientists who has been living and working in a Low Income African country for at least the two years immediately prior to their nomination. For a list of eligible countries, please see below.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: USD5,000

How to Apply: Please complete this form electronically, save it in the format SURNAME_Initial.doc (e.g. SMITH_D.doc if the candidate’s name is David SMITH), and send it by 10 July 2017 to: prizes@twas.org.

Three documents must be attached to the e-mail message:
This nomination form;
The candidate’s curriculum vitae, including a full list of publications
A supporting statement by the nominator

Ask the nominee to send by email the following authorization to prizes@twas.org: “In conformity with Article 13 of the Italian Legislative Decree 196/2003, I herewith authorize TWAS to process my personal data for the purposes of my nomination as a candidate for a TWAS Prize.”

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Professor Abdool Karim