Australian parliament overshadowed by Korean war crisis and disqualification of MPs

Mike Head

When Australia’s parliament resumed this week after a two-week recess it was immediately preoccupied by two crises: Australia’s likely involvement in any US-led war against North Korea and the continuing witch-hunt against MPs accused of being entitled to citizenship of a “foreign power.”

The parliamentary proceedings point to the close connection between the two issues, by linking the danger of war to a reactionary drive to ensure that all members of parliament have undivided loyalty to the nation.

When question time began on Monday, Labor Party opposition leader Bill Shorten broke with parliamentary tradition. Instead of asking a question, he jumped to his feet to ask indulgence to make a statement on North Korea. He was permitted to do so after Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made his own announcement on the Korean crisis.

Turnbull told the House of Representatives that he convened a meeting that morning of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, which was briefed by the intelligence agency heads and military chiefs on North Korea’s reported hydrogen bomb test.

The Liberal-National prime minister declared: “This is the most dangerous moment in time on the Korean Peninsula since the end of the Korean War. Much is at stake. The reckless and illegal conduct of this regime cannot be rewarded.” Turnbull blamed the besieged North Korean regime and its primitive nuclear arsenal for the confrontation, rather than Washington, the world’s greatest nuclear weapons power.

Moreover, Turnbull echoed the Trump administration in ratcheting up the pressure on China, insisting it had the “greatest responsibility” to use its “economic leverage to bring this rogue regime to its senses.”

Last month, without the slightest public consultation, Turnbull declared that Australia would join the US in any war against North Korea. “In terms of defence we are joined at the hip,” he said. Turnbull invoked the 1951 ANZUS Treaty, saying it required the country to come to the “defence” of the US in any conflict.

Granted indulgence by the government, Shorten assured the government of complete bipartisan support. “I’d like to say to all Australians who may be watching or listening to these proceedings in parliament that whatever disagreements might colour the next hour or so, on this question, the parliament is of one mind,” he said. Like Turnbull, he accused Pyongyang, not Washington, of provoking the crisis, declaring: “Labor unreservedly condemns North Korea’s deliberate, dangerous and provocative nuclear testing.”

The Labor Party then returned to the nationalist witch-hunt over dual citizenship by seeking to suspend standing orders to move a resolution that Turnbull immediately stand aside Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. The motion called for Joyce to be removed from cabinet until the High Court rules on whether he can remain in parliament, after he admitted holding dual citizenship with New Zealand, via descent from his father, when he was first elected to parliament. The motion was narrowly lost by 74 votes to 73, with several “crossbench” MPs voting with Labor.

As soon as question time ended, Shorten asked for leave to make a personal explanation. He tabled a letter proving that he renounced his British dual citizenship before being entering parliament in 2007. Shorten, who had refused for several weeks to produce the document, said he needed to prove he was fit for office. “I accept that, if I want to be elected prime minister, there cannot be any doubt about my constitutional eligibility,” he said.

In effect, Shorten set a precedent that shifted the political burden of proof onto any MP accused of holding or being entitled to dual citizenship. For weeks, the Turnbull government and the entire parliamentary establishment have been convulsed by threats and counter-threats to refer MPs, possibly as many as 20, to the High Court for removal.

Already, Joyce and six other MPs, including two other National Party cabinet members, will appear before the court next month, facing potential disqualification under a reactionary, nationalist section of the 1901 Australian Constitution, leaving their political fate, and that of the government itself, in the balance for weeks.

On Monday, Regional Development Minister Fiona Nash and Senator Nick Xenophon, who heads his own four-member parliamentary team, became the sixth and seventh MPs to have their election referred to the High Court. Populist Senator Derryn Hinch and Labor Senator Katy Gallagher made statements to parliament declaring why they would not refer themselves to the court.

Section 44(1) states that any person who “is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power” is “incapable” of being elected to parliament. This potentially disqualifies up to half of Australia’s increasingly diverse population, because they are entitled to citizenship of another country, plus any citizen accused of “allegiance” to a “foreign power.”

After tabling his renunciation letter, Shorten reiterated Labor’s demand for Joyce’s removal. He asserted that if Joyce became acting prime minister, as scheduled when Turnbull leaves the country for a South Pacific forum on Friday, “the entire legitimacy of this government and this parliament is at risk.”

In part, this reflects concerns that every decision made by Joyce while remaining a minister—such as approving mining projects or awarding government contracts—could be challenged if the High Court disqualifies him, opening up a legal minefield.

The disqualification furore first emerged in mid-July, in still unclear circumstances. Two Greens senators immediately quit their seats once they were alleged to hold dual citizenship, simply because they were born in New Zealand and Canada respectively. Since then, the affair has evolved into the greatest constitutional crisis since the Governor-General’s dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government in 1975.

However, there is mounting concern in ruling circles that the loyalty witch hunt, while intended to whip up jingoistic sentiment, is adding to the already widespread popular hostility toward the political establishment amid worsening living conditions, escalating inequality and deep anti-war feeling.

On Monday, the Senate voted down a motion from Senator Pauline Hanson, the leader of the xenophobic right-wing One Nation party, to conduct an audit of the eligibility of all MPs and senators. Labor and the government joined hands to defeat the motion, hoping to contain the crisis, at least for now.

Significantly, Hanson’s motion was supported by the Greens, who have been at the forefront of the nationalist agitation. Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, was the first to call for such an inquisition in July. While anxious to be the purest protectors of the patriotism of MPs, the Greens are also offering to stabilise the parliamentary system by helping Labor form a minority government if the Liberal-National Coalition loses its majority.

Whatever the outcome of this constitutional crisis, the result has already been a further lurch to the right by the entire political establishment.

Danger of global war over Korea shakes Europe

Alex Lantier

The US government’s bellicose response to the North Korean regime’s nuclear test on Sunday has placed the world only a few steps away from a global war that would rapidly engulf Europe. As European governments denounce the North Korean regime in Pyongyang, Washington is pressing for aggressive actions leading to regime change in North Korea and a military standoff with North Korea’s neighbors, Russia and China, that could lead to nuclear war in Europe.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said that Pyongyang is “begging for war” and told Russia and China to cut off trade with North Korea, including oil exports. This would rapidly bring North Korea’s economy to a halt. If China and Russia acquiesce to these demands, or if Washington reacts to the likely Chinese and Russian refusal by launching a war with North Korea, Chinese and Russian forces in their countries and US forces in South Korea could all intervene in North Korea.

Significantly, when asked point-blank whether China would intervene militarily in North Korea if Washington attacks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang pointedly refused to deny it. Calling it a “hypothetical question which it is hard to answer,” Geng only said that military force was “not on the list” of means China would like to use to resolve the Korean crisis.

Amid the explosive tensions between NATO and Russia in Eastern Europe since the 2014 NATO-backed putsch in Kiev, Europe would inevitably be a theater of any resulting conflict. Since backing a putsch that toppled a pro-Russian regime in Kiev in 2014, NATO has sent tens of thousands of troops to Eastern Europe near the Russian border. Moreover, Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung recently reported that Washington is planning to annul the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, in order to station nuclear missiles across Europe aimed at Russia.

Yesterday, Russia carried out large-scale exercises of its main strategic nuclear forces from Tver near Russia’s European border to Irkutsk, near Mongolia and China. “Eleven missile regiments armed with Topol, Topol-M and Yars missiles are currently on patrol missions in areas from Tver to Irkutsk. One-third of them are conducting intensive maneuvering,” the Russian Defense Ministry told the TASS news agency. “The exercise encompasses 20 regions of the country.”

Speaking at the BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) summit in Xiamen, China, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that aggressive action by the United States and its allies against North Korea could lead to world war: “Ramping up military hysteria in such conditions is senseless; it’s a dead end. It could lead to a global, planetary catastrophe and a huge loss of human life. There is no other way to solve the North Korean nuclear issue, save that of peaceful dialogue.”

Putin made clear that Pyongyang’s reckless pursuit of its nuclear weapons program is a desperate attempt to deter an attack like the 2003 US war of aggression against Iraq or the 2011 NATO war in Libya, in which European powers including France and Britain played leading roles in launching.

He said, “We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. His children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole country was destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged ... We all know how this happened, and people in North Korea remember well what happened in Iraq. They will eat grass but will not stop their program as long as they do not feel safe.”

The Korean crisis is the outcome of a quarter century of relentless imperialist war, waged by Washington and its European allies, since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. By joining the Gulf War against Iraq in that year, the European powers signaled that they would also exploit the collapse of the Soviet military counterweight to wage neocolonial wars. In this context, the bankrupt regime in Pyongyang has manifestly concluded that only the possession of nuclear weapons will give it some protection from suffering Hussein’s fate.

The Trump administration’s hysterical threats against North Korea are also exposing, moreover, the deep divisions that have emerged between Washington and its supposed European allies. While condemning the Pyongyang regime’s nuclear tests, European governments have refused to endorse the Trump administration’s threats of escalation against North Korea. They are continuing their opposition to US policy in Asia starting with the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” notably by defying US calls to boycott China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in 2015.

At present, the European powers are denouncing Pyongyang but calling for talks to defuse the Korean crisis. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron issued a joint statement calling for sanctions: “This latest provocation by the ruler in Pyongyang has reached a new dimension. … In addition to the United Nations Security Council, the European Union also has to act now. The Chancellor and the President expressed their support for a tightening of EU sanctions against North Korea.” However, Merkel told the German parliament on Tuesday that only “peaceful, diplomatic solutions” to the crisis could be found.

Similarly, while London demanded “tougher action to have North Korea stop this dangerous and destabilising activity,” spokespeople for British Prime Minister Theresa May also called for moves to “increase pressure and come to a peaceful solution. ... It’s our view in the UK overwhelmingly that peaceful diplomatic means are best.”

European countries including Switzerland, where North Korea President Kim Jong-Un studied in Bern, are attempting to mediate in the crisis. Mocking Trump’s use of Twitter as not an “adequate instrument” in world diplomacy, Swiss President Doris Leuthard declared: “We are ready to offer our role for good services as a mediator. I think in the upcoming weeks a lot will depend on how the US and China can have an influence in this crisis. That’s why I think Switzerland and Sweden can have a role behind the curtain.”

This reflects not a desire for peace on the part of the European countries, in which the ruling elites are all pressing for big increases in military spending, but growing rivalries between US and European imperialism. Since Trump’s election, after which he threatened to launch a trade war on German automobile exports, Merkel has come to regularly contacting Chinese President Xi Jinping before meeting with the US president.

These tensions are reflected in a wave of comments critical of US policy in Korea by European media over the Korean crisis, including calls for a broad reorientation of European foreign policy.

German television ZDF interviewed Professor Rüdiger Frank, a former citizen of East Germany who studied in Pyongyang, who said that a “radical rethink is necessary” in North Korea. “The toughest sanctions will not prevent North Korea from arming itself,” Frank said, adding that Pyongyang had made a “strategic decision” to pursue its nuclear program in an attempt to persuade the Trump administration to negotiate with it.

Frank called for talks with Pyongyang, saying that otherwise, specific predictions about what could occur would be only “café speculation.” He refuted claims that North Korea was driving the conflict, saying: “They say, if you attack us, if you for example strike our leader, then we will retaliate with everything we have, and that includes nuclear weapons. Because they know rather well in North Korea that we are not afraid of a million Kalashnikov rifles.”

When Le Monde asked Antoine Bondaz of France’s Strategic Research Foundation (FRS) think tank about Trump’s Twitter comments on Korea, Bondaz said: “his outbursts are totally counterproductive. Telling North Korea we can wipe it off the map by using nuclear weapons against it only serves to further legitimate its nuclear program inside the country.” Bondaz called for Europe to “serve as an intermediary to facilitate dialogue and avoid a military escalation that would have a dramatic impact on European interests in Asia.”

Trump rescinds DACA, putting 800,000 youth at risk of deportation

Genevieve Leigh

The Trump administration is ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the government program that offered limited protection from deportation to nearly 800,000 immigrants brought to the US as children. The administration plans to phase out the program over the next six months.

The Department of Homeland Security will not consider any new applications for legal status. Those with a DACA permit expiring before March 5, 2018, will be eligible to apply for a two-year renewal that must be requested by October 5, 2017. For all others, legal status will end as early as March 6, 2018.

If Congress fails to act, nearly 300,000 people will begin losing protections in 2018, and more than 320,000 from January to August 2019. Once their DACA status expires, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, in collusion with local and state law enforcement, will have free rein to carry out detention and deportation.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, well known for his decades-long career of attacking immigrants and minorities, announced the end of the program on Tuesday. His speech combined vicious law-and-order and anti-immigrant demagogy with outright lies aimed at scapegoating immigrants for “crime, violence, and terrorism” in the US.

“The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty [DACA]...contributed to a surge of minors at the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences,” Sessions claimed. “It also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

Trump echoed Session’s remarks on Twitter Tuesday morning following the announcement: “We are a nation of laws. No longer will we incentivize illegal immigration. Make no mistake, we are going to put the interest of AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST!”

The Trump administration cites the “rule of law” to justify its attack on immigrants barely a week after Trump pardoned the notorious anti-immigrant Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of criminal contempt charges for defying a federal judge’s order to stop racially profiling Latinos. Trump is himself the personification of the corporate and government criminality that operates with impunity in the United States.

As for the claim that the measures against immigrant youth are necessary to defend “American jobs,” this is an exercise in lying demagogy. The Trump administration is composed of billionaires intent on destroying public education, health care and other social programs, while its main domestic agenda is a massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.

While Democrats have issued criticisms of Trump’s actions, the anti-immigrant policies of his administration are based on the actions of his predecessors, particularly the Obama administration.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Obama wrote that preserving DACA was “about basic decency…about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated.” He went on to assure layers within the ruling class that these young people could possibly add to the economy, “start new businesses” or even “serve in our military.”

The DACA program was initiated by Obama in June 2012, largely as a cynical maneuver to court Hispanic voters in time for the 2012 election. It was also intended as a cover for his massive crackdown on immigrants, including through the expansion of “Secure Communities,” the further militarization of the border, and institution of the mandatory nightly bed quota of ICE detention facilities.

Implementation of the DACA program—done under the pretenses of a turn toward a more “humane” immigration policy— was carried out by the Obama administration while it oversaw the largest deportation operation US history, resulting in the expulsion of almost 3 million immigrants in his eight years in office. This included the rounding up and deportation of child immigrants fleeing Central America in 2014.

Discussions are taking place within ruling circles of combining some form of a DACA renewal with “comprehensive immigration reform,” which if passed would be part of a reactionary bipartisan measure to increase the militarization of the border and place even more onerous requirements on anyone seeking citizenship rights. The ending of DACA is part of a broader anti-immigrant offensive of the Trump administration that has gone unopposed by the Democratic Party, which has spent the past seven months denouncing Trump for being too “soft” on Russia. The Democrats have hailed moves to strengthen the grip of the military over the administration, including through the elevation of retired general John Kelly, Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, to chief of staff.

Kelly, who directly oversaw Trump’s anti-immigrant measures before taking on his new post, was selected by Obama in 2012 to lead the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), the military organization responsible for Central America, South America and the Caribbean. Kelly was confirmed in his first position in the Trump administration by a bipartisan 88-11 vote in the US Senate.

The ending of DACA marks a major escalation of Trump’s war on immigrants and will have far-reaching consequences. The tools and methods of oppression being forged in the attack on immigrants under the banner of “law and order”—the massive surveillance apparatus, the collection and sharing of data, the integration of all law enforcement agencies, and the arming of the police forces with military equipment—will be used against the working class as a whole.

There is widespread opposition to the anti-immigrant policies of the Trump administration. This opposition cannot be channeled back behind the Democratic Party, which is no less beholden to the corporate elite than the Republicans.

The defense of immigrant workers requires the independent mobilization of the entire working class, in the United States and internationally, based on a program that advances its own solution to the world economic crisis: the reorganization of global economy to meet social need, not private profit. This unity must begin with the rejection of all attempts to divide native-born and immigrant workers, regardless of their legal status, and upholding the freedom of all workers to live and work in the country of their choice with full and equal rights.

Marine Mammal Stranding: Myth, Mystery and Facts

Vijay Sakhuja

The stranding of marine mammals along India’s east coast astride the Bay of Bengal and west coast overlooking the Arabian Sea has been a recurring phenomenon. In 2016, 80 short-finned pilot whales were found stranded on the sand along the east coast. The largest stranding on the east coast took place off the Tuticorin coast in 1973 when 147 whales were found on the beach.

In August 2017, 18 feet long whale shark with a circumference of 10 feet and weighing nearly 3.5 tons washed up on Pamban beach in Tamil Nadu. The necropsy revealed a plastic spoon in the whale shark's digestive system. The state wildlife authorities cautioned that plastic waste was harming the marine eco-system and that marine species are unable to differentiate between floating plastic and prey. Unlike the Pamban stranding, the 47-foot whale discovered on the beaches of Ratnagiri district on the west coast in 2016 was successfully rescued and pulled into deeper waters. 

However, there have been at least 16 and 20 incidents of whale mortality along the west coast in 2015 and 2016 respectively. These figures are alarming given that between 2001 and 2014, whale deaths never exceeded four. 

Myth and Mystery

Stranding of marine animals along sea shores is not a new phenomenon. It happens across the globe on a regular basis but been part of myth as also an issue of mystery. Mammal stranding has baffled humankind since ancient times. Aristotle noted that it is not known why they run aground but asserted that “this happens when the fancy takes them and without any apparent reason.” The myth associated with the stranding of mammals is in the belief that Romans thought ‘stranding was a whale’s punishment for offending Neptune, the god of the seas’. 

However, with advancements in science, it is now known that there are a number of natural conditions including the movement of tectonic plates underwater resulting in shifts in magnetic field causing disorientation among marine animals. Also, man made circumstances result in mass stranding, even ‘suicides’, and these arise from marine pollution, use of Sonars by navies, presence of plastics in the oceans, and other commercial activities including offshore infrastructure activities.  

Facts: Marine Litter and Underwater Noise

There are at least two important reasons that can be attributed to the stranding of marine mammals along the shores. First, the growing menace of plastics in the oceans and seas has been identified as one of the important causes affecting health of marine life at sea as also the marine ecosystem. Over the past seven decades, plastic has emerged as a cheap and lightweight material for the packaging, auto parts and domestic durables industries. The annual global production of plastics is pegged at 300 million tons, and half of it is ‘single use’. Ironically, ‘disposable’ lifestyle habits and practices, poor plastic waste management and disposal techniques, lack of awareness among the public, and absence of serious policies on plastic use by governments including weak implementation mechanisms have resulted in nearly 8 million tons of plastic dumped annually into the oceans. Nearly 60 to 90 per cent of marine litter is plastic-based in the form of straws, plastic bags, fishing gear, food and beverage containers,  bottles, and large pieces of plastic made auto parts, making these are the most common forms of plastic pollution in the oceans.

Evidence exists of presence of plastic in mammals amid fears that over 50 per cent of sea turtles have consumed plastic. A necropsy of the sperm whale that beached and got stranded on Germany’s North Sea coast in 2016 found fishing gear and an engine cover inside the stomach. Scientists believe, among many other causes for stranding of the sperm whales, the ingested marine litter, can potentially “cause physical damage to their digestive systems” and “may eventually give the animals the sensation of being full and reduce their instinct to feed, leading to malnutrition.”

Second, marine noise generated by shipping and fishing trawlers, offshore exploration, laying of pipes and fiber optic cables as also use of Sonar by warships results in casualties in marine mammals. A recent study by the Indian Maritime Foundation, titled 'Impact of Maritime Security Policies on Marine Ecosystem' has observed that underwater noise in excess of “120dB can cause discomfort to these [marine] species, more than 170dB can cause serious internal injuries, bleeding and even hemorrhages, and noise beyond 200dB can cause instant death.”

Powerful Sonar transmissions can potentially lead to internal bleeding in mammals causing damage to ear and brain tissues, resulting in disorientation or death of mammals. There is also a belief that whales may even misunderstand Sonar waves as an attacker, and cause panic driving them towards shores. 

In the US, in 2016, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in California observed that a 2012 regulation that allowed the US Navy to use low-frequency active sonar for training and testing violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has now announced stringent regulations on Sonar transmission and prohibits pulses of 180dB or more by the US Navy within 14 miles of any coastline, or within 0.6 miles of marine sensitive areas.

There is little doubt that marine litter in the form of plastics, and pollution due to human activity, are causing enormous damage to marine mammal and the marine ecosystem. While the global focus is on managing plastic pollution on land, marine litter can affect the food chain of the marine habitat as also human beings. It takes thousands of years for plastics to decay and toxins from the plastics have now begun to enter the human food chain and threatening health.

China's Indian Ocean Strategy

Tapan Bharadwaj

China is a regional maritime power in East Asian waters, and is increasing its presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). This rising presence depicts a pattern that is aimed to achieve its immediate maritime goal of multi-regional power projection capabilities. As the world's second largest economy, currently growing at the rate of around 6.5 per cent, China aims to enhance its naval power profile in accordance with its overall power profile.

Maritime power is an essential element of President Xi Jinping’s 'China Dream'. This was also reflected in China’s latest (2015) defence white paper, 'China’s Military Strategy': “The traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be abandoned, and great importance has to be attached to managing the seas and oceans and protecting maritime rights and interests.”

China’s IOR Strategy

China’s strategy for its presence in the IOR has two dimensions. First, China is building ports in strategically locations ofthe IOR. For example, on 1 August 2017, China formally opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti. China also signed a US$ 1.1 billion deal on 30 July 2017 with Sri Lanka and acquired a 69.55 per cent stake in the Hambantota Port. It is looking at a stake of up to 85 per cent in Kyauk Pyu, a deep-sea port in the Bay of Bengal in Myanmar. Although Sri Lanka, as per the conditions of the 99-year lease agreement, has ensured that its own navy will be responsible for Hambantota's security, Myanmar may not be able reach the same compromise with China. It is also speculated that China will soon build military bases, similar to one in Djibouti, in Pakistan.

Second, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) most likely intends to use these facilities as forward naval bases in the future, although such developments are currently held back by technical challenges. China’s defence spending - up to US$ 152 billion in the 2017 defence budget - has seen a 7 per cent increase. Much of the money is expected to go towards the development of the navy. Chinese naval experts such as Yin Zhuo, a PLAN rear admiral, have repeatedly indicated that PLAN needs at least 5 or 6 aircraft-carriers to fulfill its maritime ambitions - this would require even more funding. On 13 March 2017, a South China Morning Post news report cited military insiders and experts saying that China plans to increase the size of its marine corps from about 20,000 to 100,000 personnel, who will be called on to protect the country’s maritime lifelines and its growing interests overseas.

Current Status

Security concerns in the IOR are principally governed by the presence of the US, France and India, without any major conflict of interest. China is increasing its presence with an eye on cultivating strategic interests in the region but unlike the South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS), which feature in its core objective dynamics, the IOR is not yet a priority. However, this could soon change. China views economic growth an essential attribute of its great power status, and the Sea Lanes Of Communications (SLOC) present in the IOR are considered crucial for its energy imports and mercantile trade. Hence, as it grows economically, it stands to reason that the IOR will begin to feature prominently in its core objectives.

The IOR features in China’s ‘far seas’ ambitions, dictated by the belief that China must be able to protect its vital SLOCs and many other political and economic overseas interests, including Chinese citizens deployed abroad. However, it is clear that China wants to become a maritime power to not only secure its economic and security interests, but also to gain strategic capital through a strong naval presence in strategically important waters. It is important to remember that the economic growth of other East Asian and Southeast Asian countries is similarly dependent upon the IOR, and China is in conflict with most of these countries on one or the other issue.

Today, China has world-class merchant marine and fishing fleets, a globally recognised shipbuilding capacity, a large and effective coast guard, and an ability to harvest or extract economically important maritime resources. However, due to the long-term imposition of the US/EU arms embargo, absence of domestic expertise for manufacturing advanced naval equipment, and Russia’s incompetence in developing and exporting advanced naval technologies especially in the fields of gas turbine propulsion and naval electronics, China lacks power projection capabilities in the ‘far seas’.

Building ports in important locations of the IOR appears to be working in cash-rich China’s favour. However, PLAN’s intentions to use these facilities as forward naval bases in the future faces challenges, and there have been almost no concrete achievements so far. Hence, for China to become an active member in the current maritime security architecture in the IOR, it must seek to earn the goodwill of the US, France, and India. The best way to do this is to stop confronting or attempting to 'bully' India and the US and its regional allies in the areas of its larger influence, i.e. SCS and ECS.

United Nations/Italy Long-term Fellowship Program for Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 27th September 2017 11:59 a.m (CEST)

Eligible Countries: Developing countries and countries with economy in transition.

To Be Taken At (Country): Italy

About the Award: The 2 nd Level Specializing Master on Navigation and Related Applications is a joint initiative of Politecnico di Torino and Istituto Superiore Mario Boella (ISMB) with the collaboration of the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) and the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. The II Level Specializing Master is a post graduate academic program (taken after a Master of Science program) that provides high quality training. It provides students with professional knowledge and skills needed in the navigation sector.

The Master in Navigation and Related Applications (MNA) Programme begins in January 2018 and lasts for 12 months including a period ranging from 3 to 4 months for hands-on pilot project (internship). Lectures will be held in English at Politecnico di Torino premises.

Type: Fellowship, Masters

Eligibility: Applicants should be:

• nationals of developing countries or countries with economy in transition;
• duly nominated by their governments;
• age of candidate should not exceed forty (40) years;
• should have the academic and professional backgrounds required by the specific fellowship programme (candidates for the MNA programme are required to have completed Master Degree or equivalent (5 years University degree) in Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Communication Engineering, Information Technology or related subjects. Other degrees in different technological fields can also be considered by the Master’s Programme Commission; and
• should be able to make professional use of the experience gained in the Programme.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The United Nations also may provide a number of selected participants with international round trip air ticket between the participant’s international airport of departure and Turin, Italy.

The nominating government/agency will bear the following costs on behalf of the selected participant:

• All expenses in the home country for preparing the abroad travelling, including passport and visa fees, medical examinations, inoculations, and other miscellaneous items, and domestic travel to and from the international airport of departure, in the home country;
• Salary and related allowances to which a participant may be entitled in his/her country during the period of the fellowship programme;
• Life insurance and health insurance for the benefit of the participant for the duration of the fellowship programme study.

Duration of Program: The Master in Navigation and Related Applications (MNA) Programme begins in January 2018 and lasts for 12 months including a period ranging from 3 to 4 months for hands-on pilot project (internship).

How to Apply:  In addition to the application form given below, all applicants are REQUESTED also to fill up the on-line application form of Politecnico di Torino and submit it to the institute. That will help co-organizers to streamline the process of selecting recipients of the fellowship grants. Please use this link in the Program webpage (See link below) to see how to proceed with this on-line application .

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: United Nations, Politecnico di Torino

Important Notes: Applicants should note that selection of fellowship recipients is made on a very competitive basis, as a large number of applications are generally received for a limited number of available fellowships.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Esprit Commercial Leadership Program for Young African Graduates 2018

Application Deadline: 6th October 2017.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa; Nigeria; Kenya.

About the Award: The Esprit Programme is GSK’s leading global talent development programme for MBA qualified individuals which nurtures a pipeline of diverse leaders, with the right capabilities and behaviours to drive GSK’s future strategic challenges. You’ll bring with you a wealth of knowledge and will recognise that there’s still plenty for you to learn and experience in order for you, to become an extraordinary leader.

Esprit Commercial Pharmaceutical programmes overall goal is to support, stretch, develop and deliver leaders of the future. You will nurture your breadth of experience and leadership capabilities through Esprit’s accelerated development programme.

Type: Internship/Jobs

Eligibility: 

Basic qualifications: 
• MBA.
• Experience in commercial area, passionate about sales and marketing.
• Strong interest to develop career in healthcare industry.
• Track record of taking accountability in both team and individual situations.
• Ability to work in multinational environment, across cultures and in matrix environment.
• Evidence of bringing innovative thinking and an ability to act as a change agent.
• Proven accelerated development in career to date.
• Eligibility to live and work in the country for which you are applying. This will be checked during the recruitment process.
• Fluency in your native language and English, both written and spoken.
• Flexibility, adaptability and highly mobile; you must be willing to move and work in any of the countries where GSK operates.

Preferred qualifications: 
Digital Marketing (Knowledge/ experience or User)

Selection Criteria: Are you interested in working in our transparent and innovative Pharmaceutical business and do the following statements resonate with you;

GSK is looking for extraordinary individuals who can apply both academic excellence and commercial intelligence in a dynamic business environment – to recognise and deliver value for GSK.

• You love what you do and want to work in an innovative, Inspiring, high performing environment which also improve people’s lives
• You are courageous to achieve results, excited by change, zealous about sales and marketing
• You enjoy being accountable and you are ready to fast track your progression and take the personal accountability for delivering commitments
• GSK Values resonate with you and you want to work in an organisation where you can perform with integrity, transparency, treat people with respect and always have our patients first on your mind.

You will be MBA qualified or on your journey towards obtaining your MBA in 2018.

You may have a dynamic and varied career experience within a commercial setting which highlights your already accelerated career to date.

You will have a passion for Sales or/and Marketing with a strong interest to enhance your career further within the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Ideally you will have some experience with digital marketing (Knowledge/ experience or User). You will have demonstrated excellent communication skills and a flexible mindset to forge your career in a global matrix organisation.

A key focus will be to further enrich your impact through leadership, innovation and decision making capabilities.

The Esprit Commercial Pharmaceutical Leadership is truly unique in the breadth of roles and experiences available and covers a variety of commercial touch-points within Sales & Marketing.

If you have an inquisitive mind and would relish the opportunity to flourish in a diverse, transparent and intellectually demanding global leadership programme then Esprit is for you.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:  

• Through stimulating rotations, you will gain exposure to high profile and diverse roles, such as Marketing, Sales, Business Development and Project management.
• Throughout the programme you will be encourage to broaden your global business perspective, and enrich your existing commercial experience and knowledge.

Duration of Program: 3-4 years

Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: GSK

TÜBİTAK International Fellowships for Graduate Research in Turkey 2017

Application Deadline: 6th October, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Recognized Universities in Turkey

Eligible Fields of Study: Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technological Sciences, Medical Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities

About the Award: The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) grants fellowships for international highly qualified PhD students and young post-doctoral researchers to pursue their research in Turkey in the fields above. The program aims to promote Turkey’s scientific and technological collaboration with countries of the prospective researchers. Preference will be given to candidates who demonstrate the potential to contribute significantly to Turkey’s goal of international cooperation in scientific and technological development.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

1. Candidates should be non-Turkish citizens. Applicants who hold dual citizenship with Turkey are   not eligible to apply.
2. Candidates should have an invitation from the universities or research institutes in Turkey.
3. Candidates should certify that they have sufficient command of language to perform their research.
4. Candidates must be 35 years old or younger.
5. Candidates should be enrolled in a program in abroad for PhD students.
6. Candidates who hold a PhD degree in Turkey should have a GPA minimum of 3.50/4.00 in PhD program.

Selection Criteria: All successfully submitted applications are listed and prepared for scientific evaluation after the prior selection. The proposal will be evaluated according to the following 4 evaluation criteria:

1. Research potential of the fellow
2. Scientific and technological quality of the research proposal
3. Impact of the proposed fellowship to the applicant’s training and career development to  the hosting institution and to Turkey
4. Implementation of the proposed research

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The scholarship will consist of a monthly stipend, tuition fee, travel costs and health insurance.

Duration of Fellowship: Maximum duration for the fellowship is 12 months.

How to Apply: All applications must be submitted electronically via TÜBİTAK scholarship application portal by 6th October, 2017

It is important to visit the Fellowshsip webpage (see link below) to access the online application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Turkey Government

Echoes of Reagan: Another Nuclear Buildup

Mel Gurtov

Thirty years ago Americans endured an absurd expansion of the US nuclear-weapon force under President Reagan.  The announced weapons modernization program was accompanied by a huge increase in the military budget, the President’s warning to the Soviet Union that he was willing to spend it into oblivion, and crazy talk from some of his advisers about the potential to fight and win a nuclear war.  So here we are evidently back to the future as the Trump administration forges ahead with nuclear “modernization,” without a set strategy for the weapons but with billions of dollars to burn.

The Nuclear Lobby

Right now, the US has about 6,800 total nuclear weapons—roughly 1,400 strategic weapons deployed in ground-, air-, and sea-based missiles, and the rest stockpiled or retired. (The Russians’ arsenal is approximately the same in total.)  From any rational point of view, these weapons are far more than are necessary to deter an adversary.  Submarine-launched ballistic missiles alone—920 of which are fixed on 230 invulnerable submarines, each missile having destructive power equivalent to many Hiroshimas—are sufficient to destroy an entire country and bring on nuclear winter.  There simply is no legitimate basis for believing that the nuclear arsenal needs to be larger, more invulnerable, or more accurate and reliable.

Yet as Americans learned long ago, for the nuclear lobby—the pro-nuclear members of Congress, the military industries that test and produce the weapons and the means of their delivery, and the various Pentagon advisory boards, laboratories, and nuclear planners—enough is never enough.  These folks can always be counted on to argue that the nuclear stockpile must be periodically revitalized to ensure readiness.  And all it takes is a supposed nuclear threat—today meaning North Korea—to bolster the nuclear lobby’s case for upgrading.

The arguments against further investment in nuclear weapons are just as compelling now as they were years ago.  As the US invests more in them, so will the Russians and the Chinese, reviving a nuclear arms race.  Continued reliance on nukes supports pro-nuclear thinking in Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, and elsewhere, contributing to the potential for war by accident or design.  These weapons, moreover, which have no purpose other than to deter their use by others, can be inherently destabilizing—as is the case now with a new Cruise missile (price tag: $25 billion), whose accuracy and stealth raise the possibility of a disastrous miscalculation by adversaries.  At the same time, such a weapon should, but won’t, eliminate the need for ground-based ICBMs.  No, say the weapons proponents: the ground-air-sea nuclear triad will remain, adding billions to the military budget.

The nuclear weapons lobby is surely delighted with Trump’s decision. The lobby was downcast when it seemed that President Obama was headed toward bringing nuclear weapons numbers down to some minimum figure.  But he reversed course late in his second administration and agreed to new investments in them, apparently in order to ensure Senate approval of the “New Start” agreement with Russia in 2010.  Now, the weapons manufacturers that will be responsible for Trump’s program—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman—are assured of many more years of multibillion dollar activity.

Present Choices

When we think about national security in the human interest, two considerations are uppermost: the quality of life for our people and a peaceful future for the planet.  As to the first, we might evaluate the cost of another nuclear-weapon modernization when matched against the urgent need to start thinking about paying for rebuilding Houston after Hurricane Harvey.  The Washington Post reports (August 28) that “Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, caused $160 billion in damage and Hurricane Sandy in 2012 caused around $70 billion in damage, according to inflation-adjusted figures provided by the federal government.” “Harvey” may well cost more—even more than the full cost of Trump’s nuclear modernization program, which will easily top $125 billion. FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) reportedly has only $3.8 billion on hand; the rest of the rescue money must come from elsewhere in the federal budget. But, Texans and Louisianans, don’t count on Trump to divert a dime from the military to bail you out.  (Come to think of it, abandoning the Mexico wall project would also be a welcome response to Houston’s calamity.)

The other consideration is global security while nuclear weapons are under the command of Donald Trump.  In the May-June 2017 issue of Foreign Affairs, Philip Gordon offers three crisis scenarios—with China, Iran, and North Korea—that Trump might well mishandle and involve the US in war.  Each potential crisis might lead a president known for recklessness, unpreparedness, and predilection for making threats to consider use of nuclear weapons. So the issue here is squarely about national security for us and for all.

Dancing With the Devil

Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz

Dystopia is finally here, but we seem to have our sides mixed up as of late.

We live in a time when Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation move forward with labeling anti-fascists groups as domestic terrorist organizations while removing white supremacists groups from those very same lists. The militarization of police has resumed, while the United States continues to wage its imperial wars across the planet regardless of the fact that climate change has begun to ravage our world. Every conceivable method of shoring up the police state that began to take definitive shape under the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is once again being implemented.

But what do “progressive” and liberal news sites harp on about? It’s all about Russia, sheet cake, Melania Trump’s post-hurricane footwear, and the threat of a shadowy villainous phantom that has been set loose on an unsuspecting humanity. But that evil is not the growing threat of a resurgent far right. Oh, no. To them, that evil is its exact opposite: a collection of disparate groups collectively known as “antifa”.

And just what is antifa? To many it is nothing but a motley collection of violent thugs that destroy private property and assault poor white men with Confederate battle flags and trendy swastikas, robbing them of their precious right to free speech. Poor devils! In actuality there is no such thing as one organization called antifa. It is, in reality, a catchall term for a number of far-left, generally anti-capitalist groups, generally anti-capitalists, that actively oppose the rebirth of fascism. They are by definition anti-homophobic, anti-racist, and anti-sexist. In other words, they are the exact opposite of Nazis. To be antifa is to act against fascism, not to believe in anything specific other than the protection of others who may be targeted by bigots, by any means necessary. For a much better description the recently published book by Mark Bray, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, serves as an excellent primer and essential reading.

At this point, dear reader, you might find yourself asking how, if they are the exact opposite of Nazis, could the antifa be comparable “in every way” to Nazis (as some misfortunate souls like Chris Hedges, The New York Times, The Washington Postand even The Guardian, continue to vomit on every conceivable media outlet out there). The answer lies in the necessity of liberalism to create false equivalencies in order to maintain the status quo. In other words the often-parroted claim that antifa and Nazism are morally equitable is, quite simply, complete bullshit.

Radical leftists are often accused of being utopian in their thinking, but at this point it has become quite evident that it is liberals who are living in complete fantasy while leftists are the consummate realists. When anarchists, communists, and other anti-capitalists say that it is impossible to negotiate with fascists it is because they have the weight of history and experience behind their arguments. Meanwhile it should be apparent that liberal attacks against antifa are simply reflecting a socio-political strategy of deflection in order to ensure the survival of their class and racial privilege.

Collaboration by Western governments with fascist and totalitarian regimes is nothing new, of course. Nor is the branding of groups actively engaged in conflict with those regimes as “terrorists” a new development either. We’ve all seen it before. Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Pinochet’s Chile… the list goes on and on. And Western governments like it that way. Capitalism likes it that way. Markets remain stabilized, foreign investment secured, social justice movements squashed.

At the end of the day the call to resist “violence” is all about political theater. Conservatives play along with fascists due to their cultish obsession with law and order and their simmering white supremacist tendencies. Liberals, while also indulging in white supremacy, attack anti-fascist groups because they can recognize a good sacrificial lamb when they see one. By doing that they hope they can distract the wolves from chomping down on their own neck. The center and the center-right, mostly proud capitalist Democrats and other “progressive” Wall Street darlings would rather see leftists beaten and killed before they themselves become the targets. Actions like these simply echo the late Nikos Poulantzas’s critique of fascism, where he stated that the Third Reich wouldn’t have survived without liberal support. At the end of the day they’ll simply obey orders and be good, law-abiding citizens. Just like their liberal fellows in the Reich proved to be.

Liberals refuse to abandon their capitalist white privilege, and would rather see blood spilled in order to maintain their idiotic concept of “centrism” before even thinking about considering any kind of support for anti-capitalist anti-fascists. It is purely an attempt at damage control, their way of making sure that violence stays where it belongs: centered against African-Americans, Muslims, Gays, and Latinos.

The liberal obsession with championing military intervention abroad and attacking active resistance to fascism at home by criminalizing anything that is even remotely associated to their imaginary concept of a shadowy antifa organization, regardless of the fact that such a thing does not exist, only serves to underscore the fact that their obsession with “non-violence” is purely a self-serving lie.

This, then, is the real motivation behind the major push by the mainstream liberal media towards criminalizing the very idea of antifa, and why liberals have insisted on non-scandals like Russia. It goes beyond the concept of news fabrication. Like all good propaganda, it is the constant flooding of all media with a single message, nonstop. And it is the blandest kind of appeasement. It must be said that liberals labeling antifa as the equivalent of Nazis seems to be as suicidal an action as insisting on an alternative treatment to a deadly tumor that involves the patient “playing nice” to the malignant growth, all the while opposing chemotherapy and surgery as measures “too extreme” to even be considered.

I can see the Saturday Night Live sketch now: “Your tumor needs a hug. And some sheet cake.” Queue the canned laughter and the outro music.

Centrists like Trevor Noah and white liberals like Tina Fey and Samantha Bee speak from class privilege and would rather have the rest of us stressing the need to learn to coexist with the closest thing to real evil that our species has ever produced instead. Watching someone like Noah, a South African man who should know all too well what the horrors of white supremacy entail, ridiculing a “vegan antifa” on cable television (and therefore championing the silencing of dissent) is all the evidence needed to denounce the tragic consequences of following this sort of terminal liberalism to its logical and horrific conclusion. Even someone as knowledgeable as Noam Chomsky seems to have completely lost the plot when it comes to anti-fascism.

Make no mistake about this. Fascism is a tumor. You don’t negotiate or appease a tumor. You cut the fucking thing out, and in this case antifa is one of society’s scalpels.  So keep that in mind whenever you, dear reader, choose to repeat some nonsense that your favorite talking head spewed out late at night. Words have consequences, now more than ever.

Australian Catholic University (ACU) International Masters and PhD Scholarships 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Australia

About the Award: Up to 20 scholarships will be available to students and each scholarship will last for the duration of the recipients course, subject to satisfactory academic performance. The scholarship rewards students based on academic merit. For this reason, you must have achieved at least an average result of 80% in prior studies for your application to be considered. This average can only be calculated from study done in the past two years

Up to two Higher Degree by Research scholarships equivalent to the fees and stipend for recipients enrolling in a Masters by Research or Doctoral course of study will also be offered.

Type: Masters by Research, Doctoral

Eligibility: 

• This scholarship is open to commencing International postgraduate and undergraduate students with outstanding academic merit of at least an average result of 80% in prior studies.
• Candidates must not be an Australian permanent resident citizen or New Zealand citizen;
• Candidates must have an offer for a place in an undergraduate, postgraduate or PhD program at ACU;
• Candidates must attend the relevant ACU campus as a full-time student;
• Candidates must not be receiving any other major scholarship or award ;
• Candidates must not be attending ACU as a Study Abroad or Exchange student
• Students must maintain satisfactory academic progress for their duration of their course. Successful applicants must also agree to act as student ambassadors for ACU and support promotional activities.

Selection Criteria:  Applications are assessed based on the strength of the following criteria:

• Academic merit

Selection Process: The recipients will be selected by a Selection Committee consisting of the Executive Director, International, the Executive Dean of each Faculty (or nominee), the Dean of Graduate Studies, the Associate Director, International Admissions and Student Relations and the Associate Director, International Marketing and Recruitment. Further, the Selection Committee may give consideration to:

1. The diversity of the source countries of applicants and the courses in which they are enrolled (including across a spread of undergraduate and postgraduate coursework and research programs and campuses);
2. In the case of applicants undertaking research degrees, the alignment of the applicant’s intended research with the research strengths of the University.

Number of Awardees: Up to 20

Value of Scholarship: 50% tuition waiver

How to Apply: Apply online by clicking the button below and completing the application form. You must attach the following documentation with your application:

• Evidence of academic  merit, showing achievement of an average of at least 80% across the  applicant’s most recent study.

Apply Online

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  The Australian Catholic University