6 Sept 2017

European Union/UN Women Gender Equality Photo Contest for Young Nigerian Artists 2017

Application Deadline: 18th September 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To Be Taken At (Country): Abuja, Nigeria
About the Award: Unleash your creativity to illustrate the relationship between women and men and positive changes you want to see. Picture it! The Competition is open to Nigerian comic and cartoon artists, art students and members of the general public, from 18 to 28 years of age, who are residents of Nigeria.
The Competition is part of the UN Women Campaign “Empowering Women – Empowering Humanity” and the EU Gender Action.
Categories:
  • Women and the Environment
  • Women and Poverty
  • Human Rights of Women
  • Women in Power and Decision-Making
  • Women and the Economy
  • Violence against Women
  • Women and Health
  • Education and Training of Women
  • Women and Armed Conflict
  • Women and the Media
  • The Girl Child
  • Institutional Mechanisms for the Advancement of Women
Type: Contest
Eligibility: 
  • You must be between 18 and 28 years old as of August 31, 2017. You must provide your date of birth in the entry form.
  • You must be a Nigerian residing in Nigeria.
  • You must use your legal name and provide valid contact details along with your drawing(s).
Also,
  • The drawing(s) must be without words.
  • Your Drawings must fit on one DIN A4 page (210mm x 297mm). Both portrait and landscape orientation are accepted.  If a drawing comprises several pictures, the number of pictures should not exceed six boxes and the complete drawing must fit on one DIN A4 page.
  • The resolution of the drawing(s) must be at least 150 dpi or higher. Data size is limited to 5MB per drawing.   Acceptable formats include jpg, jpeg, png and pdf formats only.
Your drawing(s) must not be in the determination of the Organizing Entities:
  • Be disrespectful of the impartiality and independence of the United Nations and the EU Delegation to Nigeria;
  • Reflect adversely on the Organizing Entities;
  • Be incompatible with the aims and objectives of the Organizing Entities;
  • Be derogatory to any persons depicted in the drawings;
  • Contain any nudity, lewd, or otherwise offensive or inappropriate content
Number of Awards: 5
Value of Award: The five successful participants will be invited to Abuja to the Competition Award Ceremony in November 2017. The cost for travel and accomodation will be borne by the Organizing Entities. In addition, the drawings of the finalists and semi-finalists will be published online and may be considered for an Exhibition.
  • First Prize: 1000 Euros (1)
  • Second Prize: 500 Euros (1)
  • Third Prize: 200 Euros (3)
How to Apply: Submit Entry
Incomplete entries or entries that do not comply with these Terms and Conditions will be automatically disqualified at the sole discretion of the Organizing Entities.
Award Providers: European Union/UN Women

India Ecstatic Over BRICS Naming Pakistan Terror-Groups

GERRY BROWN

It must have been a great day in India yesterday, with the entire nation in a celebratory, ecstatic mood. Probably on par with the Duke of Wellington defeating Napoleon in the battle of Waterloo. It couldn’t have come at a better time for New Delhi, with the economy devastated by Modi’s self-destructive demonetisation, the summer of discontent in Kashmir, Darjeeling and Northeastern India, and withdrawal from the Donglang/Doklam border standoff with China.
No, it’s not a military victory that sent Indians into a frenzy across the land of godman. It’s a self-proclaimed, delusional “diplomatic” victory. Yesterday, the front page news of the Indian printed media was inundated with the following typical battle cry:
“India achieved a major diplomatic victory over Pakistan—and China—when the association of BRICS nations condemned terror by naming several Pakistan-sponsored terror networks such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Haqqani network and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. “
But, what did the BRICS Declaration actually say? Nothing to write home about for a calm, rational person :
“48. We, in this regard, express concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused by the Taliban, ISIL/DAISH, Al-Qaida and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir.”
China didn’t sell out or betray its “iron-clad” brother Pakistan in agreeing to include the three Pakistan-based militant groups in the BRICS Declaration. Much less under Indian pressure. The three groups have been banned by Pakistan itself since 2015. If anything, it’s just China and Russia throwing a sop to the delusional and petulant Modi to prevent him from disrupting the BRICS Summit, akin to throwing a piece of bone to a hungry dog to stop the barking.
The following report from the horse’s mouth, Pakistan’s major daily The Nation, confirms what it’s really all about:
“ISLAMABAD/Lahore – Pakistan Monday wondered at India’s celebrations over BRICS’ naming some alleged Pakistan-based terror networks that are already on country’s list of banned outfits.”
“Indian officials and media tried to sell mention of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) among the terrorists groups as a diplomatic defeat for Pakistan, ignoring the fact that Islamabad regards these groups anti-peace entities and had declared them proscribed organizations years ago.”
As in the BRICS Summit in Goa last year, India doesn’t get what it desperately wants this year : Naming Masood Azhar, founder and leader of JeM, as a terrorist and putting him on the UN sanctions list. Nor is there mention of cross-border terrorist attacks allegedly committed by the Pakistan-based groups.
Days earlier, both China and Russia had issued statements supporting Pakistan in its anti-terrorism efforts after Trump scolded Islamabad for not having done  enough. That’s more substantive and meaty than mere mention of the three Pakistan-based militant groups already proscribed by Islamabad.
Both Xi Jinping and Putin are focussed on the big picture, while Modi is still mired in hostility with its neighbor. Once again, it shows clearly the provincial politician in Modi has failed to rise to become a player in geopolitics. He and his Modibob are still stuck at the binary gears of sulking or fits of  exuberance. A classic case of  “Much ado about nothing”!

Trump’s ‘Chinese hoax’ Wreaking Global Havoc

George Ochenski

When Donald Trump declared global warming was a “Chinese hoax,” he established a new all-time low for reality-challenged presidents. With 97 percent of the world’s leading scientists confirming not only that human-caused global warming is real, but predicting the disastrous effects upon the planet and its inhabitants, only a total self-absorbed buffoon like Trump could possibly discount their long and in-depth evidence as a “hoax.” Well, the “proof is in the pudding” as they say, and the effects of global warming are stacking up in vast economic and environmental damages while causing widespread and long-lasting human suffering.
Of course the grim reality of Hurricane Harvey is the leading antithesis of Trump’s “Chinese hoax” theory. What began as a tropical storm quickly became a Class 4 Hurricane with 130 mph winds as it picked up enormous amounts of water from a very warm Gulf of Mexico. The warmer the air, the more water it can hold, and with triple-digit temperatures blasting the Southwest, there was plenty of warm air to go around. As I write this, Las Vegas is predicted to hit 105, Los Angeles a sweltering 104 and Phoenix an almost unimaginable 108.
How much water could all that warm air hold? Experts say more than a trillion gallons fell on Texas and Louisiana — enough to fill Lake Michigan, which is called a “Great Lake” because it’s one of the planet’s largest freshwater lakes. Even the thought of filling that massive water body with a few days’ worth of rain boggles the imagination.
Harvey drove tens of thousands of Texans from their homes — which will likely be total losses since most insurance policies don’t cover flooding. The rising waters also inundated oil and gas refineries, releasing a stew of toxins and caused a chemical plant to burst into explosions and flames when the power for its cooling systems went out. The release of hazardous and toxic substances from those impacts have yet to be fully assessed, and may never be. That Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, had halted implementation of rules meant to increase safety at chemical plants was sidelined two weeks before Harvey hit only adds to the massive unfolding environmental disaster.
And while the tragedy in Texas was playing out here in the U.S., Trump’s “hoax” was dumping unprecedented amounts of monsoon water on India, Nepal and Bangladesh. So far the continuing disaster has displaced 40 million people and killed at least 1,200.
Nor has Montana escaped the wrath of a warming planet. Wildfires have been burning since the rains of June petered out into the drought and extreme heat of July and August. Like their reality-challenged leader, Montana’s congressional politicians want to find something besides global warming for the fires. So they claim the real reason is forest management and environmentalists, not the excessive use of fossil fuels, which they actually seek to increase.
But their argument rings hollow when you consider just a few basic facts. Montana’s largest wildfire burned 270,000 acres on the plains of eastern Montana — and it’s not because ranchers didn’t “thin” or “manage” their pastures. Ironically, some of the largest of the forest wildfires are occurring in areas that have already been extensively logged, such as Lolo, Superior, Seeley Lake and Lincoln.
In short, we are being ruled by a moron who refuses to acknowledge global warming despite the overwhelming evidence and incredible suffering. Until our self-described “very smart” president faces reality we — and the rest of the planet — will continue to suffer thanks to his “Chinese hoax” delusions.

The Floods of August: Climate Change Hits Home for Millions Worldwide

Claire James

We knew this was coming. This August the rains have come with a vengeance. But we knew something like this was coming. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its summary of the expected impacts of climate change. In dry, academic language, the report sets out the evidence: climate change will bring extremes of precipitation: more droughts and more deadly floods.
Early in the morning on 14 August, heavy rains in Freetown, Sierra Leone triggered a mudslide. Muddy rubble cascaded down the hillside, destroying homes and burying people inside them. The official death toll from this tragedy has now risen to over a thousand.
At the same time, monsoon rains were causing deaths in India and Nepal. In Himachal, two buses with their passengers were swept into a gorge in a landslide. Fatalities from flooding are not uncommon in the summer monsoon season, but this time the heavy rains just kept coming, leading to extraordinary flooding in Nepal, northwestern Indian states and downstream Bangladesh, where the floods submerged over a third of the country.
A storm was brewing
By 24 August, official estimates were 41 million affected across the three nations of India, Nepal and Bangladesh and at least 900 killed. The next day the reported death toll had risen to 1200. And yet this catastrophe was barely reported in the western media.
Meanwhile, a storm was brewing off the southeastern US coast. Having been downgraded to a tropical wave, Harvey picked up energy again and regained hurricane status as it moved across the abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It also picked up unusual amounts of moisture. As it hit Houston and surrounding areas of Texas, there was no lack of media attention this time.
Experts had warned that Houston was particularly vulnerable to flooding in a warming climate because of several factors. In a low lying plain, with poor draining clay soils, and with the expanding city laying down ever more concrete, the water management plan is in no way fit for increasing storm risks. But this was a storm that would overwhelm even the most well-prepared city.
In the first 72 hours over a metre of rain fell in some areas. Dramatic photographs showed freeways turned into deep rivers, while stranded families sent out desperate pleas for rescue on social media.
Just days earlier, Donald Trump had signed an order scrapping stricter rules around flood risk for federal investment in infrastructure. As Harvey’s rains fell, Trump’s top official at the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, dismissed the subject of linking the storm to climate change. When asked in an interview, Pruitt described those discussing cause and effect as ‘opportunistic’.
Heavy load
So there may be no immediate impetus from disaster to climate action. The media plays an important role here. There are three ways that media can let us down in reporting climate change-influenced disasters.
The first is when the media give prominence to events which are easy to report, rather than those which are truly significant. Harvey is a significant story deserving major coverage. Yet before Harvey hit Texas (and hit the headlines), where were the reports on the South Asian flooding?
Even given the general tendency to treat the deaths of poor people in non-western countries as non-newsworthy, the death toll was then climbing towards a thousand and 41 million affected across three countries. But someone actively following the news could easily be completely unaware of these floods. The story was given cursory coverage then dropped completely out of the news for at least five days, to be picked up again on 29 August, this time more widely.
The second weakness is a failure to be upfront about the links between these disasters and climate change. In the case of Harvey, there are at least three links. One of the most significant is that the warmer than normal waters in the Gulf of Mexico contributed to Harvey’s heavy load of atmospheric moisture.
In the first five days, it dumped some 20 trillion gallons of water on Texas (one sixth the volume of Lake Erie). Warm waters also give hurricanes more energy. Another factor is that storm surge along the coast rides on top of raised sea levels. These are particularly significant on the Gulf Coast of Texas – sea levels there have risen over 30cm in 50 years.
Still devastated
One difficulty journalists have in reporting climate change is sustaining interest in a vast slow-motion catastrophe that plays out over a timescale of decades or more. But right now the drama and tragedy is immediate, and there is no excuse for not being clear about what is at stake and the choices we are making.
The final way the media can fail in their coverage is not to stick around. Flood waters make for dramatic photography. But what comes next can be just as devastating. With a lack of clean water, the displaced people of Bangladesh, especially the children, are at risk of deadly diseases such as cholera.
Many victims of the floods have lost all their possessions. Bangladesh was already experiencing food supply problems after flash flooding wiped out a large part of the rice crop in April. Now more vast areas of crops have been washed away.
And although the US is a rich country, even there, for those who have least, it is hardest to get it back. A year ago, Baton Rouge, Louisiana was hit by one of the worst floods in US history. One year on, poorer neighbourhoods are still devastated. For them, and for the people of Bangladesh, climate change is already here. Will we pay attention?

The Monetization of International Relations

L. Ali Khan

“The point is that you can’t be too greedy.” The author of this saying, President Trump, is brazenly monetizing international relations. He demands more money from the NATO members for common defense. He urges Mexico to pay for the wall. He is slashing financial assistance to allies (except Israel). He vies to renegotiate trade agreements. He proposes to impose tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods in violation of international trade laws. He campaigned in the 2016 presidential election to declare China as a currency manipulator. Much like a Las Vegas tycoon, Trump views the world as a big casino where the U.S. is losing money. Trump fancies rigging the international game for the U.S. to come out as a tireless winner.
Trump’s money obsessions add nothing innovative to international relations. For centuries, money has been a dominant factor in relations among states. Occupations, invasions, war booty, indentured labor, and slavery were the common instruments for wealth aggregation. Now, nations marshal affluence through trade, investments, remittances, immigration, and migrant workers. Nations that have little to sell in international markets are poor. Nations with natural resources are vulnerable to subjugation. Nations raise huge armies and some develop weapons of mass destruction to commit as well as deter aggression. Predatory nations are armed to the teeth. Most nations are terrified. Fear rules the humankind.
By making money calls, Trump aggravates the undercurrents of self-interest permeating international politics. In many parts of the world, nations are terrorizing each other, seizing land and resources, seeking unfair advantage, spilling blood, and doggedly retarding the models of civilization that poets, philosophers, environmentalists, and ethicists romanticize.  Trump is not an idealist. He is a coarse money merchant with little interest in the welfare of global civilization. Trump speaks the language of intimidation to defend and extort money. Millions of Americans detest Trump the man and Trump the money maniac.
Superpower Status
Superpowers have action choices. A superpower can act as a greedy nation determined to aggregate wealth through exploitation, intimidation, threats, invasion, and occupation.  It can also act as a benevolent world leader imbued with generosity, idealism, and wellbeing of all the peoples of the world. Sadly, most superpowers, including the British and Spanish colonial empires, have committed immense crimes against humanity, including massacres, theft of land, destruction of occupied cultures, and transfer of wealth from abroad to national exchequers.
As a superpower, the U.S. has been inconstant as it swings from one choice to the other. Reconstructing a war-ravaged Europe, financially supporting international organizations for peace and security, opening its borders for the poor and the tired of the world, and giving money for the prevention and elimination of epidemics in different parts of the world, these and other munificent acts make the United States a special superpower, one that endears the hearts of the world and inspires other nations to do good as a purposeful policy preference.
Trump contemplates the other choice, much like Spanish conquistadors and British imperial viceroys known for their treachery and gold-grabbing.  Trump’s affection for President Andrew Jackson, who stole millions of acres of land from Native Americans, reveals his predatory mindset.  Trump’s campaign utterings that the U.S. “should have kept the Iraqi oil” reinforce his deep-seated hunger to loot assets that belong to others. If Trump is allowed freely to shape international relations after his own mind, the U.S. will become a superpower that the peoples of the world would hate from the bottoms of their hearts.
The World is no Pushover
What Trump misses to understand is the inherent will of other nations and communities to resist the dynamics of overreaching. If Trump opts for monetized national interests, other nations are unlikely to play dead.  History demonstrates that Germany can be pushed only too far before it reacts with irrational might. So is Japan. Vietnam proved that a small nation resolved to defend itself can successfully fight a weighty war machine.  Mexico refuses to succumb to Trump’s monetized pressure, as does Iran, China, Venezuela, and Russia.
Of course, a superpower can determine the dynamics of world affairs. Nations tend to imitate superpowers, at least in dealing with superpowers.  If Trump transforms the U.S. into a money-aggregating hegemon, the world is bound to resist and frustrate any such efforts. Turning selfish is not an act of genius for persons or nations. It’s easy. The U.S. has no special privilege to be selfish. Yes, the U.S. may pursue its monetized self-interest with the use of force, including the weapons of mass destruction, but even this option is a loser rather than a winner. North Korea trapped tightly in economic sanctions, and facing starvation of its people, may be condemned as a crazy country but crazy countries do emerge in a world where superpowers terminate fair play in favor of dog-eat-dog imperative.

Lacking Transparency: Israeli Drones And Australian Defence

Binoy Kampmark

“Give us the chance to compete, to see our capabilities, to compare, to see the benefit we can bring with our [drone] system.”
Shaul Shahar, Israel Aerospace Industries Vice-President, March 2, 2017
A certain part of you should go on vacation when a drone company, certainly one dedicated to killing, gets less custom to do what it does best.  The only problem in this case is that the winning party will also be a manufacturer of killer drones. Where there is unscrupulous demand, a willing if soiled supplier is always happy to step in.
The Australian Defence For was already making its intentions clear earlier this year when the murderous Reaper drone made a visit to Australian soil. This spine tingling presence of a weapon responsible for the deaths of thousands caused a minor titter in local circles.
In recent years, the ADF has pondered whether to get into the grim business of robotic killing, despite its abysmal failings on the legal front.  Defence Minister Marise Payne is fairly indifferent to such concerns: “There will always be, in a remotely piloted aircraft, a human involved and that is the threshold for this capability for us.” Precisely the problem: behind the machine is a human; and behind that human is a vulnerable commander executing government policy.
The ADF, in other words, is falling for that old canard that such technologies are good, clean and strictly sanitised through a line of command.   Malcolm Davis of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute throws the book of “strict rules of engagement” back at the critics.  As long as the nod is given to protocols of use, there is nothing to sweat over.  “We’ve worked with the US and other countries using drones, we understand about command and control.”
Davis also laments Australia’s limp into a brave new world of lethal technologies.  “I’m amazed to be honest, that we haven’t got drones or more correctly, unmanned aerial vehicles by now. I mean, Australia has fallen well behind in this regard.”
Whare are the options in an emerging smorgasbord of killing?  General Atomics from the US offers its prize MQ-9 Reaper, and Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) boasts the Heron TP.  The vigorous rumour whirling in the wings of drone central is not the whether the Heron discharges its job well, but whether the Reaper has an inter-operable dimension with the weapons systems of allies. To that end the usual plaudits are cast the way of the Israeli model, while the eye on the prize is already set.
The fuming Israeli representative, Shaul Shahar, was beside himself.  His ultimate fear: that the decision is already cooked for the American rivals.  In protest, he explained to the ABC that prospective Australian drone pilots had been training on the Heron-1 system, a “successful” one at that. Furthermore, Shahar claims that Australians were already using it in Afghanistan – for 3 years, no less.  (Such a nugget of information, implicating Australian pilots in incidents where whole families become the bloody collateral of a target mission.)
Shahar smells discrimination and foul play, that awful sense of being strung along. “With all the risk analysis, all competitive analysis, they need to do here and they didn’t done [sic] it because no one has approached us, no one has offered to put our data of the system on the table.”
Minister Payne complied with cabinet protocol: avoid the grievance, keep the options open and claim that nothing was off the boardroom table.  A similar option is done in appointing academic staff to faculties: you know who you want, but you want to keep up appearances by getting appropriate external candidates.  To that end, the playbook of deflection ensures that no one option is ignored in favour of another, even if a decision has been made months in advance.
“Defence,” goes such weasel speak from a statement from the minister, “is considering a range of options for the future of the future Australian Defence Force armed remotely piloted aircraft system.”
Naturally, Payne makes the mandatory addition, the qualifier that suggests keen objectivity, gentle and deft consideration: “As the evaluation process is ongoing it is not appropriate to comment.” Woe to the Israeli contractor.
The notable disdain for transparency shown by the ADF is far from unusual in the Australian defence industry.  The ADF, for one, can hardly be accused of being overly patriotic when it comes to local industries, showing a drug-addicted preference for US products.
This was made clear in 2015 when Australian drone manufacturers – this time in the surveillance context – found it impossible to net contracts from the ministry of defence.  The Australian forces showed greater and ultimately definitive interest in dealing with the American company AeroVironment.
This time, the pattern is set to repeat itself.  Few are better in the business of drone-directed killings than the Israelis, but the Reaper has clout, a grotesque resume to back it, and the brutish swagger of made in the USA.

Beggars for War: The US, North Korea And Bankruptcy

Binoy Kampmark

The statement before members of the United Nations Security Council was both brash and high strung. The US ambassador had clearly decided that firm words were needed to understand the continuing military advances of North Korea. To do so, Nikki Haley, far from the sharpest tool in the US diplomatic toolbox, hit upon what Kim Jong-un was doing: “begging for war.”
“Enough is enough,” she warned those gathered in the emergency session.  “War is never something the United States wants. We don’t want it now.  But our country’s patience is not unlimited.”  Troubling then, that the United States should be encouraging the circumstances for that war to take place.
Haley’s points suggest the exhaustion of options. They also cast a light on continuing failings.  “Despite our efforts the North Korea nuclear program is more advanced and more dangerous than ever.” Suggesting, in fact, that US foreign policy has failed to reassure and counter; to contain and hem in.
But to hem in, to contain, to asphyxiate – the conditions, in short that will make Kim beg for conflict – is exactly what is being proposed. The upstart’s wings will be clipped, goes this attitude, and Kim will be potted.
To aid this, the Trump administration is renewing its efforts to enlist China to do its dirty work: bankrupt Pyongyang.  A form of forced economic encirclement is proposed.  The South Korean President Moon Jae-in has also suggested cutting off North Korea’s access to crude oil and foreign currency sources.
Beijing is hardly thrilled to shrink trade with a state that actually grew last year.  “A temporary or partial ban is possible,” suggested Shi Yinhong, an adviser to the Chinese cabinet, “but the Chinese government will definitely refuse to cut off oil exports completely or permanently to North Korea.”
The method of forcibly starving a country of its oil and other necessaries has a good precedent for encouraging, rather than discouraging war.  The United States was very much in the position of provoking conflict when it came to dealing with Japan in 1941. The rhyme of history is a strong one.
In the summer of 1941, prior to his departure for Placentia Bay, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave an executive order to freeze all Japanese assets in the United States.  This was another measure to add to various embargoes on such items as scrap metals that were already implemented in 1940.  Imperial Japan, went the reasoning behind these orders, might duly compose itself, desisting from aggressive measures in China, Indochina and Southeast Asia.
This approach did have its panic-inducing effect suggesting, to such historians as Charles Beard and Charles C. Tansill, the necessary opening of a back door to war. Given Japan’s hunger for US crude and refined petroleum products, the need to seek and obtain licenses to export and pay for each shipment of goods from the United States seemed steep. But supply would still flow.
What Roosevelt had not anticipated was the mischievous ferret under the cocktail cabinet. The agency responsible for granting such licenses fell that summer to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson.
The disruptive Acheson, against state department advice, withheld approval for licenses to Japan to pay for goods in dollars. This was made more onerous by the fact that the US dollar was Japan’s only medium of international exchange after the German invasion of the Soviet Union.  The supply effectively dried up, targeting key Japanese vulnerabilities outlined by various studies done by the Economic Control Administration.
A cocksure, hardline Acheson was certain that his actions would not provoke in quite the way it did.  “No rational Japanese,” he confidently surmised, “could believe that an attack on us could result in anything but disaster.”
This amounted to, in the words of financial historian Edward S. Miller, a conscious and dangerous strategy to bankrupt Japan, a change from an initial “patchwork of export restrictions to full-blooded financial warfare”. It was the sort of economic belligerence that had its ultimate realisation in the attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7 that year.
There are natural differences between the context of 1941, which saw Japan snaking relentlessly through Asia, and 2017, which sees a contained nuclear armed midget facing a bellicose superpower.  What remain are the ingredients of desperation, and the assumption that reason shall prevail between the players.
Historical analogies do offer useful illustrations, even if superficial. The one that stands out here is not only that threats of war can loose their edge of pantomime.  (Will you really fire the first shot?)  To forcibly cut off a state from its lifelines, to render it an economic invalid, can also be tantamount to a declaration of conflict, a form of begging, in fact, for war.

Australian governments knew about the dangers of airforce fire-fighting foam for decades

Patrick Davies

Thousands of Australian residents living near military airbases have potentially cancerous toxins in their blood. The compounds—PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid)—which are used in fire-fighting foam, have been found at dangerous levels in water supplies near Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases.
Residents known to have been affected by PFOS and PFOA live near bases in Townsville and Oakey in Queensland, Williamtown in New South Wales, Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory, and in Perth, Western Australia. A Defence Department report late last year revealed that drinking water at the Townsville RAAF Base contained PFOS at 307 times the acceptable safe limit and PFOA 12 times the limit.
Australian and international studies have raised concerns about the impact of these chemicals on human health for almost two decades. However, consecutive federal Liberal-National and Labor governments allowed their use and are now refusing to provide any meaningful financial assistance to residents impacted by the poisons.
Aqueous Film Forming Foam, which was first produced by the giant 3M Corporation and marketed as 3M light water in 1964, is used in aviation firefighting applications and training exercises.
In 2000, the company began phasing out production of foam containing PFOS and PFAS. The decision followed negotiations with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in the US and revelations that the compounds had entered the bloodstream of the general population. International bodies, such as the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, also said PFOS and PFOA are potentially dangerous to human health and highly persistent in the natural environment.
In 2003, Australia’s industrial chemicals regulator, the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), warned against any unnecessary use of PFOA and PFOS foam. The following year, the Defence Department claimed it would phase out the material.
At Williamtown, near Newcastle, where PFOS and PFOA chemicals were detected in the soil and waterways in 2012, 400 residents have begun a class action lawsuit against the Defence Department. Residents living in a designated “red zone”—i.e., in close proximity to the contaminations—have been advised by health authorities not to drink bore water or eat home-grown vegetables or eggs from chickens, and there are fishing bans in nearby waterways.
Despite the gradual withdrawal of the material, governments have downplayed the health consequences of its use. Defence and health officials continue to insist there is “no scientific evidence” PFOA and PFOS have adverse effects on human health. These statements fly in the face of the evidence.
The C8 science panel of leading epidemiologists in the US surveyed over 69,000 exposed people in 2005–2006 and found probable links between PFOA in drinking water and ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol.
No exhaustive studies prove beyond doubt the health risks, but there is more than enough evidence available to warrant extreme caution and adopt measures to reduce exposure.
In Williamtown, children living in the “red zone” have been found to have significant levels of PFOS in their blood. At least 24 people who have lived or spent significant time in the “red zone” on Cabbage Tree Road near the Williamtown airbase have been diagnosed with cancer. On two properties either side of a small drain, five people have developed cancer since 2009.
Some 450 people from Oakey, near Toowoomba, are also taking legal action. In 2010, an area surrounding the Army Aviation Centre was found to be contaminated. Local bore water and farmland have been rendered unusable.
A Senate inquiry was initiated in late 2015 by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, designed to serve as a safety-valve for the frustration and anger of victims.
Submissions to the inquiry called for the development of national standards and regulatory mechanisms, compensation for residents and workers and the acquisition of devalued properties. The inquiry's recommendations are non-binding.
During last year’s national election campaign, the Turnbull government announced $55 million in funds for “managing the environmental impacts and investigating the potential health effects of the chemicals.” This pittance will provide little assistance to those poisoned by the foam. The government offered “business hardship payments” for local fishermen but these are capped at just $25,000 and only if the waterways used to earn a living remain shut.
By contrast, the Williamtown air base last year received $360 million for capital works to host the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) war planes. The total allocated for the JSF program so far is $12.4 billion.
Katherine and Darwin are the latest communities involved. Last month, major water restrictions were imposed in Katherine because of PFAS in the local water. The town of 10,000 is close to the Tindal RAAF base. This is the first time a town's water supply has been restricted as a result of PFAS contamination.
While the government offered free blood testing to some residents around Williamtown and Oakey, it has refused to do the same in Katherine, saying further investigations are needed.
In Darwin, recent research conducted by the University of Queensland in Rapid Creek and Ludmilla revealed that of the fish and crustacean specimens sampled, 91 percent contained PFOA and 100 percent contained PFOS.
Although the seafood is deemed “safe for human consumption,” the study did not consider human exposure to any other possible sources of contamination, such as groundwater or local produce. When combined, this could place individuals at risk.
The primary concern of federal and state governments, Liberal-National and Labor alike, is not the health of residents but the impact of compensation and relocation costs on their budgets.
The Senate inquiry and an associated $12.5 million health study are cynical attempts to keep the mounting anger over the contamination within the parliamentary framework. At the same time, the Turnbull government, backed by Labor, has introduced new laws that will create more toxic chemical disasters.
In the name of cutting “red tape,” the government tabled legislation last month that will slash industrial chemical regulation standards and allow companies to “self-assess” whether new chemicals threaten public health and the environment.
Last financial year, more than 10,000 new chemicals were examined by NICNAS. Under the proposed measure, NICNAS would assess only 0.75 per cent of new chemicals.

Deaths of children in government care skyrocket in Canada

Riksen Stewart 

There is nothing so heinous as a government failing to support its most vulnerable citizens: young children. Yet due to government neglect and chronic underfunding of critical social services, the number of deaths and critical injuries of children in foster care in Canada has steadily risen in recent years.
In British Columbia alone, deaths of children in care jumped from 72 in 2008 to 120 last year, while critical injuries skyrocketed from 120 to 741. In Alberta, within the span of 14 years between 1999 and 2013, 741 children died while in care or while receiving child welfare services. Since 2013, another 71 children have died. These deaths and injuries result from suicide attempts, overdoses, sexual and physical abuse. But they are only the tip of the iceberg, as a far larger number of young children in care suffer emotional and psychological damage.
The childcare crisis is rooted in the unwillingness of Canadian governments to provide proper funding for social services and, more generally, in capitalist society’s treatment of poor working class and, especially, indigenous families.
At the end of 2016 there were more than 10,000 children receiving child intervention services in Alberta, with more than 7,000 children in the care of the province. According to Statistics Canada, indigenous children made up 73 percent of those in government care, although Alberta’s indigenous people comprise only 6 percent of the province’s population. This is a pattern replicated across Canada, with indigenous children making up 48 percent of all children in foster care, even though indigenous children age 14 or under represent just 7 percent of all children in this age group.
Despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promises of equal treatment for indigenous people, the living conditions within indigenous communities are deplorable. Per capita funding for education, health care and other basic services on native reservations, where poverty is generally endemic and many lack access to proper housing and safe drinking water, remains far below the Canadian norm.
Successive governments at the federal and provincial level have starved indigenous communities of funding for physical and mental health services, resulting in suicide and drug addiction rates that are twice as high as in non-indigenous communities, and six to 11 times higher than the general population among Inuit people. All these factors lead to an increasing number of children being forced into government care.
Most in government care are placed with foster parents who, according to Wayne MacFarlane, president of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Foster Families, receive a stipend of between $600 and $1,400 per month per child to look after them.
Governments have consistently failed to provide foster parents and those in their care with adequate psychological, educational and therapeutic support, although many of the children have lived through traumatic experiences of abuse and neglect. Foster families are thus left to cope as best they can with complex care needs—needs which they are ill-equipped to manage.
While the stipends paid foster parents are tax-free, they are provided no additional benefits or assistance with paying for holidays for either themselves or those in their care.
The tragic results of this state neglect have been illustrated by a number of high-profile, tragic cases. Serenity was a 4-year-old girl who died in foster care in Alberta. At the time of her death, she weighed just 19 pounds and had suffered severe brain trauma along with significant physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her foster parents. Two years on, no charges have been laid and six other children who were living in the same home as Serenity have been allowed to remain there.
In Ontario, the deaths of three First Nations children in foster care over several months late in 2016 and at the beginning of this year prompted the Ontario Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth to indict the government for reinforcing the legacy of Canada’s residential schools, under which thousands of indigenous children died after being removed from their families and many more suffered abuse.
The chronic underfunding of social services is exacerbated by a shortage of foster parents. In 2016, the Canadian Foster Family Association declared that the nationwide shortage had reached a crisis point.
Governments often respond to this shortage by housing children and teenagers in group homes or motels, many of which are inappropriate for the purpose.
An example of this is the fate of 18-year-old Alex Gervais, who was placed in a BC motel after his group home was closed and ended up jumping through a four-story window. The teenager had been housed at the motel in virtual isolation for 49 days prior to his suicide. In BC at one point last year, there were upwards of 117 foster children being housed in cut-rate hotels and motels.
For years, Gervais had been shunted from one care-giver to another—a story all too typical for children in government care in Canada. In the last 11 years of his life, Gervais had lived in 17 different placements under the watch of 23 different social workers and caregivers. According to a report from British Columbia’s acting “Representative for Children and Youth,” Gervais suffered “profound neglect,” and was unable to form lasting attachments with foster caregivers or support staff.
In some cases children’s aid societies return children in foster care to a member or members of their biological families, after they secure proper housing and meet various tests, such as following parenting classes and entering substance-abuse programs. However, there is very little ongoing support or assistance for the biological parents after their children have been returned to them, even though they are generally among the most socially vulnerable and frequently have to work through complex personal and psychological issues.
The terrible fate of Alex Gervais is also indicative of the prospects facing children in government care once they reach the age of 18, when all sources of government child-assistance are abruptly cut off. Due to the deterioration of social conditions under capitalism and the lack of educational support and decent employment, 60 percent of young people aged 20 to 24 in Canada are forced to live at home with their supporting parents.
Lacking family support and deprived of all government assistance at the young age of 18, “in-care” children usually end up fending for themselves on the street upon attaining adulthood. This results in myriad additional social problems, such as drug addiction, homelessness, and crime. In BC, 41 percent of young adults who previously lived under government care have been involved with the criminal justice system.
The high rates of indigenous children in foster care contribute to higher percentages of native people incarcerated. Twenty-four percent of federal prison inmates have an indigenous background, an increase of 84 percent since 2003. The current public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is also examining the link between foster care and the disproportionate exposure of indigenous women to sexual trafficking, violence, and murder.

What is behind the 57-hour San Diego/Tijuana border closure and renovation?

Norisa Diaz 

The US General Services Administration is planning a 57-hour border closure and expansion at the US/Mexico San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego, California later this month. From 3 a.m. Saturday, September 23 until noon on Monday, September 25, all southbound car traffic into Tijuana will be halted.
The closure is expected to affect tens of thousands of immigrant families at the busiest border crossing in the world. Over the long weekend traffic is to be redirected to the Otay Mesa crossing, a port of entry some 10 miles away which has far less capacity.
The closure is part of a larger $741 million border renovation which is scheduled for completion in 2019. The September renovations involve a realignment and expansion of Interstate 5 southbound freeway lanes, which will double from five to 10, directing traffic from San Diego’s San Ysidro port into Mexico’s El Chaparral Port of Entry. Additionally, eight northbound vehicle inspection lanes will be added to San Ysidro, resulting in a total of 33 northbound lanes. The multiyear expansion will also include an additional 22-lane pedestrian inspection facility.
The San Ysidro Port of Entry is the busiest land border crossing in the world, with San Diego-Tijuana border region trade representing a $231 billion economy with over 5 million residents and nearly 2 million workers. Three hundred sixty-five days a year, 70,000 passenger vehicles, 20,000 pedestrians, and 4,000 commercial trucks cross back and forth.
Every day nearly 1 million people cross the US-Mexico border in both directions at 48 entry points along the nearly 2,000-mile-long border that extends along the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
The multiyear expansion is backed by the region’s top binational business leaders and politicians, including San Diego’s Republican mayor Kevin Faulconer and Tijuana mayor Juan Manuel Gastelum (PAN). Both mayors are involved in the advocacy group, Smart Border Coalition (SBC), which also includes top representatives from the real estate, manufacturing, health care, technology, solar energy, higher education, retail and telecommunications industries.
The expansion is being hailed by the Tijuana and San Diego media as a long overdue solution to the long border waits that workers and their families must tack on to the beginning and end of their day. Waits average two hours for each crossing, while nearly every commuter reports the occasional three- to four-hour wait time. The border dominates and divides all aspects of life from work and school to leisure activities, retail and groceries. Most K-12 grade schools along the border start closer to 9 a.m. to account for crossing time.
However, the border renovations are in no way directed at improving the quality of life of the working people and families who are burdened by it daily, but are directed at facilitating the smoother flow of capital and labor to be more efficiently exploited by multinational corporations.
Leaders of the SBC wrote in a San Diego Union Tribune opinion piece, “We are a constellation of powerful industries in a productive cross-border partnership. In Tijuana, we showcase the world’s largest medical device cluster and Mexico’s top aerospace, electronics and defense clusters, many of which have administration and operations facilities on the US side of the border. There are nearly 600 export manufacturing plants and 50 contract manufacturing options meeting world-class quality standards within a 15-mile radius south of the San Ysidro port of entry ...”
Revealing the true nature of the border expansion, they write, “From a purely commercial perspective, our borders are America’s cash registers. All exports and imports must pass through them. No place else in the US, however, could make their customers wait in line every day for two hours and stay in business.”
The coalition cites a San Diego Association of Governments’ study, “Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border,” which outlines that border traffic is estimated to cost corporations $6 billion annually in gross output.
What is meant by a “Smart” border is one that allows for higher traffic volumes while beefing up security measures and further militarizing Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The industries and corporations lobbying for a “Smart” border are the very ones who benefit from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which went into effect July 1, 1989 to open up the markets of Canada and Mexico to US and foreign investors.
NAFTA is currently being renegotiated at the request of the Trump administration and in July of this year Congressional testimony was heard from corporations invested in the “modernization” of NAFTA for a “21st Century NAFTA.”
Having greatly benefited from the agreement, the corporate leaders requested that updates to NAFTA go much deeper in providing unbridled market access, that the US government must do more to curb practices that give state-owned firms access to more markets, and emphasized that borders be made cheaper and easier to cross for the export of goods and services, including e-commerce.
Amgad Shehata, senior vice president of Global Borders Policy at United Postal Services (UPS), commented, “Will [the updated] NAFTA open up trade lanes between the three countries? Restrictions, particularly by Mexico, are impacting UPS’s ability to bring American goods to consumers beyond the border. These restrictions add barriers and unnecessary complications and cost to the import-export process for our customers. ... The administration should compel Mexico to lift entirely or, at minimum, raise the defined weight of an express shipment to the internationally recognized 70 kilos.”
Gustavo Pupo-Mayo with the TV Association of Programmers Latin America (TAP) testified:
“As an industry, we are firm believers that the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, should be maintained but strengthened because its current provisions have fallen short of fully and adequately protecting the interest of the US pay television programmers in Mexico represented by TAP. ...”
Albert Zapanta, major general of the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, told Congress: “In 2016 the United States exported $231 billion to Mexico, which is more than it did to the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy combined. And nearly twice as much as it did to China. In agriculture, NAFTA provides the third largest destination for American products and crops. It is also telling to note that the current $500 billion trade gap was created by the relocation of American manufacturing and technology-based business out of the NAFTA partnership.”
The efficiency by which goods and labor can pass through the border is of immense interest to shareholders in the region, particularly within San Diego’s biotechnology, defense, pharmaceutical, software and communications sectors which account for nearly 30 percent of the areas workforce or 400,000 jobs. The largest drone manufacturer in North America, 3D Robotics, operates on both sides of the border to take advantage of the cheaper manufacturing costs in Tijuana.
US-based corporations are seeking even easier access to labor in Mexico, which is on average 40 percent cheaper than in the US with a daily minimum wage of approximately $5 USD. Half of Mexico’s 127 million residents do not earn enough to meet basic needs, while one in five suffers from hunger. Half of Mexico’s children live in poverty and a United Nations study found that 14 percent of children suffer from stunted growth as a result of malnutrition.
A recent study by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL) found that on the other pole of society, the top 10 percent of Mexico’s highest earning families capture two-thirds of the nation’s income.
The need to expedite the flow of labor and capital at the US/Mexico border is yet another expression of the productive forces bursting through the seams of the nation state. Capitalist production has turned the entirety of the world into a single economic organism which continues to be divided up into nation states controlled by competing capitalist elites.
Calls for closed borders or the attempt by the Trump administration to stoke up nationalistic and anti-immigrant sentiment, are a desperate and noxious attempt to keep the working class divided.
Workers have the right to live and work wherever they choose with full citizenship rights, something they are denied under the capitalist system. While the material conditions exist and the conditions for the truly global integration of the economy have been laid, only the fight for a socialist society which unites the working class internationally can bring about such a change.

Study highlights health epidemic: More than one in four US adults is obese

Kayla Costa

Adult obesity rates for 2016 hit over 30 percent in 25 US states, with nearly one in three Americans now obese, according to a recent study. In five states, the average rates topped 35 percent, the highest rates of obesity in the world. These figures are unprecedented in human history and signal a health crisis of global proportions.
These astonishing statistics come from a report by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which analyzed public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The top five states for obesity rates include Louisiana at 35.5 percent, Alabama at 35.7 percent, Arkansas at 35.7 percent, Mississippi at 37.3 percent, and West Virginia at 37.7 percent. The mostly Southern states are also some of the poorest, with the most deplorable living conditions for the working class—both rural and urban.
An additional 41 states have rates greater than 25 percent. Only three states—Hawaii, Massachusetts and Colorado—and the District of Columbia have obesity rates below 25 percent. Despite its relative success, Colorado is poised to have the highest growth of obesity in the nation.
The data analysis accounts for rates of obesity, defined as people with a Body Mass Index (BMI) ratio of 30 or greater. BMI values represent a calculation based on a person’s height and weight. Overweight people, or those with BMI ratios between 25 and 30, are not central to the study. Though it should be noted that they make up an additional 30 percent of the total US population, with minimal increases over four decades. Taken as a whole, nearly 70 percent of the US population is either overweight or obese and at risk for a variety of weight-related health issues.
Excessive body fat contributes to a variety of health complications, such as type II diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, cancer, sleep apnea, and depression. People with genetic predispositions for these ailments, or those with preexisting conditions, face much higher risk factors once they become overweight or obese. The Trust for America’s Health report places emphasis on the rising rates of type II diabetes, affecting about one-tenth of the US population and 15 percent of people in the South. The rising frequency and severity of these health issues makes obesity not only a social epidemic, but one of the top preventable causes of death.
Obesity rates have been climbing steadily for the past 40 years. Prior to 1980, the rates of Americans considered overweight or obese remained constant and reflected biological factors more than social inequities. Between 1980 and 2005, the average rate of obesity more than doubled. Within this same period, the percentage of overweight or obese children nearly tripled.
In 2004, a WHO report revealed the central role played by food corporations in advertising, monopolizing, and advocating foods high in fats, refined sugars and sodium. The United States was the only nation to reject the ensuing United Nations resolution for healthier foods, after representatives of corporations such as Birds Eye, Coca-Cola, Del Monte and Heinz successfully pressured the government to back their pseudo-science and claims of individual “choice” and slovenliness as the key causes of obesity.
According to OpenSecrets.org, agribusiness spent $127,492,310 to lobby the US Congress in 2016, including $26,503,856 to lobby on behalf of food processing and sales. Alongside the corporate dominance within the food and agricultural industries, general economic and social inequality has dramatically increased.
As many obesity reports indicate, obesity disproportionately affects poor and working class communities. These populations typically lack access to nutritious food, recreational areas for exercise, youth programs in public schools, free time, and quality health care—which are among the top factors contributing to obesity. The poorest members of society, who face greater risks of obesity and health issues, are simultaneously restricted from receiving quality health care and public services, exacerbating the inequalities even further.
Though obesity rates are highest in the United States, the problem is increasingly global. One report, published in June by the New England Journal of Medicine, estimates that one-third of the world’s population is either overweight or obese. Just like in the United States, the burden falls to members of the poor and working classes of more advanced countries, who lack access to nutritious food, recreation, and preventive health care.
It is accepted by growing numbers of medical professionals that high rates of obesity cannot simply be reduced to a lack of self-control. As with many other epidemics, this is a social issue. As the political system gives free rein to private interests and increases the financialization of the economy, it seeks to violently suppress the working class by carrying out a counterrevolution against democratic rights and living standards. Obesity and its contributing factors are bound up with these capitalist processes.
With every new study on the health of American people, health research groups and scholars offer solutions to both help those with obesity and prevent others from getting to that point. The authors of this study suggest greater investment in public health and education sectors, hoping to pressure government and corporate leaders as “the obesity crisis costs our nation more than $150 billion in health care costs annually and billions of dollars more in lost productivity.” They also point to the impact on state forces, noting that obesity is the number one reason for disqualification from military service.
Such recommendations will fall on deaf ears. In the past six months alone, the US government has shown its lack of desire and ability to address public health issues. In the health care “debate” in Washington, key targets are the widely popular Medicare and Medicaid programs, which have played a key role over the last half-century in improving the health and life expectancy of Americans. These processes are now being reversed.
At the same time, public schools face continual budget cuts that greatly diminish the resources for health and recreation programs. Between 2007 and 2009, local school districts witnessed more than $2 billion in cuts to after-school programs. The most recent budget proposal by the Trump administration includes $1.5 billion in cuts to after-school and summer programs, $100 billion to public schools overall, and $2.5 billion to food stamps.
The obesity epidemic is one of the many social crises facing the working class in twenty-first century America. The demands for a healthy environment, accessible and nutritious food, quality education and health care come into conflict with the private interests of food corporations, giant agricultural industries, and their representatives in the US government. The obesity crisis can only be confronted through the defense of health care, access to healthy foods, recreational opportunities and education as social rights, addressed by a workers’ government that places the health interests of the vast majority over the financial interests of the wealthy elite.