19 Sept 2017

UN General Assembly convenes under shadow of war

Bill Van Auken

President Donald Trump delivers his first speech to the United Nations today as the 72nd session of its General Assembly convenes in New York City under the shadow of war.
Little more than a week ago, UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres warned that the escalating conflict on the Korean peninsula resembled the events that led to the outbreak of the First World War over a century ago, implicitly raising the prospect of the world sliding into a nuclear third world war.
The American president, who during his “America First” presidential election campaign pointedly denounced the United Nations, appeared briefly at UN headquarters Monday for a forum on “reforming” the international body. He introduced his prepared remarks, which derided the UN for “bureaucracy and mismanagement,” by touting one of his real estate projects, the Trump World Tower, located across the street from the UN, saying that the building’s proximity to the UN had made it more profitable.
By “reform,” Trump means slashing spending. Earlier this year, administration officials suggested reducing the US contribution to the UN by half. The US president complained in his remarks about having to shoulder “a disproportionate share of the burden.” Washington’s annual contribution to the UN is roughly one-tenth of what it spent last year on its 16-year neocolonial war in Afghanistan.
The United Nations was established 72 years ago largely at the initiative of the United States, which emerged from the Second World War as the indisputably dominant imperialist power. At the time, this dominance was based not merely on military might, but above all on American capitalism’s unrivaled industrial strength and Wall Street’s unquestioned dominance over the affairs of world finance capital.
The UN was created as part of a global system designed to further American imperialist hegemony, which included the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and various global and regional alliances and trade organizations.
Written into the UN’s Charter were the so-called Nuremberg principles derived from the post-World War II trials of the surviving leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich, which made “crimes against peace,” i.e., aggressive war, the greatest war crime. The first sentence of the founding document of the UN declares that its purpose is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
That principle has been reduced to rhetorical window-dressing by Washington’s uninterrupted wars of aggression carried out over the past quarter-century, as the American ruling class increasingly relied on its military supremacy to offset the erosion of its global economic position.
In the person of Donald Trump, the ugly end product of American capitalism’s protracted decline—the rise of financial parasitism and the criminality of American militarism—is rising to the General Assembly’s podium on Tuesday. Trump will address the body under conditions where US imperialism is literally holding a gun to the head of humanity.
In advance of his appearance at the UN, his top aides issued multiple statements affirming that Washington is prepared to make good on the US president’s threat to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against North Korea. The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, warned in a television interview Sunday that “North Korea will be destroyed” if the US has “to defend itself or defend its allies in any way.”
She affirmed that Washington had “exhausted all the things we could do at the [UN] Security Council,” adding: “We wanted to be responsible and go through all diplomatic means to get their attention first. If that doesn’t work, General Mattis will take care of it.” She was referring to the US defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who has threatened North Korea with “total annihilation.”
Similarly, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated Sunday that “If our diplomatic efforts fail… our military option will be the only one left.” And Trump’s national security advisor, Gen. H.R. McMaster, asked whether the US president “will strike” North Korea if it fails to give up its nuclear weapons, replied, “He’s been very clear about that, that all options are on the table.”
Amid these bellicose threats, American warplanes have carried out their most provocative exercises yet, with B-1B nuclear bombers and F-35 fighter jets flying Monday from Guam and Japan to drop bombs near North Korea’s border.
While placing the threat of a nuclear confrontation on the Korean peninsula on a hair trigger, Washington is also seeking to ratchet up tensions with Iran, with the aim of provoking a military confrontation with a country it sees as the main regional obstacle to its drive for hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East.
Trump and top administration officials have made repeated statements in recent days indicating that the US administration will refuse to certify that Iran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), with the October 15 deadline for it to report to Congress approaching. Such a refusal would open the door to new rounds of unilateral American sanctions against Tehran. Prior to agreeing to the deal, Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama warned that the only alternative to the agreement was war.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the other major powers that are signatories to the agreement have all acknowledged that Iran is in full compliance with its restrictions on its nuclear program and the IAEA’s intrusive inspections regime, US officials have asserted that Tehran is violating the “spirit” of the agreement. By this they mean that Iran has failed to submit to the undisputed dominance of US imperialism over the entire Middle East.
Notably absent from the opening of the UN General Assembly are both Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping of China. Whether they chose not to make the trip to New York because they believed there was nothing to be gained in a face-to-face meeting with Trump, or because they feared that it would be dangerous to leave their capitals given the state of global tensions, is not known.
The US confrontation with North Korea is bound up with far broader strategic aims of US imperialism for domination of the Eurasian land mass, in which Washington regards both China and Russia as obstacles.
Even as US warplanes were carrying out their provocative bombing runs near the North Korean border, China and Russia were conducting naval exercises off the Russian far eastern port of Vladivostok, not far from the Russia-North Korea border.
In Eastern Europe, Russia, on the one hand, and NATO and Sweden—acting together with the US, France and other countries—on the other, are staging rival war games in Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltics in preparation for a potential military confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Syrian government forces backed by Russian air power and Iranian-backed militias, and US-backed Kurdish-dominated militias have advanced on the strategic eastern city of Deir Ezzor from opposite sides of the Euphrates River, heightening the threat of a military confrontation that could draw in both Washington and Moscow.
The UN General Assembly proceedings this week will only heighten the danger of one or more of these regional conflicts triggering a global conflagration. There exists no means of ending war outside of the overthrow of the profit system that is its source.

18 Sept 2017

Commonwealth Government Scholarships for Masters & PhD 2018/2019 at University of Newcastle Australia

Application Deadline: 16th February 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): University of Newcastle, Australia
About the Award: Full-time research students are eligible to apply for University and Commonwealth Government scholarships, which are awarded during one main round offer. They provide a living allowance so you can commit to full-time study. Historically over 90% of international students hold a scholarship from UON or a sponsor.
Type: Masters, PhD
Selection Criteria: Scholarships are granted on the basis of academic merit, which includes your undergraduate grade point average and extra research attainments.
Eligibility: To be eligible for scholarship candidate must:
  • written statement of support from a UON supervisor
  • an satisfy the English proficiency requirement (IELTS of at least 6.5, 7.0 in some disciplines)
  • met admission eligibility criteria
  • be no more than two full-time equivalent years into their PhD (or one year for Masters) at the scholarship closing date in which you are applying.
Successful international scholarship candidates usually also have:
  • A master degree with strong research component
  • International peer reviewed research publication or research experience
Number of Scholarships: Several
Value of Scholarship: A scholarship funded by the University of Newcastle or the Commonwealth Government provides:
  • An annual living allowance $26, 682 per annum (2017 rate – indexed annually)
The scholarship may also include:
  • a relocation allowance (up to $1,500)
  • a full tuition fee scholarship
  • overseas student health cover (OSHC) (international students and their dependents)
Duration of Scholarship: PhD scholarships are for three years and Masters scholarships are for two years, less any tenure already completed towards a research degree.
How to Apply
  • Currently enrolled candidates can apply for a scholarship by contacting researchscholarships[@]newcastle.edu.au
  • New applicants can apply for a scholarship at the same time as applying for admission.
Sponsors: The University of Newcastle and Commonwealth Government
Important Notes: ensure you attach the following documents to support your scholarship application:
  • Copies of research publications, exhibitions or conference papers
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • Details of previous research experience e.g. research work experience / study
  • Any additional documents that may add to your scholarship application e.g. evidence of the award of a University Medal

International Reporting Project (IRP) Group Reporting Fellowship to Senegal 2017

Application Deadline: 24th September 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): Senegal
About the Award: Senegal, one of Africa’s most prosperous and democratic countries, has enjoyed an economic boom since the late 1990s, primarily reliant on agriculture. Political stability, religious tolerance and rich culture bind together the country’s 15 million citizens, though large segments of the population lack equal access to economic, health and educational resources. Its capital, Dakar, is the western-most point of the African continent, and standards of living vary greatly between the coast and the rural inland communities.
In this context, IRP fellows to Senegal will explore issues that tend to affect women and men differently, including education, infrastructure, agriculture and health. We will especially focus on the advancement of women’s rights and lingering inequities.
Fellows on the 10-day reporting trip will look at these issues and many more in Senegal, and possibly spend a few days in neighboring Gambia. We will meet with key government leaders, representatives of non-governmental organizations, members of the education and health communities, religious and media leaders, and others.
All fellows on the trip are required to participate in the sessions arranged for the group program. Much of the value of a group reporting trip comes from a combination of IRP-arranged meetings and the interactions the fellows have with each other. Some independent reporting time will be included in the schedule. However, if you prefer to have more flexibility in your reporting schedule, we strongly encourage you to extend your trip or to apply for our individual reporting fellowships instead.
All stories produced by the fellows will be re-posted on the IRP site after publication and co-owned by the fellow (or his/her distribution partners, depending on arrangements) and the IRP. In addition, the work produced as a result of the trip may be posted on the social media channels of the IRP funders. This trip is supported by a grant from the Foundation for a Just Society (FJS).
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • This trip is open to experienced, full-time journalists and media professionals, including print and online journalists, writers, photographers, videographers, data journalists, social media producers and others.
  • This trip is not open to students. Citizens of all countries are eligible.
  • This is a working trip, and participants are expected to produce stories and/or other reported content in the form articles, slideshows, video, audio, blog posts, infographics, social media posts and more.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The IRP will purchase the fellows’ round-trip air tickets to Senegal and will pay for visas, hotel costs, local transportation and most meals. Fellows who wish to extend their stay after the fellowship will have the option to arrange that at their own expense.
Duration of Program: 10 days
How to Apply: All candidates must complete an application form, including a detailed essay of at least 800 words describing the types of stories they might pursue in Senegal and which outlets may publish their work.
Award Providers: International Reporting Project (IRP)

Solomon Mahlangu Scholarship Fund for Young South Africans 2018

Application Deadline: 
  • Applications (online and manual) for the 2018 academic year will open on 18th September 2017.
  • Applications close on the 15th December 2017 (for postal/email applications) and the 16th January 2018 for online applications.
Eligible Countries: South Africa
To be taken at (country): South Africa
Eligible Field of Study: Full-time degrees that fall within the priority growth sectors, critical and scarce skills areas outlined in the labour planning framework of the country.Full-time degrees that fall within the priority growth sectors, critical and scarce skills areas outlined in the labour planning framework of the country.
About the Award: In its quest to address the challenge of youth unemployment, access to education, among many other challenges, the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) changed its core business to focus on education and skills development as the organisation’s main priority. This move was informed by studies which suggested that salary remains the main source of income for young South Africans.
The Solomon Mahlangu scholarship fund was established in honour of Solomon Kalushi Mahlangu who at the age of 23, was executed under the apartheid laws after being wrongfully accused of murder and terrorism. Fearing crowd reaction at the funeral, police decided to bury Mahlangu in Atteridgeville, Pretoria.
The scholarship fund is designed to create an environment for affording youth with excellent academic background, an opportunity to further their studies. Financial support will be provided to youth who pursue full time degrees that fall within the priority growth sectors, critical and scarce skills areas outlined in the labor planning frameworks of the country.

The fund will be accessible to deserving South African youth who meet the minimum entry requirements set by the NYDA and, who have been admitted for study at public Universities and Universities of Technology
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: 
  • Students must be applying for admission to one of the public universities as a 1st year full-time student in a priority study (see above).
  • High school learners who plan to attend one of the public universities or university of technology after completing the National Senior Certificate
  • Must meet University Admission Points Score (APS) and achieve an average of 70% in the NSC exams
  • Must be South African citizens between 14 – 35
  • Financial neediness – combined household salary of less than R15 000 a month
  • Reside in rural/semi-rural areas
Number of Awardees: 150
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Tuition
  • Accommodation
  • Meals
  • Study Books
Duration of Scholarship: The Solomon Mahlangu Scholarship is awarded for the duration of studies
How to Apply: 
  • CLICK HERE for online application.
  • CLICK HERE to download application form for postal/email applications
  • It is the responsibility of the applicant to fully complete the online application form.
Award Provider: National Youth Development Agency (NYDA)
Important Notes: 
  • Application does not automatically mean acceptance; a selection will be made of students to be covered by the scholarship programme.  Application does not automatically mean acceptance; a selection will be made of students to be covered by the scholarship programme.
  • NO late applications will be considered.

PEO International Peace Scholarships for Women to Study in USA and Canada 2018/2019

Application Timeline: 
  • Application Opens: 15th September, 2017
  • Application closes: 15th December, 2017
  • March 1, 2018: Last day to submit completed application materials from applicants already enrolled in the graduate program and school for which their scholarship is intended.
  • April 1, 2018: Last day to submit completed application materials from applicants not yet enrolled in the graduate program or school for which the scholarship is intended. Last day to submit completed application materials for applicants who will be attending Cottey College
  • May 2018: Notification of scholarship awards
  • June 1, 2018: Last day for students to accept IPS scholarships
Offered Annually: Yes
About the Award: Members of P.E.O. believe that education is fundamental to world peace and understanding. The scholarship is based upon demonstrated need; however, the award is not intended to cover all academic or personal expenses.
Eligibility and Criteria
  • An applicant must be qualified for admission to full-time graduate study and working toward a graduate degree in an accredited college or university in the united States or canada.
  • A student who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States or Canada is not eligible.
  • Scholarships are not given for research, internships, or practical training, unless it is combined with coursework. Awards are not to be used to pay past debts.
  • In order to qualify for her first scholarship, an applicant must have a full year of coursework remaining, be enrolled and in residence for the entire school year.
  • Doctoral students who have completed coursework and are working only on dissertations are not eligible as first-time applicants.
  • international students attending cottey college are eligible to apply for a scholarship.
Scholarship Worth
  • The maximum amount awarded to a student is $12,500. Lesser amounts may be awarded according to individual needs.
  • The scholarship is based upon demonstrated financial need; however, the award is not intended to cover all academic or personal expenses. At the time of application, the applicant is required to confirm additional financial resources adequate to meet her estimated expenses. Additional resources may include personal and family funds, tuition waivers, work scholarships, teaching assistantships, study grants and other scholarships.
  • Awards are announced in May. The amount of the PEO International scholarship will be divided into two payments to be distributed in August and December
Application Guideline and Procedures
  • Information concerning the international peace Scholarship program is available from the P.E.O. Executive Office or from the website at peointernational.org.
  • Eligibility must be established before application material is made available. Eligibility information and application deadlines can be found at any time on the P.E.O. website.
  • Information concerning admission to Cottey college may be obtained by writing to the coordinator of Admissions, Cottey College, Nevada, Missouri 64772, or visit them at cottey.edu.
Awards are announced in May. The amount of the scholarship will be divided into two payments to be distributed in August and December.

DAAD Doctoral Training Scholarship for Ghanaian Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st October, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Ghana
To be taken at (country): Germany
Eligible Field of Study: Science related fields
About the Award: The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Scholarships Secretariat is inviting applications from Ghanaian students to pursue doctoral training programme.
Type: PhD
Eligibility: 
  • Must be a Ghanaian citizen resident in Ghana.
  • Must be a teaching staff of a Public or accredited private Tertiary University or Polytechnic.
  • Be a first Degree holder with 2nd Class Upper division or First Class
  • Must hold Masters degree equivalent to B+ grade or above
  • Should have a National Service certificate
  • The Masters degree generally should not be more than six (6) years at the last time of graduation.
  • Should not be more than 45 years
  • Should be willing to learn the German Language
Number of Awardees: Not stated
Value of Scholarship: These grants are normally offered within the scope of:
a) Research Grants for Doctoral Candidates and Young Academics and Scientists
d) Summer course grants
Duration of Scholarship: 3 Years
How to Apply:  The candidates shall submit a complete application consisting of:
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • Research proposal (not more than 10 pages) including a detailed time table.
  • Should have secured admission with a recognized German University and develop research proposal with a would-be German Supervisor.
Interested applicants should submit their applications and the above mentioned requirements to the address indicated below not later than 31st October, 2017.
 THE REGISTRAR
SCHOLARSHIPS SECRETARIAT
P. O. BOX M. 75
ACCRA
Award Provider: DAAD, Ghana Ministry of Education
Important Notes: Please NOTE that only shortlisted applicants would be contacted.

Government of Germany DAAD Scholarships for Artists and Filmmakers (Fully-funded) 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st October 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
To Be Taken At (Country): Germany         
Type: Short courses/Training
Eligibility: As a rule, scholarships for attendance of a course of extension studies are awarded to applicants who have exhausted the training possibilities available to them in their home country and have – as far as possible – concluded these studies with an appropriate degree. No more than six years should generally have passed between the time when they gained their degree and the time of this application.
Applicants who have been residents in Germany for longer than one year at the time of application cannot be considered.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The DAAD will pay a monthly scholarship of 750 Euros. As a rule, the scholarship additionally includes certain payments towards health insurance cover in Germany. In addition, the DAAD generally will pay an appropriate flat-rate travel allowance, unless these costs are covered by the home country or by another funding source. Furthermore, the DAAD will pay a study allowance and, where appropriate, a rent subsidy and family allowance.
Duration of Program: Study scholarships are generally awarded for one academic year. In individual cases and upon application, scholarships may be extended.
How to Apply: 
  • Applications need to be submitted online.
  • In addition,special leaflets for the fields of Fine Art, Design and Film, for Music and for Drama, Direction, Dance and Choreography provide information on aspects such as the work samples (portfolio) which applicants need to submit.
  • The DAAD will not consider incomplete applications!
Award Providers: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

World Citizenship Is More Popular Than You Might Think

Lawrence S. Wittner

Has nationalism captured the hearts and minds of the world’s people?
It certainly seems to have emerged as a powerful force in recent years.  Trumpeting their alleged national superiority and hatred of foreigners, political parties on the far right have made their biggest political advances since the 1930s.  After the far right’s startling success, in June 2016, in getting a majority of British voters to endorse Brexit―British withdrawal from the European Union (EU)―even mainstream conservative parties began to adopt a chauvinist approach.  Using her Conservative Party conference to rally support for leaving the EU, British Prime Minister Theresa May declared contemptuously: “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.”
The tilt toward an aggressive nationalism was particularly evident in the United States, where Donald Trump―amid chants of “USA, USA” from his fervent supporters―promised to “make America great again” by building a wall to block Mexicans, barring the entry of Muslims to the United States, and expanding U.S. military might.  Following his surprise election victory, Trump told a rally in December 2016:  “There is no global anthem.  No global currency.  No certificate of global citizenship.  We pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag.”  After wild cheering from the crowd, he added: “From now on it is going to be:  America First.  Okay?  America first.  We’re going to put ourselves first.”
But the nationalists suffered some major setbacks in 2017.  In elections that March in the Netherlands, the xenophobic Party for Freedom, though given a chance at victory by political pundits, was soundly defeated.  Much the same happened in France, where, that May, a political newcomer, Emmanuel Macron, trounced Marine Le Pen, the candidate of the far right National Front, in an election for the presidency by a 2-to-1 vote.  A month later, in parliamentary elections, Macron’s new party and its allies won 350 seats in the 577-member National Assembly, while the National Front won only 9.  In Britain, Theresa May, confident that her new, hard line on Brexit and divisions in the opposition Labour Party would produce huge gains for her Conservative Party, called for a snap election in June.  But, to the shock of observers, the Tories lost seats, as well as their parliamentary majority.  Meanwhile, in the United States, Trump’s policies produced a vast wave of public resistance, his approval ratings in opinion polls sank to levels unprecedented for a new President, and he was forced to purge Steve Bannon―the top nationalist ideologue in his election campaign and in his administration―from the White House.
Although a variety of factors contributed to the nationalist defeats, widespread internationalist views certainly played a role.  During Macron’s presidential campaign, he repeatedly assailed the narrow-minded nationalism of the National Front, projecting instead an internationalist vision of a united Europe with open borders.  In Britain, May’s fervent support for Brexit backfired among the public, especially internationally-minded youth.
Indeed, over the centuries cosmopolitan values have become a strong current in public opinion.  They are usually traced to Diogenes, a philosopher of Classical Greece, who, asked where he came from, replied: “I am a citizen of the world.”  The idea gained increased currency with the spread of Enlightenment thinking.  Tom Paine, considered one of America’s Founding Fathers, took up the theme of a loyalty to all humanity in his Rights of Man (1791), proclaiming:  “My country is the world.”  Similar sentiments were expressed in later years by William Lloyd Garrison (“My country is the world; my countrymen are all mankind”), Albert Einstein, and a host of other globalist thinkers.  After the Second World War brought the nation-state system to the brink of collapse, a massive social movement developed around the idea of “One World,” with world citizenship campaigns and world federalist organizations attaining substantial popularity around the globe.  Although the movement declined with the onset of the Cold War, its core assumption of the primacy of the world community persisted in the form of the United Nations and of worldwide campaigns for peace, human rights, and environmental protection.
As a result, even as a nationalist frenzy has erupted in recent years, opinion surveys have reported a very strong level of support for its antithesis:  world citizenship.  A poll of more than 20,000 people in 18 countries, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC World Service from December 2015 through April 2016, found that 51 percent of respondents saw themselves more as global citizens than as citizens of their own countries.  This was the first time since tracking began in 2001 that a majority felt this way.
Even in the United States, where slightly fewer than half of the respondents identified themselves as global citizens, Trump’s hyper-nationalist campaign attracted only 46 percent of the votes cast for President, thus providing him with almost three million fewer votes than secured by his Democratic opponent.  Furthermore, opinion polls before and since the election revealed that most Americans opposed Trump’s best-known and most vehemently-supported “America First” program―building a border wall between the United States and Mexico.  When it came to immigration issues, a Quinnipiac University survey taken in early February 2017 found that 51 percent of American voters opposed Trump’s executive order suspending travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries, 60 percent opposed suspending all refugee programs, and 70 percent opposed indefinitely barring Syrian refugees from emigrating to the United States.
Overall, then, most people around the world―including most people in the United States―are not zealous nationalists.  In fact, they display a remarkable level of support for moving beyond the nation-state to world citizenship.

Too Late, Mr. Modi

RADHA SURYA

The sightseeing at Ahmedabad’s famous Sidi Saiyyed mosque by Prime Minister Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was carefully choreographed. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his wife planned to visit India to attend the 11th Indo-Japan summit to be held in September.  Government officials had worked around the clock the previous month to ensure that the mosque was displayed to advantage to guests from a developed country.  It was important to ensure that the lighting was just right for a perfect shot of the visitors with the mosque in the background.  That was not all.  PM Modi’s office had contacted the board that ran the mosque for information on the history and architecture of the 16th century structure.  The PM internalized the information and himself served as tour guide when he accompanied his distinguished guest to the mosque.  This was no ordinary mosque.  The iconic edifice has been described as evidence of historical fruition of Gujarat’s multiculturalism, a testimony to Hindu and Muslim cultures coming together in the past to create structures of ever-lasting beauty and significance.
Doubtless PM Modi pulled off an excellent performance in his capacity of tour guide for an edifice that stands as visual evidence of the syncretic nature of India’s cultural heritage.  Presumably Prime Minister Abe was completely taken in.  Introduced by such an affable, articulate and appreciative guide to the exquisite stone lattice work of the mosque and the fabulous tree of life lattice window, the foreign dignitary must have remained unaware that PM Modi had not once visited the mosque as Chief Minister of Gujarat although he had ruled the state from 2002-2014.  The erstwhile Gujarat Chief Minister’s unwillingness to have anything to do with the Sidi Saiyyed mosque is unsurprising.  The trajectory which led to his coronation in 2014 as Prime Minister of India began with his becoming a member early in life of the Hindu supremacist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which was founded in the 1920’s and drew inspiration from the leaders of European fascism and their methods.
The RSS disseminates its own version of Indian history which is fixated on the Muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent that took place early in the second millennium.  A second invasion in 1526 led to the establishment of the Mughal Empire.  The RSS perspective on Indian history generates unremitting hatred that is vented on Muslims of the present day.   In their blindness to the contours of world history through the centuries and entrapment in a narrow-minded time warp, the RSS and its adherents are unable to acknowledge that the erstwhile invaders settled in India and became an integral part of the population.    Hence the big surprise for observers of the anti-Muslim, Hindu chauvinist and supremacist PM Modi lies in his showcasing for the benefit of his distinguished guest a mosque built by the hated “invader.”  Therein lies the rub.
How does one explain this seeming turnaround on the part of PM Modi better known for the politics of polarization on the basis of religious identity, for disregarding the rights and sensitivities of India’s Muslim citizens and for fanning the majority Hindu community’s ordinarily dormant feelings of hatred toward a vulnerable minority?  The answer may lie in the single word lynchistan which has increasingly come to be used in relation to PM Modi’s India.  The term refers to the cold-blooded lynching of innocent and defenseless Muslims by murderous mobs of right-wing extremists.  The first of these killings took place in June 2014 soon after PM Modi was crowned in New Delhi.  At first the killings were few and far between—a lynching here and a lynching there.  For the most part the PM turned a blind eye to the crimes that were being perpetrated on his watch.  The ordinarily eloquent Prime Minister was evasive and less than convincing on the rare occasions when he gave in and condemned the lynchings.
By the time PM Modi had completed his third year in office in May 2017 the maniacal mobs were emboldened by the impunity extended to their hate crimes.  Their blood lust took on an uncontrollable momentum.  Finally the PM spoke in forceful language .  By then the rampaging mobs were familiar with the sadistic pleasures of killing helpless Muslims at will and could not be stopped.  The reputed data intensive web site IndiaSpend has documented that this year alone 34 anti-Muslim hate crimes have been committed so far.  “There were three incidents in 2014, the year Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party won India.  Nine months into 2017, such hate crimes have risen more than 10-fold.”  Not all hate crimes result in murder.  “Lesser” incidents may have such consequences as an old man living in fear, the bones in his hand crushed from a ruthless beating and his home burned to cinders.
India today is a country where Mohammed Akhlaq, Pehlu Khan, Junaid Khan and others too numerous to mention haunt the land and clamor with dumb mouths for a modicum of justice.  Seventeen year old Junaid Khan was stabbed to death in a commuter train as he was returning from Eid shopping in Delhi.  His offence was wearing traditional garb that proclaimed his Muslim identity.  As India is consumed by medieval hatreds, as the ground is stained by the blood of innocent Muslims, believers in Nehruvian and Gandhian India, leftist or liberal, broad-minded, tolerant, democratic, inclusive and justice loving watch in anguish and seek to stem the tide of hatred.  On September 12 they rallied in their thousands in Bengaluru to condemn the murder of the courageous, anti-RSS journalist Gauri Lankesh, the most recent victim of right wing extremism.  Some rushed to staunch the bleeding.  At this time karwan-e-mohabbat (karwanemohabbat.in) or caravan of love led by well-known rights activist and writer Harsh Mander has embarked on a journey that will cover the parts of India that are worst affected by lynchings.  “The major aim of the Karwan will be to visit families which have suffered from lynch attacks to offer our atonement and solidarity.  In each state, we will assess how the family is coping and what they need for livelihoods and the pursuit of justice.”
Saffron is the color of the ruling party Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP.  One can plausibly speculate that the tidal wave of saffron bigotry and saffron terror coursing headlong through India serves as the background against which PM Modi’s visit with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Sidi Saiyyed Mosque can be best understood.  PM Modi’s mental make-up is one in which the quest for modernity co-exists with medieval hatreds and unscientific thinking.  In Israel he woos Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and seeks the latest water purification technology.  In Japan he pursues civil nuclear cooperation.  PM Modi’s “modern” side is also apparent in his attentiveness to his image particularly in the international media.  With the foreign media carrying a spate of stories on lynchings of Muslims and most recently the murder by suspected saffron extremists of Gauri Lankesh, the spunky, irrepressible journalist who had repeatedly condemned RSS ideology and the PM’s politics, India under Modi has become known internationally as a retrograde country where maniacal mobs hold sway and murder with impunity.  In other words the Prime Minister’s image has taken a beating.
With respect to India the PM is on safe ground.  As Assembly elections come up in state after state, the PM will swing into campaign mode and sway the electorate with his usual oratorial tricks.  The electoral dominance of the ruling party will continue to expand across former non-BJP ruled states.  On the domestic front the PM can get away with murder thanks to adroit spin and an ineffective Parliamentary Opposition.  He only has to await his second coronation in 2019.   On the international front on the other hand it is a different story.  Here the PM had best accept that the image battle has been lost.  The stories of mob lynchings have been carried by the leading news media including the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian and others.  No power on earth will scrub the stories from the internet.  It’s too late for an image makeover PM Modi.  You can visit mosques and showcase India’s composite cultural heritage all you want but you cannot hoodwink the correspondents of the international media.  Best to stop trying.

Logging Won’t Stop Wildfires

Chad Hanson & Mike Garrity

A number of politicians have promised to weaken environmental laws and increase logging, supposedly to stop forest fires. Here’s what they aren’t telling you.
Fires, including large fires, are a natural and ecologically necessary part of forests in the Northern Rockies. Dozens of plant and animal species, such as the black-backed Woodpecker, depend upon post-fire habitat—including patches of forest where fire burns hotter and kills most trees—due to the abundance of standing dead trees, downed logs, flowering plants, and natural regeneration of trees, which provide both food and homes for fire-dependent insects and wildlife. In fact, the “snag forest habitat” created by patches of intense fire is comparable to old-growth forest in terms of native biodiversity and wildlife abundance. Fires do not destroy forests, and forests are not “lost” when fires burn; rather, they are restored and rejuvenated.
This year is by no means a record fire year in Montana’s forests. Historically, there was generally more, not less, fire than there is now. Fire is as natural, essential, and inevitable in Montana’s forests as rain, snow, wind, and sun. Given this, there is no sound scientific reason to attempt to further reduce or eliminate fire from these forests, and logging does not lead to that result anyway.
Last year, in the largest analysis of fire intensity and logging ever conducted in Western U.S. conifer forests, scientists found that, in every region, including the Northern Rockies, the forests where the most logging is allowed tended to burn the most intensely, while the most protected forests had overall lower intensity, but still had an ecologically healthy mix of fire intensities.
Proponents of logging claim that, since logging removes trees, it reduces forest density and removes “fuels” from the forest. Not really. The material that allows fires to spread in forests is very small — branches, twigs, and pine needles. Tree trunks are relatively non-combustible. When logging removes trees, it leaves behind flammable “slash debris”, comprised of tree tops and branches that are not usable for lumber. This acts like kindling in forest fires. In addition, by removing much of the forest canopy cover, logging reduces the cooling shade that it otherwise provides, creating hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor, which can allow fire to spread faster.
We need to allow more lightning fires to burn, without trying to suppress them, in more remote forests, while focusing our resources on protecting homes and communities from fire, including creating defensible space around homes and making homes themselves more fire safe.
The truth is that our forests need fire, and will always have it, and no amount of logging will change that. Forest ecosystems are not just live, green mature trees; they are also snags, downed logs, under-story trees, shrubs, and other flowering plants. This complexity is what allows forests to be ecologically healthy. Politicians who tell you that they can stop forest fires with fewer environmental protections and more logging are simply not being honest.

Hurricanes and the Blockade Against Cuba

Manuel E. Yepe

Although the blockade of Cuba officially began on February 7, 1962, in practice it began in 1959, barely after the triumph of the popular revolution against the pro-American dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. The recent tragedy that Hurricane Irma has meant for Cuba and several other countries in the Caribbean reminded me of a discussion I had exactly ten years ago with an American friend visiting Cuba. He maintained that Fidel Castro should be grateful to the US government for the blockade it had imposed on Cuba for half a century.
In that American friend’s opinion, it would have been extremely difficult, almost impossible, for Cubans to maintain the unity in action they have shown for the achievement of their great social, cultural, educational, scientific and economic advances, “had there not been the ferocious and stupid hostility against the island” of its powerful northern neighbor.
For this reason, he speculated, the Cuban government has acted very cleverly by not doing everything in its power to get the United States to suspend the economic blockade and normalize its relations with the island.
I argued against such speculation. I reminded him of the staunch position of the Cuban government against the blockade, the promotion it has been making for many years in favor of international agreements condemning it and Cuba’s permanent willingness to negotiate fairly all disputes with Washington.
It is unquestionable, I remarked, that the persistent pursuit of a dozen successive US governments of the blockade against Cuba has contributed to national unity. Similarly with Washington’s its policy of open and covert threats and aggressions. These have promoted Cuba’s popular unity policy which has, in turn, served to encourage the enthusiastic support of the population to the Revolution’s political project.
Similarly, hurricanes provide significant benefits through the torrential rains that enrich the water table, fill the reservoirs, and even renew the forests by knocking down old trees. Alas, their aftermath also strongly harms the population, with great damage caused by their wind, rain, tides and sea waves for the sake of such presumably beneficial effects.
Cuba is frequently hit by the powerful hurricanes that characterize its geographic location. Sometimes they do it with very short intervals to allow an effective recovery, but, every time this happens, I remember this exchange with my American friend.
Cubans are proud to belong to a people that offers such extraordinary demonstrations of unity, discipline, solidarity and creativity in facing these natural phenomena. Our avoidance of fatalities and intangible material effects, compared to other countries that do not have a similar organization based on solidarity, is a source of our pride.
I cannot avoid comparing this action by Cubans, which this people demonstrates in confrontation with the effects of the blockade, and against the hostility that the US has practiced against Cuba for almost 60 years.
Hurricanes bring water for sowing and dams; the blockade contributes to the firmness of the agreement by Cubans for national defense. But when one considers the magnitude of the material damage, the suffering, and the  scourge that flows from the hurricanes and the blockade, everyone understands why hurricanes are so undesirable.
I hope meteorological science will someday be able to dissolve or divert hurricanes to uninhabited places. And that scientists will find ways and means to obtain the water they provide by other means.
Until that happens, it would be desirable if good sense moves the government of the United States to reject the blockade that it has exercised against Cuba.
Cubans will be able to find and improve –on increasingly democratic and permanent foundations– the mechanisms necessary to make the revolutionary project dreamed by Marti and Bolivar for our America irreversible.
Unfortunately for Cubans, to return to normalization after Irma’s devastating atmospheric phenomenon, also means living again under the conditions of the no less-devastating criminal phenomenon that is the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba in its useless effort by to make the island return to the imperialist fold.