Breaking Up Barriers to Peace in the Middle East

Cesar Chelala

Recently in Israel, collaboration among Israeli, Palestinian and American doctors saved the life of a Nablus teen. Jummana, a 17-year-old Palestinian girl, had been suffering from a rare but serious endocrine problem. Her Palestinian Authority doctors referred her to Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, where she was successfully operated. This was part of a new model of treatment called “Bring the Patient, Bring the Surgeon.”

Prof. Dov Tiosano, an Israeli pediatric endocrinologist, had examined Jummana and diagnosed a tumor related to a genetic disease resulting from consanguinity. Dr. Tiosano contacted a colleague in the U.S. National Institutes of Health who confirmed the diagnosis and contacted Prof. John A. van Aalst, director of the plastic surgery division at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital for advice as to the best place to have surgery on the Palestinian teen.

Prof. Van Aalst, who has strong professional connections with both Palestinian and Israeli doctors then suggested that the teen be operated at Rambam Medical Center. He considered that the safest, easiest and overall more convenient place for the operation. The interaction among Palestinian, Israeli and American doctors led to a successful outcome, which can be a learning experience for future similar cases.

While health initiatives alone cannot secure peace, particularly where political, cultural, psychological and religious tensions abound, they often serve as a useful point of contact between conflicting parties. Bi-national health programs have served to expand cooperation between divided peoples, demonstrating the power of citizens’ communication in hostile political environments.

During the 1980s, violent clashes between Nicaragua’s Contras and Sandinistas roused the interest of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the regional office of the World Health Organization (WHO). As a result, PAHO implemented the “Health as a Bridge for Peace” strategy aimed at providing health care to populations living in war-torn areas in Latin America. Their work resulted in so-called “Days of Tranquility” in El Salvador and Peru, during which thousands of children were vaccinated against polio, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus and measles. Most notably, PAHO’S activities enjoyed the backing of government officials and rebel guerrilla forces. Concern for public health was a common ground.

The same approach has been used in the Middle East. Since its founding in 1988, the Association of Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights has created two funds to address the medical neglect of Palestinian migrant workers’ children: The Palestinian Children’s Medical Care Fund and The Children of Foreign Workers Medical Fund. The organization also conducts training activities for Palestinian health professionals, and has become a leading advocate for health and human rights in the region. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, several new health groups were created, which provided health services to the Palestinians.

Canada, Israel and Jordan have enjoyed a good amount of academic exchange, and Israelis and Palestinians have worked together on publications and scientific symposiums.

Cooperation is not limited now to the medical field. In music, two orchestras formed by Arab and Israeli musicians have been performing in several countries: one, the Orchestra for Peace, created by the Argentine musician Miguel Angel Estrella, and the other, the West-Eastern Divan orchestra co-founded by Daniel Barenboim, the Argentine born Israeli conductor and Edward Said, the late Palestinian-American professor. In addition, several individuals and small groups have been tirelessly trying through their work to increase the understanding between the two peoples.

One should add the exchange of other artists as well as teachers and students, technical personnel of different disciplines and sports idols playing on mixed teams of Israelis and Palestinians. I am proposing nothing short of a massive effort by both Israelis and Palestinains -which will surely find wide international support- to break down the psychological barriers separating their citizens. So much money has been spent in trying, vainly, to hurt the other side that a smaller effort could be devoted to creating an atmosphere conducive to peace.

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians will not be achieved overnight, but it is only through a massive effort involving the citizenry that reconciliation and cooperation can occur between both peoples. In a region plagued by mistrust, deep-rooted fear and violence, building citizen’s bridges is the best antidote to war. These actions, by themselves, will not bring a permanent solution to the conflict, but they will create the conditions that could make peace inevitable between Israelis and Palestinians.

Climate Change and Conflict

Foday Justice Darboe

As world leaders gather at the United Nations for the 72nd Regular Session of the UN General Assembly, this year’s theme is “Focusing on People: Striving for Peace and a Decent Life for All on a Sustainable Planet.” This theme is in contrast with President Trump’s “America First” policy, which emphasizes isolationism. This was evident in President Trump’s UN speech as well as his decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord, a framework designed to fight “atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.” In one of his tweets in 2012, Donald Trump wrote, “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Throughout the international scientific community, there’s widespread unanimity about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Nevertheless, President Trump’s stance on climate change is obstinately rejecting a carbon consumption driver of rising sea-levels, more intense natural disasters such as forest fires, droughts, hurricanes and other threats.

Violence is a profound threat and it is likely exacerbated by climate chaos. Global warming as an important effect on civil conflicts has been recently debated by many scholars and policymakers. Scholars from backgrounds as diverse as economics, climate science, peace studies, and political science have explored the adverse effects of climate change and ecological changes on civil conflicts.

Undoubtedly, climate change is a problem that all countries have to struggle with, but the costs and benefits of rising global temperatures often differ across countries and regions. From severe floods across South Asia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, parts of the Gambia to hurricanes in the Caribbean, Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico, the effects of climate change, particularly natural disasters, rising sea-levels, and growing resource shortage are often quoted as the cause to loss of livelihood, economic decay, forced migration, and an increased uncertainty in some parts of the world.

Most reports on the effects of climate change imply that poor countries would endure the burden of climate change. For instance, in 2010, the Department of Defense first highlighted the security threat of global warming, as “an accelerant” for conflict. A study entitled, “Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa,” presentedto the United States National Academy of Sciences suggests that rising temperatures in Africa have corresponded with substantial upturns in the possibility of civil conflict. Also, Ban Ki-moon, former U.N. Secretary-General once termed the conflict in Darfur, Sudan as the “world’s first climate change conflict.” Similarly, a study conducted by the Unites States Institute for Peace recognized a “basic causal mechanism” that “links climate change with violence in Nigeria.” It is believed that severe drought facilitated the instability in Nigeria, which was exploited by Boko Haram. In Syria, climate change is not the reason of the six-year civil war, nonetheless, ISIS is exploiting the country’s worst droughts, which displaced hundreds of thousands into extreme poverty and food insecurity. I am not insinuating that climate change creates terrorists, rather, the conditions in these countries helps terrorist groups to readily recruit and thrive. The supposition is that water scarcity, decreasing crop yields, advancing desertification and resource shortages from rainfall patterns stemming from climate change added to or exacerbated conflict in these countries.

President Trump’s position on climate change is unhelpful. The United States is among the biggest carbon polluters in the world, yet it is resigning from its global leadership position to mitigate the consequences climate change, which demands international cooperation. Without the Unites States’ commitment and global leadership to fight climate change it will unequivocally bring more uncertainty across the world. The “America first” policy, particularly leaving the Paris Climate Accord, could have an overwhelming impact on regions where dependence on farming and other climate sectors for production are way of livelihood. It also controverts the status of the United States in the international community. In cumulative terms, the United States has more to squander if the economic effects of climate change are not addressed. Are these worthy, pragmatic, ethical, or realistic risks?

In order to efficiently address the adverse effects of climate change on societies globally, a thorough approach is needed at both the local and international levels. The UN along with regional organizations must develop a framework for sustainable development and economic growth for communities that are most affected by the impact of climate change.

This framework ought to be centered on a low-carbon economy, that reduces both greenhouse gases and other climate pollutants to mitigate climate change and decrease threats to global security and prosperity.  

NATO’s Decomposing Corpse

Brian Cloughley

The UK’s Guardian newspaper is not supportive of those who advocate war, but is an equitable publication and its strictures on the chaos in Afghanistan have been measured and balanced, as have its comments on the situation in the Korean Peninsula.  It was even-handed about the US-NATO aerial blitz on Libya in a campaign that was ostensibly to protect the Libyan people but had more to do with the fact that the Libyan leader, Gaddafi, wouldn’t play ball with the oil cartels.

The message from the Guardian is that drum-banging war-loonies are a menace to the world and there are better ways to solve international problems than reaching robotically for the bombing option. (On September 19 Lt General Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of US Air Forces Central Command, proudly announced that he had “plussed up” the number of strike aircraft in Afghanistan (that is, incidentally, misspeak for “increased”) and that “our close-air support role continues and, as you look at the strategy coming forward, we’re actually right now working with General John Nicholson’s staff on how to best synchronize his advise-and-assist strategy going forward to optimize the placement of the air assets.” God knows what that gibberish means, but it’s going to involve a lot more bombing.)

The Guardian’s sensible approach makes it all the more surprising that it gave its front page on September 9 to headlining a lengthy interview with the secretary-general of the US-NATO alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, whose mission is to justify at any expense its existence and expansion. For example, he praises NATO’s futile fandangos in Afghanistan which involved troops from 24 of its 29 countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and Luxembourg wisely stayed out of it, and Iceland doesn’t have an army). The armed forces of these nations suffered over 3,000 killed in the hostile wilderness of Central Asia, but  this hasn’t stopped Poland deciding to send more troops to join its 200 who are there because “the Americans are with us in Poland and throughout NATO’s eastern flank, thus enhancing our security.” That must be real solace to the families of the forty Polish soldiers who died for nothing.

As observed by Canada’s former Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, NATO in Afghanistan “started down a road that destroyed much of its credibility and in the end eroded support for the mission in every nation in the alliance . . .  Afghanistan has revealed that NATO has reached the stage where it is a corpse decomposing.” But Stoltenberg continues to fight for its existence and managed to persuade Trump that his initial accurate assessment that the alliance is ‘obsolete’ has suddenly and for absolutely no reason become obsolete.

Stoltenberg declared there are “converging threats as Russia mobilizes estimated 100,000 troops on EU’s borders,” and complained that “Russia has not opened any exercise to open observation since the end of the cold war”.

But then there’s some qualification about the figure of “100,000 troops.” Further down the page it says “an estimated 100,000 soldiers, security personnel and civilian officials, will be active around the Baltic Sea, western Russia, Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, without the supervision required under international agreement.”  This is based on a report that “some Baltic states estimate that about 100,000 Russian troops will be involved in this year’s exercise and Poland claims the Kremlin has requisitioned more than 4,000 train carriages to move military personnel west.”

It is notable that the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had a total of fourteen soldiers killed in NATO operations in Afghanistan, but their cooperation continues, and Newsweek reported that in May-June the US-NATO alliance conducted “Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) which gathered 55 aircraft, 50 ships and submarines and about 4,000 personnel from 14 nations, mostly members of NATO, to rehearse military maneuvers in the strategic European region.”

Russia stated there were to be fewer than 13,000 troops taking part in its exercise, which is the figure over which it is internationally agreed that “supervision” — in fact, simply visits to an exercise area by a handful of military observers — should take place.  What is not explained by Stoltenberg or the western media is that there were indeed fewer than 13,000 armed soldiers involved in the exercise itself — while, along the lines of communication, and in the rear areas and bases far from the exercise area there were many support elements which have large numbers of non-combat soldiers and civilians. The proportion of fighting to support troops can be as high as one to ten, when all the cooks and drivers and road-menders and rear area support personnel are counted.

As the Harvard Business Review explains, “In a war zone, some soldiers fight on the front lines. Others maintain supply chains, handle logistics, and otherwise support those front-line troops. Military commanders know they can’t let the tooth-to-tail (or combat-to-support) ratio get too low, or they’ll wind up with a force that costs too much and can’t win the battle.”

So there is a certain credibility in the claim that there were lots of people involved in Exercise Zapad 2017, but for Stoltenberg to claim that “Russia mobilizes estimated 100,000 troops on EU’s borders” is spurious claptrap.  “Mobilization” means the “act of assembling and putting into readiness for war or other emergency,” and Russia’s Exercise Zapad — which the US-NATO alliance is well aware is held every four years — was quite obviously not any where in that league.  Stoltenberg and his public relations empire realize that the public doesn’t know all the details, and they make sure that things stay that way. (Their use of the phrase “EU’s borders” is quite clever, propaganda-wise.)

The US-NATO propaganda organization in Brussels is known as the Public Diplomacy Division, described by one of its members as “a diverse division of nearly 100 people working in a fast-paced and complex environment, serving a wide variety of stakeholders.” It doesn’t let the taxpayers of member countries know the salaries of its officials (see the advertisement in The Economist for a “Director, NATO Information Office Moscow, Russia . . .   Salary not disclosed”), but they are part of the Civil Budget for 2017, amounting to an impressive € 234.4 million ($280 million), which is not part of the annual Military Budget of € 1.29  billion (1.5 billion US dollars), or just a bit less than the cost of the new NATO Headquarters palace in Brussels that attracted Trump’s derision.

Then “Stoltenberg said Nato had always offered up its exercises to scrutiny,” while “Russia has not opened any exercise to open observation since the end of the cold war”, which is a devious play with words.  The Wall Street Journal had already reported that “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced Wednesday [August 30] it would send three observers to Russia’s Zapad military exercise but said the invitation fell short of Moscow’s international obligations.”

If Stoltenberg really thinks that any country in the world is going to permit a foreigner — any foreigner at all, even an ally — to be present when, for example, new weapons or series of tactics are tried out, then he is a fool.  And he’s not a fool :  just devious and ambitious and intent on staying on the front pages of Western newspapers while scaremongering about Russia in an energetic and all too successful campaign to expand the obsolete US-NATO alliance and carry on bombing Afghans.

Canada’s military chief had it right when he said that “NATO has reached the stage where it is a corpse decomposing” — but the stink is expensive and dangerous.

Sri Lankan government passes IMF-backed tax bill

Kapila Fernando

The Sri Lankan parliament passed an amended Inland Revenue Bill on September 7, effectively implementing the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The vote, originally scheduled for August 25, was delayed after the government, fearing opposition from the working class, was forced to make various cosmetic changes.

The new version will become law on October 1 and go into force next April. While it incorporates more than 100 amendments, some members of parliament complained they were not given all the proposed changes. The purpose of the legislation is to extract direct taxes from workers, “self-employed” and small traders, while providing concessionary taxes for big business.

Under the previous version of the bill , non-resident s’ and residents ’ monthly income of 50,000 rupees ( $US328 ) was to be taxed at 4 percent , increasing up to 24 percent for those with a 250,000-rupee monthly income . The first threshold of the tax now has been raised to 100,000 rupees . M onthly interest in come of 125,000 rupees from pensioners ’ savings will be taxed. The previous propose d threshold was 100,000 rupees.

While t hese two changes were made to deflect opposition from workers , professionals and pensioners , o ther taxes impact ing on broader layers of the population remain. Pension funds above a lump sum of 2 million rupees , for example, will be subjected to taxes of between 5 to 10 percent , and taxes are imposed on those involved in drama, cinema and literature.

A low tax rate of 14 percent will be enjoyed by industries involved in agriculture, tourism, information technology and education and exports. Taxes on other business will be just 28 percent. This compares with India and Bangladesh, where the rates are 30 percent and 35 percent respectively.

Speaking to a big business gathering, State Minister of Finance Eran Wickramaratne boasted that Sri Lanka would have “some of the lowest rates, even compared to other Asian countries.”

The government pushed through its new tax law in order to receive $US190 million, the third instalment of an IMF loan.

Speaking in the parliamentary debate, Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera claimed that “everyone over age of 18 will have a tax file according to the act but it doesn’t mean everyone will pay tax.” His reassurance is duplicitous, however, and implies that the government will target “everyone” in future.

In fact, Wickramaratne explicitly told his business meeting that “the government wants to widen the tax net and take money [levy taxes] from the people in proportion to their capacity to pay.” He continued: “Each citizen and each corporate entity should contribute by paying taxes to help the government’s effort to provide essential and vital services in education, health, transport, agriculture, technology, research and development, etc.”

Wickramaratne’s claims are a fraud. Against the backdrop of deepening global economic turmoil, the government is slashing spending in all these sectors and cutting subsidies to the poor in an attempt to place the burden of Sri Lanka’s growing debt onto the back of workers.

The new taxes, which fall most heavily on the poor, are aimed at boosting corporate profit while slashing the country’s fiscal deficit to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) as demanded by the IMF.

An IMF review on July 27 praised the government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, but noted “high risks.” It demanded that the government speed up its “economic reforms,” including the “restructuring” and privatisation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

“The main external downside risk is the resumption of capital outflows in response to a significant further strengthening of the US dollar and higher rates, or due to a weakening of the external position,” the review declared.

One reason for the capital outflow, the IMF said, was the government’s “unproven commitment to exchange rate flexibility.” This is a reference to IMF concerns over the government intervening in the exchange market and selling dollar reserves to defend the rupee’s exchange rate.

Other risks included “further delays in revenue mobilisation and SOE reforms” and “the government’s large gross financing needs of which 40 percent is financed externally.”

The IMF has long demanded the restructuring of the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Petroleum Corporation, the ports and the Water Supply Board.

Successive governments, with muted support from the trade unions, have taken steps to privatise these state corporations by seeking to restructure them along the lines of Singapore’s Temasek “state holding corporation” or “wealth trust” model. Fearful of working-class resistance, these plans, however, have been delayed.

The IMF wants these “reforms” to be expedited, along with “energy pricing reforms”—i.e., increased fuel prices and electricity charges—in order to slash the debts of these corporations.

The international bank also warned that the “public debt is expected to rise slightly to 85 percent of GDP in 2017 due to a still large fiscal deficit and exchange rate depreciation.” It cautioned the government over the increasing trade deficit, which rose to $4.2 billion during the first four months of this year. If this trend continues, this year’s trade deficit could exceed last year’s and hit the $10 billion mark.

Remittances of Sri Lankan employees abroad declined by 7.2 percent during the first half of this year, compared to the same time last year. War tensions in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia-led moves against Qatar, have affected this income. Garment export earnings also declined by 5.32 percent. These are the country’s two main sources of foreign income.

Confronted with this escalating economic crisis and intensifying IMF demands, Colombo is preparing to deepen its attacks on the living and social rights of workers and the poor.

Cabinet ministers were recently briefed on budget allocations for 2018, which will be presented to parliament on November 9. The largest amount in the Appropriations Bill will be for the military. According to the Daily FT, the Ministry of Defence will receive 290 billion rupees (nearly $2 billion), a 6 billion-rupee increase from the last year's allocation of 284 billion.

The increase in military expenditure is no accident. It is in line with the government’s determination to crush all resistance to its class war attacks.

Cambodian government arrests opposition leader on treason charges

John Roberts

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and his Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) government have intensified an ongoing crackdown against the country’s largest opposition party.

Kem Sokha, president of the right-wing, pro-Western Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP), was charged with treason on September 5, after being arrested on September 2.

The treason charge alleges “colluding with foreigners,” in effect with the United States, to destabilise the government. A conviction would mean a jail term of 15 to 30 years.

The government was rattled by the CNRP’s gains in June’s local elections. The arrest aims to weaken the opposition before the national elections set for next July. In the past year, over 20 opposition figures and government critics have been jailed.

The June poll for 1,646 communes saw the CNRP vote increase by 13.3 percentage points to 43.8 percent. The ruling CPP’s vote dropped 10.9 percentage points from previous local elections.

The CNRP won 489 commune chief positions, up from the previous 40, and 5,007 commune councillors, up by 2,052. The CPP’s commune chief posts fell from 1,592 to 1,156 and councillors from 8,292 to 6,505.

In national elections in 2013, the CNRP came close to toppling the Hun Sen government. The CPP had its seats in the 123-member National Assembly reduced from 90 to 68. The CNRP officially won 55 seats but claimed vote rigging deprived it of another eight seats.

While representing different factions of the ruling elites, the CPP and CNRP both support the transformation of Cambodia into a cheap labour platform for foreign investors. If the CNRP took office it would be just as ruthless as the CPP in suppressing the opposition of working people.

The CPP has ruled since it was installed in the wake of the Vietnamese 1979 invasion to oust the Khmer Rouge regime. It has been aligned for two decades with Beijing.

Washington has never accepted Phnom Penh’s pro-China orientation and organised a UN intervention in the country in 1992-1993. The Hun Sen regime was forced to allow in Western organisations and eventually establish trials of surviving Khmer Rouge leaders.

One Western organisation active in Cambodia has been the US-funded National Democratic Institute (NDI), which has been at centre of the treason charges levelled against Sokha. The NDI, which was founded in 1983 via the Congress-created National Endowment for Democracy, operates in 70 countries to promote US interests.

The opposition CNRP represents a section of the ruling elite, oriented toward Washington, that resents its exclusion from political and economic power by the CPP’s authoritarian rule. The US was involved in setting up the party in 2012 and, as Hun Sen had grown closer to Beijing, the CNRP remains Washington’s preferred political instrument.

In January 2016, when US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Phnom Penh, he met CNRP leaders as well as figures from the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR), which Sokha founded and the US has supported.

In charging Sokha, the prosecutors have used a video of his address in 2013 to CNRP supporters in Australia. In it, Sokha described US assistance in forming the CCHR in 2002. He told his audience: “The US says that if you want to change the dictatorial leader, you cannot change the top, you need to change the bottom first—this is its democratic strategy.”

The government points to ongoing US intrigues. The NDI has been forced to withdraw its foreign staff from the country and end its programs. This followed a Facebook posting in mid-August that included a leaked NDI training video showing that the NDI was working with the CNRP on tactics to win the scheduled July elections.

On September 4 the government shut down the Cambodia Daily, which has criticised its policies. It also banned 15 radio stations involved with news and programs from the Voice of America (VofA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA), two other US-funded organisations set up to promote US foreign policy.

Hun Sen’s resort to police-state measures to undermine the opposition is bound up with government’s inability to make any appeal to working people on the basis of their democratic aspirations and social needs.

The CPP has cracked down on any opposition to pro-market policies. In 2013 and 2014 it used the security forces to suppress wage struggles involving 700,000 workers in the garment and footwear sectors. In the 2013 election, the CNRP sought to appeal to workers, while hiding its own commitment to the market and foreign investment.

To counter the CNRP last September, Hun Sen granted workers in these industries a 9 percent pay rise, to $US153 a month. This year at an August 27 meeting with 4,000 workers, he promised cheaper water and said employers would pay 100 percent of workers’ health care cover from January.

Hun Sen told the August meeting that just as in 1970 the US used military general Lon Nol to topple King Norodom Sihanouk, “now the Americans do this problem with Kem Sokha.”

Social inequality is continuing to widen. A study cited in the Phnom Penh Poston August 23 shows that $500 million flows annually into the countryside from the garment sector. However, only the better-off villagers benefit.

Some 90 percent of workers send most of their pay home to deal with family debts as the price of farm inputs rises. The workers living in urban areas struggle to survive on the remainder of the pay and many suffer from poor health.

The US backing for the CNRP has nothing to do with the democratic rights and social conditions facing working people in Cambodia. Washington is concerned that far from moving away from Beijing, Hun Sen is forming closer ties.

The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies warned in May that Hun Sen “has moved to shrink ties with Washington and deepen relations with China.” It noted: “His actions to distance himself from the United States [suspending US military cooperation while increasing that with Beijing] appear intended to give Washington less leverage to voice criticism of his moves in the wake of the [recent] elections.”

China provides Cambodia with more than half of the 75 percent of foreign direct investment originating from outside the Association of South East Asian Nations. The largest Western investor is Britain, which supplies just 3 percent of that total.

How Germany is supporting Burma’s ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya

Johannes Stern 

It would be difficult to find an event that has exposed the hypocrisy of German human rights imperialism more clearly on the eve of the federal election than the fate of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims forced to flee from the brutal violence of the Burmese military.

Although there is substantial evidence suggesting that the Burmese army is burning down villages and torturing and raping victims, the German government has refused to call the ethnic cleansing by its real name, not to mention condemn it.

In fact, Social Democrat Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel published a statement on September 8 that partially blamed the persecuted Rohingya for the army’s lethal crackdown.

Gabriel noted that he was “extremely concerned by the renewed fighting in the state of Rakhine in Burma, which was provoked by attacks on the army and police stations, and once again triggered a large influx of refugees to Bangladesh.” Gabriel appealed “to all sides to contribute to de-escalation and protect the civilian population.”

The foreign minister’s statement is cynical and criminal. The violations of human rights by the Burmese military are flagrant and well-documented. Around 80 Rohingya villages have been burnt down over recent days, according to Human Rights Watch. Eye witnesses report that the regime is pursuing a “scorched earth” policy. “The army came and burnt our houses down. They killed our people,” reported 55-year-old Usman Goni.

The World Socialist Web Site already noted in a previous commentary that the Western governments’ reactions would have been entirely different had the ethnic cleansing occurred a decade ago, when the Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi was still under the military’s house arrest. At the time, the Western imperialist powers confronted the Burmese military with its long history of violations of human rights and even threatened it with a “humanitarian” intervention.

What has changed since then?

Suu Kyi is now the de facto prime minister in Burma and the Burmese military has become a Western ally. Handelsblatt reported Tuesday in an article headlined “A dubious visitor” about the close ties between the German government and Burma’s notorious army chief Min Aung Hlaing. He was welcomed “with military honours” to Berlin in April and passed “through open doors into German political and business circles.”

“Min Aung Hlaing’s assumption that he could carry out ethnic cleansing without resistance was only strengthened when he was embraced internationally in spite of human rights violations,” Mark Farmaner, head of the human rights organisation Burma Campaign, told Handelsblatt.

Already earlier this year, a UN report documented “Accusations of systemic violence: Executions, rapes, torture.” Nonetheless, the Inspector General of the German Army, Volker Wieker, and Markus Ederer, state secretary in the Department of Foreign Affairs, met personally with the general. In addition, the Defence Ministry arranged “a visit to a German army training facility, as well as business contacts” for the Burmese general.

To put it bluntly: the same politicians and military figures who justify the German army’s military interventions with phrases about “peace” and “human rights” bear joint responsibility for the mass murder in Burma. To enforce German imperialism’s geostrategic and economic interests in Asia, they collaborate with forces which openly pursue policies of ethnic cleansing. According to media reports, Min Aung Hlaing once allegedly described the Rohingya question as “unfinished business” from the Second World War.

With the return of German militarism, the Nazis’ policies of extermination are once again being revived in ruling circles in Berlin.

As part of a panel discussion at the German Historical Museum titled “Germany—an interventionist power?”, three years ago, Humboldt University Professor Jörg Baberowski declared, on the struggle against terrorist groups, “And if one is not willing to take hostages, burn villages, hang people and spread fear and terror, as the terrorists do, if one is not prepared to do such things, then one can never win such a conflict and it is better to keep out altogether.”

This is precisely the agenda being pursued by the Burmese military, with the backing of the German army, Defence Ministry and Foreign Ministry—and not against “terrorists,” but innocent civilians.

UK wields military and security cooperation as a weapon in Brexit negotiations

Robert Stevens 

UK Prime Minister Theresa May is to speak in Florence today to outline her government’s position on European Union (EU) withdrawal. The speech is being hailed as crucial, amid growing rifts in the ruling Conservative Party over their Brexit strategy and tensions between the UK and EU.

A fourth round of talks between Britain and the EU is to begin Monday, with the parties so far unable to agree to “divorce” terms prior to the October summit deadline, let alone proceed to talks on any ongoing trade relationship.

The week leading up to the Florence speech was dominated by the fallout from an article by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson—a representative of the “hard Brexit” faction of the ruling elite—who criticised May’s EU withdrawal strategy.

While Johnson’s comments received enormous media attention, hardly any attention was paid to the two latest UK “position” papers submitted to the EU. The first “future partnership paper,” published September 12, is headed, “Foreign policy, defence and development.” The second, issued a week later, covered the issues of security and intelligence.

On triggering the legislation to leave the EU in March, May threatened that if Britain did not receive a deal in its interests from the EU, the bloc faced losing access to Britain’s considerable military and intelligence resources.

The threat is now renewed.

The statements issued by cabinet ministers alongside the defence paper made clear what was at stake. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said, “At a time of increased threats and international instability the UK remains unwavering in its commitment to uphold European security. With the largest defence budget in Europe, the largest Navy, British troops and planes deployed across land, air and sea in Europe, our role in the continent’s defence has never been more vital.”

The paper notes, “European countries face common threats that are increasing in scale, diversity and complexity—from… instability in the Middle East and North Africa, to the crisis in Ukraine, and to cyber attacks. In particular, the threat of terrorism and extremism to all European citizens has increased, demonstrated by recent attacks across European cities.”

It warns, “Long-term shifts in the balance of global economic and military power have led to increasing competition between states. Whether it is continued aggressive behaviour by Russia, North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles or regional conflict and instability that will affect our citizens abroad, the UK and EU partners face a more uncertain international context.” [emphasis in original]

It adds, “The UK’s defence capabilities and current cooperation with EU partners make an essential contribution to European security. In 2016 the UK spent 2.17 per cent of GDP on defence, raising the EU22 average to 1.35 per cent.”

Boasting of the reach of the British Armed Forces, it states they are “deployed in Estonia and Poland to deliver NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence, and UK Typhoon aircraft have been deployed to Romania to police the skies over the Black Sea. The UK is currently leading NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force. Since 1962, the UK has declared our nuclear capability to the defence of NATO, thereby contributing to the ultimate guarantee of collective Euro-Atlantic security.”

The paper stressed that among the European powers it is the UK, as the second military power in NATO, who carries the big stick. It states, “UK’s defence budget is the second largest in NATO and accounts for more than 20 percent of spending on defence by NATO allies other than the United States,” adding that the “UK continues to meet NATO’s targets of spending two percent of GDP on Defence and 20 percent of this on researching, developing and procuring new equipment.” From 2015 the UK would “spend £178 billion over the forthcoming decade on equipment and equipment support with the UK’s research and development spending representing around 40 per cent of the 27 European Defence Agency (EDA) Member States’ total.”

The UK warns that other critical military alliances are threatened, noting the “UK-France Lancaster House Treaties,” signed in 2010, “that provide a framework for cooperation across defence policy, military capability and nuclear matters. This includes establishing the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force—a Franco-British force—for use in a wide range of crisis scenarios, up to and including high intensity combat operations.”

The document makes direct references for the necessity for the UK to have access to open markets for this relationship to continue.

It adds, “The European defence industry sector is closely integrated with leading companies having a presence across several European nations, including the UK, where all the constituent parts of the UK play their part… Open markets and customs arrangements that are as frictionless as possible are important to the continued success of this sector and to ensure that British and European Armed Forces can access the best war-fighting capability to keep us safe.”

Such was the heavily implied threat in the defence paper that Fallon was forced, in response to a question by a BBC journalist, to reply, “No, this isn’t blackmail, this isn’t a negotiating strategy… We want to fight terrorism together. It’s vital. We are not making threats.”

Britain, facing a growing economic crisis, is attempting to threaten its rivals based on its unstable geo-political alliance with the United States. Following Trump’s United Nations speech in which he threatened the annihilation of North Korea’s population, Johnson stated, “We have a duty in the UK government to have strong, dynamic, vibrant relations with our number one ally and the most powerful nation on Earth.”

Trump is an outspoken supporter of Brexit, and May and Johnson both refused to criticise his fascistic rant. Johnson warmly shook Trump’s hand, unlike German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who didn’t attend the UN session in New York, and French President Emmanuel Macron, who absented himself as Trump spoke.

Johnson made his attack on May’s Brexit strategy in a 4,000-word article in the pro-Brexit Daily Telegraph, which outlined his “vision” of a “glorious” future for Britain outside the EU. He wrote, “We all agreed on what leaving the EU logically must entail: leaving the customs union and the single market, leaving the penumbra of the European Court of Justice; taking back control of our borders, cash, laws.”

On the issue of what the UK would have to agree to in order to secure a future trade agreement, he asserted, “We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours.”

His comments were widely understood as the basis for a leadership challenge to May, who lost the Tories their parliamentary majority in a disastrous general election campaign after running on a slogan of offering “strong and stable leadership”. She is not expected to be party leader by the next general election.

Johnson’s article came after he was assailed by hard Brexit figures for not playing a more central role in the negotiations to advance their agenda. In July he said that the EU could “go whistle” if they expected the UK to pay anything as part of its exit settlement. But since then Johnson had been largely silent on the EU negotiations.

Johnson published his piece without it being cleared by any senior government figures. It was aimed at spiking May’s Florence speech, where she is expected to propose to the EU that the UK will make an initial offer of around €20 billion as part of the UK’s liabilities.

The Financial Times reported Thursday that May will make a “promise that no EU country will be required to make further financial contributions because of Brexit before the next long-term budget is negotiated in 2020. That overture, tied to payments for a transition period for the UK, covers a shortfall of at least €20bn in the EU budget.” However, warned the FT, this is “far less than the EU’s opening demand, which covers up to €100bn of gross liabilities, stretching well beyond 2020.”

Borlaug Global Research Alliance Fellowships for Researchers in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 5th November, 2017

Eligible Countries: Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam

To be taken at (country): Africa and Middle East, Egypt, Ghana, East Asia and the Pacific, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Western Hemisphere, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru

Fields of Research: 

1. Developing Tools for Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Sequestration Assessments
   • Develop easily used methods for measuring or estimating greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural settings
   • Develop easily used methods for measuring or estimating carbon sequestration in agricultural soils
   • Develop and field test user-friendly software for quantifying and reporting emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
2. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity in Crop Production Systems
   • Identify agricultural management strategies leading to reduced net greenhouse gas emissions per unit of commodity produced in agronomic (including rice), horticultural, or agro-forestry crop systems
   • Develop models for application of experimental data in decision support tools for different crop or agro-forestry systems in different countries
3. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity in Livestock Production Systems
   • Identify agricultural management strategies leading to reduced net greenhouse gas emissions per unit of commodity produced in grazing or confined animal production systems
   • Develop models for application of experimental data in decision support tools for livestock production systems in different countries
4. Developing Databases and Strategies for Synthesis, Integration and Decision Support to Manage Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems
   • Develop databases assembled from different research teams working on identifying methods to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration
   • Develop process models as a foundation for projecting emissions and sequestration in different agricultural systems and for decision support tools

About the Award: The Borlaug Global Research Alliance Fellowships seek to:

• Provide early-to-midcareer agricultural research scientists, faculty, and policymakers with individual training opportunities in climate change mitigation research
• Provide practical experience and exposure to new perspectives and/or technologies that can be applied in their home institutions
• Foster increased collaboration and networking to improve agricultural productivity and trade
• Facilitate the transfer of new scientific and agricultural technologies to strengthen agricultural practices
• Address obstacles to the adoption of technology such as ineffectual policies and regulations

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be considered for the Borlaug Global Research Alliance Fellowships, candidates must:

• Be citizens of an eligible country
• Be fluent in English
• Have completed a Master’s or higher degree
• Be in the early or middle stage of their career, with at least two years of practical experience
• Be employed by a university, government agency or research entity in their home country
• Demonstrate their intention to continue working in their home country after completing the fellowship

Selection Criteria: Applicants are selected based on their academic and professional research interests and achievements, level of scientific competence, aptitude for scientific research, leadership potential, likelihood of bringing back new ideas to their home institution, and flexibility and aptitude for success in a cross-cultural environment. Consideration is also given to the relevance of the applicant’s research area to the research topics highlighted in the application announcement and to global food security and trade.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: To be communicated (TBC)

Duration of Fellowship: up to 12 weeks

How to Apply: Candidates must apply via the online application system (link below). The following information will be required:

• Completed application form
• 2-3 page program proposal and action plan
• Signed approval from applicant’s home institution
• Two letters of recommendation
• Official copy of transcript for college/university degree(s) received
• Copy of passport identification page

Click here to access the online application system

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  U.S. Department of Agriculture

Borlaug Cocoa Fellowships for Researchers in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 5th November 2017

Eligible Countries:

• Africa: Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Liberia
• Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam
• Latin America and the Caribbean: Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago

To Be Taken At (Country): Africa and Middle East, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Liberia, East Asia and the Pacific, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Western Hemisphere, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago         

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be considered for the Borlaug Fellowship Program, candidates must:

• Be citizens of an eligible country
• Be fluent in English
• Have completed a Master’s or higher degree
• Be in the early or middle stage of their career, with at least two (but not more than 10) years of practical experience
• Be employed by a university, government agency or research entity in their home country
• Demonstrate their intention to continue working in their home country after completing the fellowship

Selection Criteria: USDA selects candidates based on their academic and professional research interests and achievements, level of scientific competence, aptitude for scientific research, leadership potential, likelihood of bringing back new ideas to their home institution, and flexibility and aptitude for success in a cross-cultural environment. Consideration is also given to the relevance of the applicant’s research area to the research topics highlighted in the application announcement and to global food security and trade.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Borlaug Global Cocoa Initiative Fellowship offers training opportunities in specific topics focused on cocoa breeding, integrated pest management, and post-harvest management.   The U.S. mentor will later visit the fellow’s home institution to continue collaboration

Duration of Program: 12 Weeks

How to Apply: Candidates must apply via the online application system. The following information will be required:

• Completed application form
• 2-3 page program proposal and action plan
• Signed approval from applicant’s home institution
• Two letters of recommendation
• Official copy of transcript for college/university degree(s) received
• Copy of passport identification page

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: U.S. Department of Agriculture

World Bank Sustainable Cities Global Photo Contest 2017

Application Deadline: 6th October, 2017 (11:30 pm EDT, Friday)

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: Building healthy and well-functioning cities and communities that continue to thrive for generations is the goal of the Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC), a collaboration that unites cities across continents in their endeavors towards achieving sustainable, resilient development.
What would these cities and communities look like to you? The GPSC, its partner cities, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) invite you to articulate sustainability through the medium of photography.
Whether it be elements of your city that represent sustainability, or a moment in time that captures the spirit of inclusive, resilient, and sustainable urban development, we invite you to share your vision with us, through your photographs.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: The Contest is open to individuals who are not active staff of the World Bank Group, including consultants, interns, contractors and their employees. Family members and relatives of World Bank Group staff are eligible to participate.

Selection Criteria: 

• Amateur photographers are greatly encouraged.
• Entries will be judged based on the following criteria: (1) Clarity and relevance of the topic; (2) creativity; and (3) photographic quality of the photograph.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The winners of the photo competition will each win exciting prizes: a $500 voucher for purchasing photography equipment, as well as a chance to be recognized at an award ceremony and have their photographs featured in the World Bank / GPSC’s online and print materials.

How to Apply: 

• Submit up to 2 photos with the theme of “sustainable cities.” All photos must be original photos taken within the year of 2017.
• Each photo must be accompanied by a caption, written in English and containing no more than 2–3 sentences (30 to 40 words). The caption should include the hashtag #SustainableCities, so it could be adapted for use on social media.
• Entries must include the following information: your name, phone number, and email address.
• Entries must be original and unpublished. Contestants should be prepared to certify this attestation on request.
• Contestants must obtain all necessary third-party releases (human subjects in the photographs, including parental/guardians’ approval for minors).
• Initial entries must be in JPEG format at a resolution of 800×600 pixels, either in portrait or landscape layout, and not more than 5MB in size. Shortlisted photos will need to be re-submitted in higher resolution.
• All entries must be submitted in English via this e-mail link by 11:30 pm EDT, October 6, 2017, along with a one-page CV, a signed statement of authorship, and with “Photo Competition” and your name in the subject line.
• Only shortlisted entries will be contacted.
• Have more than two images to share? We highly encourage you to share your images on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Promote the contest and your photos by tagging them with #SustainableCities.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Bank Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC)