25 Oct 2017

Mo Ibrahim Foundation University of London PhD Scholarships for African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st March 2018.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): University of London, UK
Fields of Study: The eligible PhD are only those within the following departments:
  • Development Studies
  • Law
  • Economics
  • International Relations/Politics
  • CISD (Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy)
  • DEFIMS (Department for Financial and Management Studies )
  • Distance Learning: CEFIMS(Centre for Financial and Management Studies), DEFIMS
About the Award: The Centre of African Studies at SOAS, University of London, is pleased to announce the extension of the Governance for Development in Africa Initiative, funded by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, for another three years, until 2021. The focus of the project remains the same in terms of creating a dedicated environment to support the study of the socio-economic, political, and legal links between governance and development.
 The Mo Ibrahim Foundation has generously provided SOAS with two PhD scholarships every year for African students undertaking a full‐time PhD and Masters programme in the field of Governance for Development in Africa.
Type: PhD
Eligibility: 
  • Candidates must be domiciled (or permanent residents) in an African country.
  • Preference will be given to scholarship candidates living in Sub‐Saharan Africa.
Selection Criteria: Candidates will be assessed on academic merit by a panel consisting of SOAS academic members. The assessment of your application will be based on the information in your scholarship application.
Number of Awardees: 2
Value of Scholarship: 
  • PhD: The scholarship is on a part‐present form and it provides for fees for three years. However, accommodation and living cost are covered for the first year only. The scholarship will also cover in total 2 return flights : one during the first year, and one for the viva (plus one week’s accommodation around the viva). In year 2 and year 3, the successful candidate will also receive an annual stipend of £5,000. We also cover visa cost, provided receipts are submitted to the Centre of African Studies office. We expect students to be on fieldwork during the second year, and to write the thesis in the third year in their country of origin.
Duration of Scholarship: 3 years
How to Apply: In order to be considered for funding, applicants must first secure an UNCONDITIONAL OFFER for the PhD by applying directly to the SOAS Doctoral School.
The guidance notes and the reference form can be downloaded on the right hand side of the Program Webpage (See Link below).
Award Provider: Mo Ibrahim Foundation, School of Africa Studies (SOAS) University of London
Important Notes: Please note that CAS reserves the right not to award scholarships and will only award them where there are applicants judged to meet sufficiently high academic standards and with demonstrable interests in fields relevant to the objectives of the GDAI.

FameLab Competition 2018

Application Deadline: Ongoing
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Participating countries. Finalists will be invited to the UK
About the Award: If you think you can explain a scientific concept to a general audience, in just three minutes, then why not enter? You could become the new face of science, representing your country at the FameLab International final in the UK, and open doors to global opportunities in science communication!
FameLab is an annual science communication competition that runs in many countries worldwide. Wherever you are in the world, the competition remains the same. You have just three minutes to present a concept from your field of study to a panel of judges. Make it funny, make it enlightening, and make it jaw-dropping. The judges are looking for somebody who can shine in content, clarity and charisma – all within the three minute allowance.
The national champion from each participating country will receive an invitation to the Cheltenham Science Festival in the UK. There they will join an exclusive two-day masterclass led by expert UK trainers. They also get the chance to compete for the title of FameLab International Champion 2018.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: You must be 21 years old or older and working in or studying in science, technology, engineering, medicine or maths. Other eligibility criteria apply.
  • You have only three minutes for your talk.
  • Your talk must be about a science, technology, engineering, medicine or maths-based topic.
  • You may not use PowerPoint or other similar presentation software.
  • Props are limited to what you can carry on stage (and there is no time for set up).
  • Your talk is a solo performance. You are not permitted to carry other people on to the stage to assist you in your talk.
  • If you make it through your local heats to a regional  final in your country you will need a second presentation (which can be on the same topic, but must be demonstrably different in content).
Selection Criteria: The judges are looking for somebody who can shine in content, clarity and charisma.
CONTENT: The content of the presentations must be scientifically accurate. If the topic chosen has controversy or uncertainty around it, then the presentation must acknowledge the opposing views. The scientific topic presented should be well chosen to suit the audience.
CLARITY: Clarity is critical for effective science communication. The structure of the presentation must enable the audience and judges to easily follow the talk and they should be left with a full understanding of the scientific concept chosen.
CHARISMA: The audience and judges should be left inspired and enthused about science. The winner will be a charismatic presenter who makes the science easy to listen to, entertaining, exciting and who is not only able to communicate the science but who can share their passion for it.
Value of Contest: 
  • The winners of the first, second and third place at all stages in the competition will receive trophies. There will also be audience favourite prizes and other special awards.
  • The overall national winner and first runner up will attend the Cheltenham Science Festival in the UK. The national winner will then compete in the FameLab International Final. Here a world of opportunities will really be opened up as you network with fellow scientists from across the globe
  • Each candidate will have the opportunity to meet other science enthusiasts and gain access to the Famelab Egypt and Famelab International networks
  • FameLab alumni will be invited to take part in science public engagement events in Egypt
  • Finally you will undoubtedly win the appreciation of the audience for your passion for science!
How to Apply:
  • UK: Find out more and how to enter FameLab 2018 on the Cheltenham Science Festival website . Regional heats in the UK will take place between December 2017 and March 2018. The UK final will take place in London.
  • Countries around the word (apart from the UK):  Please check the website of your local British Council office to find out if your country takes part in FameLab 2018.  A list of participating countries will be published on this website later this year.
Award Provider: British Council

Xi’s Road Map to the Chinese Dream

Pepe Escobar

Now that President Xi Jinping has been duly elevated to the Chinese Communist Party pantheon in the rarified company of Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, the world will have plenty of time to digest the meaning of “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”
Xi himself, in his 3½-hour speech at the start of the 19th Party Congress, pointed to a rather simplified “socialist democracy” – extolling its virtues as the only counter-model to Western liberal democracy. Economically, the debate remains open on whether this walks and talks more like “neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics”.
All the milestones for China in the immediate future have been set.
“Moderately prosperous society” by 2020.
Basically modernized nation by 2035.
Rich and powerful socialist nation by 2050.
Xi himself, since 2013, has encapsulated the process in one mantra; the “Chinese dream”. The dream must become reality in a little over three decades. The inexorable modernization drive unleashed by Deng’s reforms has lasted a little less than four decades. Recent history tell us there’s no reason to believe phase 2 of this seismic Sino-Renaissance won’t be fulfilled.
Xi emphasized, “the dreams of the Chinese people and those of other peoples around the world are closely linked. The realization of the Chinese dream will not be possible without a peaceful international environment and a stable international order.”
He mentioned only briefly the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as having “created a favorable environment for the country’s overall development”. He didn’t dwell on BRI’s ambition and extraordinary scope, as he does in every major international summit as well as in Davos earlier this year.
But still it was implicit that to arrive at what Xi defines as a “community of common destiny for mankind”, BRI is China’s ultimate tool. BRI, a geopolitical/geoeconomic game-changer, is in fact Xi’s – and China’s – organizing foreign policy concept and driver up to 2050.
Xi has clearly understood that global leadership implies being a top provider, mostly to the global South, of connectivity, infrastructure financing, comprehensive technical assistance, construction hardware and myriad other trappings of “modernization”.
It does not hurt that this trade/commerce/investment onslaught helps to internationalize the yuan.
It’s easy to forget that BRI, an unparalleled multinational connectivity drive set to economically link all points Asia to Europe and Africa, was announced only three years ago, in Astana (Central Asia) and Jakarta (Southeast Asia).
What was originally known as the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road were endorsed by the Third Plenum of the 18th CCP Central Committee in November 2013. Only after the release of an official document, “Visions and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Roads”, in March 2015, the whole project was finally named BRI.
According to the official Chinese timeline, we’re only at the start of phase 2. Phase 1, from 2013 to 2016, was “mobilization”. “Planning”, from 2016 to 2021, is barely on (and that explains why few major projects are online). “Implementation” is supposed to start in 2021, one year before Xi’s new term expires, and go all the way to 2049.
The horizon thus is 2050, coinciding with Xi’s “rich and powerful socialist nation” dream. There’s simply no other comprehensive, inclusive, far-reaching, financially solid development program on the global market. Certainly not India’s Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC).
Have BRI, will travel
It starts with Hong Kong. When Xi said, “We will continue to support Hong Kong and Macau in integrating their own development into the overall development of the country”, he meant Hong Kong configured as a major BRI financing hub – its new role after a recent past of business facilitator between China and the West.
Hong Kong’s got what it takes; convertible currency; total capital mobility; rule of law; no tax on interest, dividends and capital gains; total access to China’s capital market/savings; and last but not least, Beijing’s support.
Enter the dream of myriad financing packages (public-private; equity-debt; short-long term bonds). Hong Kong’s BRI role will be of the Total Package international financial center (venture capital; private equity; flotation of stocks and bonds; investment banking; mergers and acquisitions; reinsurance) interlinked with the Greater Bay Area – the 11 cities (including Guangzhou and Shenzhen) of the Pearl River Delta (light/heavy manufacturing; hi-tech venture capitalists, start-ups, investors; top research universities).
That ties up with Xi’s emphasis on innovation; “We will strengthen basic research in applied sciences, launch major national science and technology projects, and prioritize innovation in key generic technologies, cutting-edge frontier technologies, modern engineering technologies, and disruptive technologies.”
The integration of the Greater Bay Area is bound to inspire, fuel, and in some cases even mould some of BRI’s key projects. The Eurasian Land Bridge from Xinjiang to Western Russia (China and Kazakhstan are actively turbo-charging their joint free trade zone at Khorgos). The China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor. The connection of the Central Asian “stans” to West Asia – Iran and Turkey. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from Xinjiang all the way to Gwadar in the Arabian Sea – capable of sparking an “economic revolution” according to Islamabad. The China-Indochina corridor from Kunming to Singapore. The Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor (assuming India does not boycott it). The Maritime Silk Road from coastal southeast China all the way to the Mediterranean, from Piraeus to Venice.
Yiwu-London freight trains, Shanghai-Tehran freight trains, the Turkmenistan to Xinjiang gas pipeline – these are all facts on the ground. Along the way, the technologies and tools of infrastructure connectivity – applied to high-speed rail networks, power plants, solar farms, motorways, bridges, ports, pipelines – will be closely linked with financing by the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the security-economic cooperation imperatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to build the new Eurasia from Shanghai to Rotterdam. Or, to evoke Vladimir Putin’s original vision, even before BRI was launched, “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”.
Xi did not spell it out, but Beijing will do everything to stay as independent as possible from the Western Central Bank system, with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) to be avoided in as many trade deals as possible to the benefit of yuan-based transactions or outright barter. The petrodollar will be increasingly bypassed (it’s already happening between China and Iran, and Beijing sooner rather than later will demand it from Saudi Arabia.)
The end result, by 2050, will be, barring inevitable, complex glitches, an integrated market of 4.5 billion people mostly using local currencies for bilateral and multilateral trade, or a basket of currencies (yuan-ruble-rial-yen-rupee).
Xi has laid China’s cards – as well as the road map – on the table. As far as the Chinese Dream is concerned, it’s now clear; Have BRI, Will Travel.

Worst of Both Worlds: Puerto Rico’s Dual Crises

Dan Beeton

Almost a month since Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico, most of the island still lacks power ― and it may be six months or more before it is restored. Many residents do not have access to safe drinking water, and the EPA has expressed concern about people drinking dangerous water at “hazardous waste ‘Superfund’” sites. About half the population is estimated to still be without cell phone service, making reports of ongoing urgent needs in isolated areas difficult to relay. Professionals worry about disease outbreaks and new health crises emerging.
The federal government response has been scandalous. President Trump’s treatment of Puerto Rico, in contrast to hurricane-hit Florida and Texas, has raised suspicions of racist indifference, or of other motivations for deliberate neglect. The response has been lacking in part because Puerto Rico is not a US state. Nor is it an independent country, in which case it would be free to receive aid unhampered by US restrictions.
President Trump infamously touted the low death toll from the hurricanes, in comparison with the Hurricane Katrina disaster, yet the death toll is still being tallied. People continue to die from preventable causes as the relief effort dawdles, hampered by the resumption of the Jones Act, which prohibits non-US flagged ships from docking at successive US ports, and other political calculations in Washington.
Unfortunately, Puerto Ricans are treated as second-class citizens; its government made subservient to Washington.
The island’s colonial status goes back to the Spanish-American War, when US forces invaded Puerto Rico and the US claimed the territory for its own. The US gave Puerto Ricans citizenship a few decades later, so that they could serve in the US military in World War I, but no voting representation in Congress. The second-class nature of their nationality was effectively made permanent.
This second-class citizenship is now hampering Puerto Rico’s ability to recover from a historic double crisis, while the US federal government response is one of relative neglect. Aside from the remarkable lack of initiative to get aid to people in need in Puerto Rico, Trump has blamed Puerto Ricans for their current (prehurricane) economic crisis, and has complained that Puerto Rico’s disaster is hurting his plans for the federal budget.
Puerto Rico’s debt woes are not “largely of their own making,” as Trump tweeted. They are much more of Washington’s making, as it was the US Congress that passed the Jones Act. The US Congress passed NAFTA, WTO, and other trade legislation that hampered the Puerto Rican manufacturing sector. The US Congress repealed Section 936 of the US tax code that had provided tax breaks to US companies producing goods in Puerto Rico. More recently, it was the US Congress that imposed the unelected Financial Oversight and Management Board on Puerto Rico, which now makes the most important economic policy decisions for the island. The Board has pushed for an economic austerity plan that has hampered the island’s recovery; after a lost decade of no economic growth, Puerto Rico was already on track to experience another before hurricanes Irma and Maria hit.
Since it is not an independent country, Puerto Rico is unable to consider monetary and fiscal policy options that might allow it to recover from its recession. These might include driving a hard bargain with the creditors who have barely paused in demanding full repayment of Puerto Rico’s debt, even though it is clear that Puerto Rico will not be able to repay it ― something that even Trump admitted, before the statement was walked back by Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.
Republicans are heaping more debt on the pile with financial aid in the form of loans over the objections of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who says “The reconstruction of Puerto Rico is an opportunity to reboot the island’s economy” through “bolstering basic services such as healthcare, education, electricity and renewable energy.”
One of the reasons Puerto Rico racked up such a substantial debt was because it had to borrow to fund its Medicaid program, and here again we see how Puerto Rico is punished by its territorial status. Rather than reimburse the island’s Medicaid program at the 55 percent rate as it does for other territories, or the 83 percent rate that Puerto Rico would receive if it were a state, the US government capped the reimbursement at about $300 million per year ― less than a 15 percent reimbursement rate. The Affordable Care Act offered a one-time grant of $6.4 billion to Puerto Rico in 2013, but the money is now running out, and there is currently no funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid for next year.
Even worse, Puerto Rico’s Medicaid needs are greater because the poverty rate in Puerto Rico is 46 percent, compared to 15 percent for the US as a whole. Yet it will cost the US government more to not fund Puerto Rico’s Medicaid shortfall than if it does fund it. Why is this? Health care costs in Puerto Rico are less expensive than on the US mainland. If the US Congress approves Medicaid funding in Puerto Rico, it will be far less costly than were those same Medicaid patients to move to the mainland US and get treated here. Yet more and more Puerto Ricans will keep out-migrating as the island continues to suffer neglect in the wake of the hurricanes and its economy continues to limp along. A Medicaid crisis would be another factor pushing people to leave the island for US states.
It is not our place to weigh in on whether Puerto Rico should become a US state, or an independent country. But under the status quo, the island’s residents seem to be experiencing the worst of both worlds.

The FBI’s Forgotten Criminal History

James Bovard

President Trump’s firing of FBI chief James Comey last May spurred much of the media to rally around America’s most powerful domestic federal agency. But the FBI has a long record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that “the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” This has practically been the Bureau’s motif since its creation in 1908.
The bureau was small potatoes until Woodrow Wilson dragged the United States into World War I. In one fell swoop, the number of dangerous Americans increased by perhaps twentyfold. The Espionage Act of 1917 made it easy to jail anyone who criticized the war or the government. In September 1918, the bureau, working with local police and private vigilantes, seized more than 50,000 suspected draft dodgers off the streets and out of the restaurants of New York, Newark, and Jersey City. The Justice Department was disgraced when the vast majority of young men who had been arrested turned out to be innocent.
In January 1920, J. Edgar Hoover — the 25-year-old chief of the bureau’s Radical Division — was the point man for the “Palmer Raids.” Nearly 10,000 suspected Reds and radicals were seized. The bureau carefully avoided keeping an accurate count of detainees (a similar pattern of negligence occurred with the roundups after the 9/11 attacks). Attorney General Mitchell Palmer sought to use the massive roundups to propel his presidential candidacy. The operation took a drubbing, however, after an insolent judge demanded that the Justice Department provide evidence for why people had been arrested. Federal judge George Anderson complained that the government had created a “spy system” that “destroys trust and confidence and propagates hate. A mob is a mob whether made up of government officials acting under instructions from the Department of Justice, or of criminals, loafers, and the vicious classes.”
After the debacle of the Palmer raids, the bureau devoted its attention to the nation’s real enemies: the U.S. Congress. The bureau targeted “senators whom the Attorney General saw as threats to America. The Bureau was breaking into their offices and homes, intercepting their mail, and tapping their telephones,” as Tim Weiner recounted in his 2012 book Enemies: The History of the FBI. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was illegally targeted because the bureau feared he might support diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia.
Hoover, who ran the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972, built a revered agency that utterly intimidated official Washington. The FBI tapped the home telephone of a Supreme Court clerk, and at least one Supreme Court Justice feared the FBI had bugged the conference room where justices privately discussed cases. In 1945, President Harry Truman wrote in his diary, “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction…. This must stop.” But Truman did not have the gumption to pull in the reins.
The bureau’s power soared after Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950, authorizing massive crackdowns on suspected subversives. Hoover compiled a list of more than 20,000 “potentially or actually dangerous” Americans who could be seized and locked away at the president’s command. Hoover specified that “the hearing procedure [for detentions] will not be bound by the rules of evidence.” “Congress secretly financed the creation of six of these [detention] camps in the 1950s,” noted Weiner. (When rumors began circulating in the 1990s that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was building detention camps, government officials and much of the media scoffed that such a thing could never occur in this nation.)
From 1956 through 1971, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program conducted thousands of covert operations to incite street warfare between violent groups, to get people fired, to portray innocent people as government informants, and to cripple or destroy left-wing, black, communist, white racist, and anti-war organizations. FBI agents also busied themselves forging “poison pen” letters to wreck activists’ marriages. The FBI set up a Ghetto Informant Program that continued after COINTELPRO and that had 7,402 informants, including proprietors of candy stores and barbershops, as of September 1972. The informants served as “listening posts” “to identify extremists passing through or locating in the ghetto area, to identify purveyors of extremist literature,” and to keep an eye on “Afro-American type bookstores” (including obtaining the names of the bookstores’ “clientele”).
The FBI let no corner of American life escape its vigilance; it even worked to expose and discredit “communists who are secretly operating in legitimate organizations and employments, such as the Young Men’s Christian Association and Boy Scouts,” as a 1976 Senate report noted. The FBI took a shotgun approach to target and harass protesters partly because of its “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of an act which might be criminal,” the Senate report observed. That report characterized COINTELPRO as “a secret war against those citizens [the FBI] considers threats to the established order.” COINTELPRO was exposed only after a handful of activists burglarized an FBI office in a Philadelphia suburb, seized FBI files, and leaked the damning documents to the media. The revelations were briefly shocking but faded into the Washington Memory Hole.
FBI haughtiness was showcased on national television on April 19, 1993, when its agents used 54-ton tanks to smash into the Branch Davidians’ sprawling, ramshackle home near Waco, Texas. The tanks intentionally collapsed 25 percent of the building on top of the huddled residents. After the FBI pumped the building full of CS gas (banned for use on enemy soldiers by a chemical-weapons treaty), a fire ignited that left 80 children, women, and men dead. The FBI swore it was not to blame for the conflagration. However, FBI agents had stopped firetrucks from a local fire department far from the burning building, claiming it was not safe to allow them any closer because the Davidians might shoot people dousing a fire that was killing them. Six years after the assault, news leaked that the FBI had fired incendiary tear-gas cartridges into the Davidians’ home prior to the fire’s erupting.
Attorney General Janet Reno, furious over the FBI’s deceit on this key issue, sent U.S. marshals to raid FBI headquarters to search for more Waco evidence. From start to finish, the FBI brazenly lied about what it did at Waco — with one exception. On the day after the Waco fire, FBI on-scene commander Larry Potts explained the rationale for the FBI’s final assault: “These people  had thumbed their nose at law enforcement.”
Terrorism
FBI counterterrorism spending soared in the mid to late 1990s. But the FBI dismally failed to connect the dots on suspicious foreigners engaged in domestic aviation training prior to the 9/11 attacks. Though Congress had deluged the FBI with almost $2 billion to upgrade its computers, many FBI agents had ancient machines incapable of searching the web. One FBI agent observed that the bureau ethos is that “real men don’t type…. The computer revolution just passed us by.” The FBI’s pre–9/11 blunders “contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists,” according to a 2002 congressional investigation. Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft groused that “the safest place in the world for a terrorist to be is inside the United States; as long as they don’t do something that trips them up against our laws, they can do pretty much all they want.” Sen. Richard Shelby in 2002 derided “the FBI’s dismal recent history of disorganization and institutional incompetence in its national security work.” (The FBI also lost track of a key informant at the heart of the cabal that detonated a truck bomb beneath the World Trade Center in 1993.)
The FBI has long relied on entrapment to boost its arrest statistics and publicity bombardments. The FBI Academy taught agents that subjects of FBI investigations “have forfeited their right to the truth.” After 9/11, this doctrine helped the agency to entrap legions of patsies who made the FBI appear to be protecting the nation. Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, estimated that only about 1 percent of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. Thirty times as many were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest.
In the Liberty City 7 case in Florida, FBI informants planted the notion of blowing up government buildings. In one case, a federal judge concluded that the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles” in order to make a “terrorist” out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”
The FBI’s informant program extended far beyond Muslims. The FBI bankrolled a right-wing New Jersey blogger and radio host for five years prior to his 2009 arrest for threatening federal judges. We have no idea how many bloggers, talk-show hosts, or activists the FBI is currently financing.
The FBI’s power has rarely been effectively curbed by either Congress or federal courts. In 1971, House Majority Leader Hale Boggs declared that the FBI’s power terrified Capitol Hill: “Our very fear of speaking out [against the FBI] … has watered the roots and hastened the growth of a vine of tyranny…. Our society cannot survive a planned and programmed fear of its own government bureaus and agencies.” Boggs vindicated a 1924 American Civil Liberties Union report warning that the FBI had become “a secret police system of a political character” — a charge that supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would have cheered last year.
Is the FBI’s halo irrevocable? The FBI has always used its “good guy” image to keep a lid on its crimes. It is long past time for the American people, media, and Congress to take the FBI off its pedestal and place it where it belongs — under the law. It is time to cease venerating a federal agency whose abuses have perennially menaced Americans’ constitutional rights. Otherwise, the FBI’s vast power and pervasive secrecy guarantee that more FBI scandals are just around the bend.

CIA in Afghanistan: Operation Phoenix Redux?

Matthew Hoh

These CIA teams in Afghanistan are not just reminiscent of the Operation Phoenix program in Vietnam, the death squads of Central America and the Shia torture and murder militias of Baghdad, they are the direct descendants of them. The CIA is continuing a long tradition of utilizing savage violence by indigenous government forces, in this case along sectarian/ethnic lines, in an attempt to demoralize and ultimately defeat local populations.
The results will assuredly be the same: war crimes, mass murder, torture and the terrorization of entire communities of men, women and children in their own homes. This will lead to more support for the Taliban and a deepening of the war in Afghanistan. The CIA should ask itself, where has this worked before?
This escalation by the CIA in Afghanistan fits into the broader war campaign of the United States in the Muslim world as the United States, despite its protestations of wanting negotiations and ultimately peace, turns areas not under the control of its proxy government into large swathes of free fire zones as it punishes and attempts to subjugate populations not under its control.
Iraq’s campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the Muslim world.
This CIA program of using Afghan militias to conduct commando raids, the vast majority of which will be used against civilians despite what the CIA states, falls in line with American plans to escalate the use of air and artillery strikes against the Afghan people in Taliban-held areas, almost all of whom are Pashtuns.
Again, the purpose of this campaign is not to achieve a political settlement or reconciliation, but to brutally subjugate and punish the people, mostly rural Pashtuns, who support the Taliban and will not give in to the corrupt American run government in Kabul.

Decertifying the Iran Nuke Deal: Trading History for Hysteria

Jennifer Loewenstein

Many Americans are outraged that President Donald Trump has chosen to decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran (JCPOA). It is a belligerent, aggressive, and stupid move. We are embarrassed and ashamed of having a president so ignorant of world affairs and so indifferent to the deadly consequences our actions could have across the globe. Trump is taking us in a uniquely dangerous direction.
Should the US Congress follow Trump’s lead, it will be our moral obligation to reject and reverse its decisions. In order to stem the tide of destruction, other nations must take independent action, unite to oppose the madness taking hold of the United States, and join together with those Americans who know that this government neither represents us nor understands what is in our best interests. What has become an urgent international scenario, taking center stage in world news, was nevertheless foreseeable and preventable. This crisis grew out of a history deliberately blotted out of American historical memory, across successive generations, with the complicity of its public education system, its media establishment, and consecutive political administrations based in Washington DC.
Had our history with Iran been based on trust, fairness, and cooperation it is improbable that we would be facing the crisis that threatens us now.
There is no national collective memory of our duplicitous and self-aggrandizing foreign policy toward Iran. An apology for our behavior would hardly suffice, though it might at least serve as a beginning.
In 1953 when, with the UK, the Americans ousted democratically elected president Mossadiq from power, replacing him with Mohammad Reza Shah there was no outcry from within the government or its citizenry against so a blatant an act of treachery. On the contrary US businesses celebrated their 40% oil concessions and the virtual undoing of Mossadiq’s effort to nationalize Iranian oil. American control and power in the region grew, as Britain’s declined.
Under the increasingly tyrannical leadership of the Shah, Iran’s dependence on Western investments and arms sales grew. As the Iranian people’s dissent to the Shah’s regime flowered, the CIA and Israel’s Mossad stepped in to create, fund, and train members of SAVAK, the notorious state secret police. Our leadership was fully aware that SAVAK was responsible for torture, imprisonment, beatings, and executions of those who dared speak out against the Shah’s policies of repression. Even as President Jimmy Carter came to office ostensibly championing universal human rights, this focus was farcical as US entrenchment in Iran expanded.
The United States’ government turned Iran into its bodyguard in the Gulf, leaving it to monitor the region on our behalf as it waged bloody war on Vietnam and Cambodia. Although there were positive exchanges among US and Iranian citizens — in education, technology, and mutual understanding — these were overshadowed by economic downturns and a shrinking middle class as outside nations profited from Iran’s rich natural resources. Our plunder became your despair. Widespread civil unrest spread across the country leading almost inevitably to the overthrow of the Shah’s regime and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In November 1979, Iranian citizens took 52 Americans hostage in the US embassy in Tehran for 444 days. Americans were shocked and outraged, but it would have come as no surprise to those who remembered or took part in the coup that overthrew Mossadiq. It was hatched in that very same embassy. We did not tremble remembering our 1953 betrayal of democratic Iran in order to create a client regime whose purpose would be to further perceived US national security interests – because this “crisis” was recorded in a vacuum; one with no context or history.
We preferred instead to paint Iran as our own ‘Great Satan’; to ensure its devastation during the eight year-long Iran-Iraq War in which a young Donald Rumsfeld welcomed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein into the charmed circle of American allies — as long as he didn’t step out of line. When, in the course of the bloodiest war of the 20th century, Iraq used mustard gas against Iranian soldiers, the US denied it as propaganda. Only when Saddam Hussein gassed the Iraqi-Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, killing over 5000 people, did the truth emerge — including information that the Americans supplied Iraq with the materials necessary to produce chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons to wipe out a small city did not threaten our alliance with Iraq. Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was the far greater crime for us. It threatened a precarious regional stability we nurtured for our own benefit.
How ironic it is to realize that the early stages of Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program began with the training of Iranian physicists in laboratories of universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) during the reign of the Shah.
Today, as anti-Iranian and Islamophobic sentiment in the United States spreads, our xenophobic, barely literate president openly encourages it. The “Iran Deal” Trump bellows, is an “embarrassment” and “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” Sadly, Trump is unable to see that he is the international embarrassment; one of the worst and most toxic presidents the United States has ever elected. Considering the American leaders only of the last two decades, this is a scathing commentary, indeed.
Some of us understand that what the centers of power in the United States genuinely fear is an independent Iran whose influence is growing across the Middle East. Multiple IAEA inspections, reports, and independent organizational investigations of the JCPOA have certified and re-certified the Iran’s compliance with the treaty.
Lost in the bickering over which sanction should come next or what constraint should be added to the ‘plan of action’ to curb undoubted ‘sinister’ plans by the Islamic Republic was Tehran’s call, years ago, for a nuclear weapons’ free zone in the Middle East. This call was drowned out by Israel’s categorical NO, followed by hysterical denunciations of the nuclear weapons Iran doesn’t have —that nevertheless pose an existential threat to the region’s only nuclear armed superpower.
No one would expect a JCPOA agreement in which Israel were subjected to regular inspections by the IAEA; in which Israel’s people and economy would suffer under the burden of heavy, relentless sanctions; in which Israeli hegemony in the Middle East was allowed to continue because no other power would be allowed to build nuclear weapons. Scandalously false accusations of Tehran’s strategic intensions allow Israel to justify (yet again) its obscene arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu openly desires a military strike on Iran. His Saudi counterpart and de facto ally, desires the same thing.
What has so far kept both of these nations from attacking Iran with state-of-the-art military technology largely manufactured in, and then sold by, the United States, is the small thread of sanity among world leaders and among the ‘cooler’ heads of the US military and political establishments that still prevails.
This thin thread of sanity has failed miserably so far to protect the people of Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Under the Trump administration, it could snap altogether. A simple solution would be for an international JCPOA on how to contain the United States, curb its bullying, defuse its sanctimonious threats, and undo its grotesque perception of itself as a beacon of Enlightenment to be appreciated and deferred to by all other nations. How else will we stop the existential threat to the world posed by this mighty nuclear monster?

Rolling Back The Tide of Pesticide Poison, Corruption And Looming Mass Extinction

Colin Todhunter

An anthropogenic mass extinction is underway that will affect all life on the planet and humans will struggle to survive the phenomenon. So claims Dr Rosemary Mason in a paper (2015) in the Journal of Biological Physics and ChemistryLoss of biodiversity is the most urgent of the environmental problems because this type of diversity is critical to ecosystem services and human health. Mason argues that the modern chemical-intensive industrialised system of food and agriculture is the main culprit.
New research conducted in Germany supports the contention that we are heading for an “ecological Armageddon” – similar to the situation described by Mason. The study shows the abundance of flying insects has plunged by three-quarters over the past 25 years. The research data was gathered in nature reserves across Germany and has implications for all landscapes dominated by agriculture as it seems likely that the widespread use of pesticides is an important factor.
Cited in The Guardian (see previous link), Prof Dave Goulson of Sussex University, UK, and part of the team behind the new study, says, “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life… If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”
In the same piece, it is noted that flying insects are vital because they pollinate flowers. Moreover, many, not least bees, are important for pollinating key food crops. Most fruit crops are insect-pollinated and insects also provide food for many animals, including birds, bats, some mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Flies, beetles and wasps are also predators and important decomposers, breaking down dead plants and animals. And insects form the base of thousands of food chains; their disappearance is a principal reason Britain’s farmland birds have more than halved in number since 1970. Indeed the 2016 State of Nature Report found that one in 10 UK wildlife species are threatened with extinction, with numbers of certain creatures having plummeted by two thirds since 1970.
Rosemary Mason has been providing detailed accounts of massive insect declines on her own nature reserve in South Wales for some time. She has published first-hand accounts of the destruction of biodiversity on the reserve in various books and documents that have been submitted to relevant officials and pesticide regulation authorities in the UK and beyond. The research from Germany validates her findings.
Mason has written numerous open letters to officials citing reams of statistical data to support the contention agrochemicals, especially Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup, have devastated the natural environment and have also led to spiraling rates of illness and disease, especially among children.
She indicates how the widespread use on agricultural crops of neonicotinoid insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate, both of which cause immune suppression, make species vulnerable to emerging infectious pathogens, driving large-scale wildlife extinctions, including essential pollinators.
Providing evidence to show how human disease patterns correlate remarkably well with the rate of glyphosate usage on corn, soy and wheat crops, which has increased due to ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, Mason indicates how our over-reliance on chemicals in agriculture is causing irreparable harm to all beings on this planet.
The global pesticides industry has created chemicals of mass destruction and succeeded in getting many of their poison on the commercial market by highly questionable means:
“The EPA has been routinely lying about the safety of pesticides since it took over pesticide registrations in 1970.” Carol Van Strum.
Van Strum highlights the faked data and fraudulent tests that led to many highly toxic agrochemicals reaching the market – and they still remain in use, regardless of the devastating impacts on wildlife and human health.
The blatant disregard over the use of these substances by regulatory agencies around the world is apparent. At each stage of her letter-writing campaign to make the authorities call agrochemical manufactures to account, Mason has been frustrated by the lack of concern demonstrated by officialdom. This indifference to the poisoning of both humans and the environment is a result of high-level collusion (which she goes to great lengths to document) and institutionalised corruption between government and the agrochemical corporations.
The research from Germany follows a warning by a chief scientific adviser to the UK government who claimed that regulators around the world have falsely assumed that it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes and the “effects of dosing whole landscapes with chemicals have been largely ignored.”
And prior to that particular warning, there was a report delivered to the UN Human Rights Council saying that pesticides have catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole. Authored by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on toxics, the report states, “Chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.”
Although the pesticide industry argues that its products are vital for protecting crops and ensuring sufficient food supplies, Elver says, “It is a myth.”
The report argues:
“While scientific research confirms the adverse effects of pesticides, proving a definitive link between exposure and human diseases or conditions or harm to the ecosystem presents a considerable challenge. This challenge has been exacerbated by a systematic denial, fuelled by the pesticide and agro-industry, of the magnitude of the damage inflicted by these chemicals, and aggressive, unethical marketing tactics.”
Elver says:
“The power of the corporations over governments and over the scientific community is extremely important. If you want to deal with pesticides, you have to deal with the companies.”
The report recommends a move towards a global treaty to govern the use of pesticides and (like many other official reports) a shift to sustainable practice based on natural methods of suppressing pests and crop rotation and organically produced food.
Rachal Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) raised the red flag about the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, yet, despite the warnings, the agrochemical giants have ever since been conning us with snake oil under the pretense of ‘feeding the world’, while hiding behind bought science to mask their own ignorance or to cover up the harm they knowingly do. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic chemicals, introduce company-patented genetically tampered crops or continuously monocrop as part of a corporate-controlled industrial farming system, you kill essential microbes, upset soil balance and end up feeding soil a limited “doughnut diet” of unhealthy inputs.
In their arrogance (and ignorance), these companies claim to know what they are doing and attempt to get the public and various agencies to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its scientific priesthood.
Michael McCarthy, writer and naturalist, says that three generations of industrialised farming with a vast tide of poisons pouring over the land year after year after year, since the end of the second world war is the true price of pesticide-based agriculture, which society has for so long blithely accepted. Modern farming is in effect a principal source of global toxification and soil degradation. However, companies like Monsanto have no shame: they use tobacco tactics and science to try to confuse the issues and will even get their media and academic mouthpieces to ghost write ‘independent’ pieces to defend their products: they too have no shame, if the price is right, of course.
Chemical-intensive Green Revolution technology and ideology has effectively uprooted indigenous/traditional agriculture across the planet and has recast farming according to the needs global agribusiness and its supply chains. This has had devastating effects on regions, rural communities, diets, soils, health and water pollution. However, this financially lucrative venture for transnational corporations continues apace, spearheaded by the Gates Foundation in Africa and the World Bank’s ‘enabling the business of agriculture’.
This model of agriculture is poisoning life and the environment and undermining food security throughout the globe. Power is now increasingly concentrated in the hands of a handful of transnational agribusiness corporations which put profit and market control ahead of food security, health and nutrition and biodiversity.
Due to their political influence and financial clout, these companies are inflicting various forms of structural violence on humanity, including the waging of chemical warfare on nature and people, while seeking to convince us that their model of agriculture – based on proprietary seeds and chemicals – is essential for feeding a burgeoning global population. They mouth platitudes about choice and democracy, while curtailing both as they infiltrate and subvert regulatory agencies and government machinery. And they seek to continually degrade and marginalise approaches to agriculture that are sustainable and which produce healthy food.
Instead of accepting their model is both a failure and destructive, what we see under the banner of ‘innovation’ is even stronger pesticides and the roll-out of next generation untested genetically engineered food and synthetic alternatives to food coming down the pipeline (with all that entails for health and the further undermining of food security).
While governments, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, trade agreements and regulatory agencies remain tethered to the interests of the powerful corporations that have come to define the nature of global food and agriculture, there are alternatives to this system and the discussion of issues surrounding food and agriculture are now appearing in the mainstream media with increasing frequency.
It took a long time to finally curtail the activities of big tobacco. Tackling big agribusiness (and the system of capitalism that allows it to prosper at one expense) and its entrenchment within the heart of governments and international institutions is urgent. Unfortunately, given the scale of the problem and what is at stake, time is not on our side.

US Soldiers In Niger: A Hidden Global Mission

Binoy Kampmark

Empires of scale are often spread thinly across fields of operations. Vast, often opaque functions on the ground are not necessarily conveyed with accuracy to the metropolitan centre. Command structures, for all the sophistication of instant modern communication, do not eliminate human error, let alone enlighten.
The four US army deaths in Niger have been shrouded by the bickering unfolding between President Donald Trump and the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson.  John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has also been catapulted into the sordid business.
What the Johnson episode has obscured, being rich as social media material, are the deaths of three others who perished with Johnson on October 4 in Niger:  Staff Sgt. Dustin M. Wright, Staff Sgt. Bryan C. Black, and Staff Sgt. Jeremiah W. Johnson.
The Washington Post write up on the fallen is a feeling effort to add substance to those otherwise obscured by the travails of the US empire.  Black was multilingual but also fluent in the Hausa language, as “he wanted to communicate directly with the people.” This soldier of empire was similarly adept at chess.
Johnson “loved his country” and proved “loyal”. “For some, he was the beloved crazy uncle who never let a dull moment seep into his day.”  Niece Carrie Gomez’s words are noted:  “He was wild and outgoing. Just always on 100; always making you want to pull your hair out”.
These charming if potted accounts serve a few purposes. They add an understandable note of veneration for the fallen, but they also betray the sheer expanse of US deployments in foreign theatres, not all of which are understood in the padded cell of thought that is Washington.  Are these parts of a broader imperial mission, or merely the strutting efforts of a global police effort to keep terrorist elements in check?
Some 800 US military personnel operate in Niger, ostensibly to boost local counter-terrorism efforts. In total, some 1,000 operate in the Chad River Basin, spanning Niger, Chad, the top of Nigeria and the Central African Republic.
The four special forces soldiers were killed in an attack while patrolling with Niger troops near Tongo Tongo in the south-western part of the country, circumstances that will prompt some internal, not very pleasant probing. The skirmishing groups along the border with Mali are a motley assortment, varying between the plumage of Islamic State, led by Abu Walid al-Sahrawi, and opportunistic fringes of al-Qaeda.
Sketchy details of the sanguinary encounter have been sporadically supplied since October 4.  The Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, Gen Joseph Dunford, attempted to fill in a few details on Monday.   Help, it seems, was not sought till an hour after the attack had commenced.  French and Nigerian assistance duly arrived, but by the time Mirage jets were doing their best, two hours had passed.
What exactly happened?  Pentagon officials initially shot a finger at a self-radicalized IS group that had gotten lucky. According to Joint Staff Director Lt-Gen Kenneth McKenzie, US and Nigerien forces had “done 29 patrols without contact over the previous six months or so” with nothing so much as a sliver to suggest an imminent attack.
Grasping for explanations, McKenzie fanned the murderous appeal of ISIS, which still “have a powerful message in the cyber world”, one which propelled “self-radicalization”.  The general, however, was unsure, claiming that there was “also some minimal flow of people across the divide.”  For all his doubts, it was unlikely that the attackers “were foreign fighters that came from Syria”.
The engagement could not be read as a failure on the part of the US mission.  Neither McKenzie nor Dunford would have you believe that.  ISIS was being challenged, lashing out like a terminally challenged animal in various outposts of the globe.  The attack “was a natural product of the fact that [it] is being crushed in the core caliphate.”
General McKenzie, along with his colleagues, have insisted that the US mission in Niger is heavily circumscribed, and by the book. They are not there to take part, let alone advise the forces of Niger in direct combat missions.
General Dunford has similarly insisted that there was on reason “to believe or not know that they did anything other than operate within the orders they were given.”  But these distinctions are academic points, to be slogged over by believers in operational doctrine and public relations.  What matters is the stretch, and expanse, of modern US power, the sort that doesn’t necessarily work, finding itself in bloody muddles, local grievances and struggles.
The US soldier’s imprint is a global one, finding form in theatres many citizens would be surprised, even perturbed by.  South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham went so far as to express open ignorance that 1,000 US troops were operating in Niger. They continue to apply the policing and erroneous language born in President George W. Bush’s war on terror, with all its conceptual and logistical nonsenses. As they do so, the bodies mount.

Confronting The West With Its Responsibilities Is Essential!

Salim Nazzal

The West has a black history in the middle east that must be recognised. In 1916, Arabs joined the allied forces but deceived.The victorious  western powers divided the region as they wished without any consideration to the peoples’ will. Then  completed  this crime by planting the state of Israel, which since day one spread state terrorism throughout the region.
The West supported Israel and defied the international law set by the West. Our part of the world continued to live in a climate of war, militarisation and tension because of this. In this respect, the West practised and still the most arrogant kind of hypocrisy in modern history.
The truth is entirely twisted.
The occupier is supported by the west, while those defending their home are considered terrorists. Which naturally led to negative consequences that it deprived the region of peace to be able to build its countries.It also promotes the culture of militarisation which naturally weakened the developing of civil societies.
The Americans used to boast that they did not occupy in the past an Arab or Muslim country. Then we saw Afghanistan and Iraq occupied by the USA using different excuses.
In 2003,  based on pure lies, Iraq besieged, and about half a million people died. Then America challenged the whole world and occupied Iraq and killed tens of thousands and created a climate of chaos yet to end. Finally, they said that their information about Iraqi weapons was wrong. Well, will they return the lives of those killed? Or will they compensate those hundreds of thousands who lost their loved ones? But the USA did nothing; they even did not issue an official apology for what they did.
We do not talk here about the Europian invasion in the 17 0r 18 century.
But instead about a policy practised in an era in which human rights concepts have developed profoundly. So what makes us wonder is how far the West is exempting itself from its responsibility for the crimes committed in our region. Which in my view has helped to prepare the climate for the current violence which strikes the Middle East? At the same time the west paradoxically plays the role of the judge by accusing a whole culture of being violent?  This is evident in the western media which agitated against Arabs and Muslim and created a wave of hatred towards them.
Even if we to count the loss of the west in the Islamic terrorism, we will find it peanuts compared with the western and Zionist state terror.
The problem that the west does not want to listen to the sound voice. And, insisted on ignoring the west responsibility in the crimes committed in the Middle East.
Ghadafi said once that either we are slaves to the west or enemies. Well, we do not want to be either .we seeks to live in peace without being terrorised by the west. And we aim to have a mutual relation in a peaceful climate which allows people on both sides to live in peace and harmony. We only want our rights, no more and no less.
I’m not saying that Arabs are not responsible towards where they end of internal fight and religion fanatics and senseless wars.
Arabs have proven stupidity and lack of tolerance towards each other, which is shameful, and a black page in Arab history.
It is essential to hold the West responsible so that the concept of the war on terror does not see from one angle. Killing humans is an act of terror whether the killer in uniform or civilian clothes.
In the meetings with intellectuals or officials in the West, they must be asked to recognise the moral responsibility. Countries like Iraq and Syria must use international law, and there is consistent evidence of intervention, incitement and support to criminal groups with weapons which is a violation of international law.