14 Nov 2017

US, Japan, Australia, India “Quadrilateral” alliance takes shape against China

James Cogan

Yesterday’s East Asia Summit (EAS) in Manila was utilised by the United States and its key regional “partners”—Japan, Australia and India—to consolidate a military and strategic “Indo-Pacific” bloc against China’s growing influence in Asia and internationally.
US President Donald Trump initially intended only to hold talks with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte on Sunday, and leave the country before the EAS convened yesterday. In the face of criticism domestically and in the region, the White House reversed course before Trump left the US and his tour through Asia was extended.
It now appears that Trump’s decision to remain for the first day of the EAS followed assurances from Japan, Australia and India that they would commit to what has become dubbed the “Quadrilateral.” In 2007, tentative steps toward a de-facto alliance between the four states collapsed when Australia withdrew in the face of Chinese opposition. Ten years later, Canberra is agitating for the “Quad’s” formation.
On Sunday, as political leaders flew into the Philippines ahead of a “gala dinner” with Duterte, top officials from the four countries held substantive talks. Each issued separate statements.
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs said it had “agreed that a free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region serves the long-term interests of all countries in the region and of the world at large.”
The US State Department blandly asserted the cooperation of the four countries “rests on a foundation of shared democratic values and principles.”
The Australian Foreign Ministry, by contrast, bluntly spelt out the anti-China agenda. It declared that the issues canvassed included “upholding the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific and respect for international law, freedom of navigation and overflight.” It also referred to coordinating “efforts to address the challenges of countering terrorism” and “upholding maritime security in the Indo-Pacific.” The four countries “agreed to work together to address threats to international peace … including the DPRK’s [North Korea’s] nuclear and missile programs.”
Questioned about the talks, China’s foreign ministry spokesman commented cautiously: “China is glad to see relevant countries develop friendly and cooperative relations, but we hope that such relations would not target a third party.”
The reality that the Quad is targeted against China, however, is contained in numerous strategic documents published by the governments and think-tanks of the four participants.
The Australian statement invoked all the diplomatic jargon employed to justify a confrontational stance to undermine and weaken China. The “rules-based order” means the American-dominated alliances and institutions developed following World War II. “Freedom of navigation and overflight” and “maritime security” mean challenging Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea and prosecuting the “right” of the US and allied militaries to enter such territory at will.
“Countering terrorism” is the justification for the US and its partners to intervene in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines. The purported threat posed by North Korea’s weapon programs is the pretext for war and regime-change on China’s northern border.
As the meetings in the Philippines took place, a flotilla of three US aircraft carriers and their escorts, along with Japanese and South Korean warships, conducted massive military exercises off the Korean coast. Australian warships are also deployed in the vicinity.
Following Sunday’s Quad talks and statements, Trump transformed a scheduled bilateral meeting with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday into a joint session with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Before their talks, the trio fronted the media in a choreographed display of unity.
Trump later met with Indian President Narendra Modi and held another private discussion with Turnbull last night.
Turnbull declared the three countries would work together to ensure “the North Korean regime comes to its senses and stops its reckless provocation and threats of conflict.” Abe asserted “the immediate challenge is the issue of North Korea.” Trump announced he will deliver a keynote foreign policy speech upon his return to the US, possibly on Wednesday, addressing both North Korea and trade.
In more “America First” threats—following his protectionist rant at the APEC summit in Vietnam—the US president blustered: “We have deficits with almost everybody. Those deficits are going to be cut very quickly and very substantially.”
Trump’s continual references to the massive trade deficits, intractable budget deficits and staggering levels of public and corporate debt in the US go to the heart of the real motivations behind the efforts to forge an anti-China coalition in Asia.
American strategists long ago concluded that US imperialism could maintain its waning regional and global position, against the emergence of China as a rival centre of world production and finance, only through military intimidation and, when necessary, war.
The Obama administration coined the term “Indo-Pacific” in 2011 and launched the “pivot to Asia,” which involved a build-up of military power in the region, accompanied by intrigues to ensure that Japan, Australia and other countries collaborated with its projection of force against China.
The economic front of the pivot was the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It was designed to exclude Beijing until it dismantled financial regulations, privatised state-owned companies and strengthened intellectual property rights protection, which would facilitate greater penetration of its markets by transnational banks and corporations.
Trump repudiated the TPP upon taking office, denouncing it for making concessions to Asian and South American countries that the US need not make. The thrust of his policy remains essentially the same as Obama’s, but it is being pursued through the threat of open trade war and even greater military pressure.
Japan, Australia and India, which are determined to block China’s rise for their own reasons, are backing Washington. Japanese and Australian officials delayed any progress yesterday toward the “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership” that China has proposed as an Asian trading bloc to exclude the United States.
Japan and Australia insisted that the agreement cover not only lowering tariffs, but greater access to the service sector of member economies and protection of intellectual property. As a result, any agreement was pushed back until 2018.
At the same time, Japan, with Australian support, is spearheading efforts to re-forge the TPP—with as many of the original participants as possible and without the US or China. Tokyo has largely dismissed Trump’s calls for the reduction of the US-Japan trade deficit.
Behind all the displays of allegiance and deference to Washington, the political establishments of Japan and Australia are acting in the interests of their own capitalist elites. No less than the European powers, they are seeking to gain the maximum from the decline of American hegemony and the global re-division of world economic and political influence that is underway.
Even as they collaborate against China, the reality of nation-state competition guarantees that sharp tensions will emerge within the Quad, especially between US and Japanese imperialism, the historic rivals for dominance in Asia.

Abdelkader Merah’s conviction stokes anti-Muslim hysteria in France

Anthony Torres

Abdelkader Merah, the brother of the gunman in the Toulouse and Montauban shootings during the 2012 French presidential election campaign, was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and sentenced to 20 years in jail last week, despite not having been found guilty of complicity in murder.
The extraordinary sentence, given the outcome of the trial, aims to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in France. It also serves to hide the role of French intelligence in the Syrian wars and the Islamist networks to which Abdelkader's brother, Mohamed Merah, belonged at the time.
Mohamed Merah killed seven people in March 2012 in southwestern France. His victims included three parachutists of North African origin and three students and a teacher at a Jewish school. Merah was shot and killed in an assault by police special forces.
Abdelkader Merah was arrested shortly after the attack and has been imprisoned ever since, awaiting trial on charges that he was complicit in the murders.
After a five-week trial, the court concluded that Mohamed Merah “was always alone” during the seven killings on March 11, 15 and 19.
The court ruled that “the incriminating elements existing against the accused are insufficient, and he should receive the benefit of the doubt.” It added that simple participation in a conspiracy of criminals is “insufficient” to make a defendant guilty of complicity in murder and noted that there was no proof that Abdelkader Merah had provided “aid or assistance” to his brother.
Nonetheless, Abdelkader Merah was found guilty of “criminal conspiracy” and given the maximum sentence for such a crime, for having helped his brother steal a scooter that he later used in the murders. This is a very heavy sentence for such an offense. However, the prosecutor's office, which had asked for a life sentence, announced it would appeal.
Reactionary journalists cynically denounced the ruling. In a L'Express editorial, Christophe Barbier wrote, “Decreeing that Abdelkader Merah is not complicit in murder means that his brother Mohamed was a lone wolf. But we know that is false. The trial did not shed light on all Merah's connections. Then, the court ruling suggests that there is no complicity if one arms a killer mentally, intellectually and religiously. But it is clear that Abdelkader's influence over Mohamed was decisive.”
Barbier made clear he thought that an even more extraordinary sentence was needed to strike fear into the hearts of the Islamists: “Finally, France sent the jihadists a political message. The different groupings will say the French Republic is weak, it pulls its punches. France should show it knows how to fight its enemies.”
The reactions of the media are a political fraud. By blaming the murders on the “ideological hold” Abdelkader Merah reportedly had over his brother, they are covering up the reactionary role of the French state and intelligence services, who knew Mohamed Merah well before the shootings. These lies have vast political consequences. By falsely claiming the state faces a virtually unstoppable Islamist threat and needs draconian police powers to fight it, a false pretext is created for imposing a state of emergency and far reaching attacks on social and democratic rights.
Mohamed Merah's links to intelligence are well known. A few weeks after the shootings, Les Inrockuptibles magazine cited Italian sources: “According to intelligence sources that spoke to Il Foglio, the [French] General Directorate of External Security obtained for him [Merah] entry into Israel in September 2010 via a border post with Jordan, presenting him as an informant. His entry into Israel, covered by the French aimed to show the jihadist networks his capacity to cross borders with a European passport.”
According to former domestic intelligence chief Bernard Squarcini, Merah repeatedly visited his agency's headquarters after trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan in October-November 2011 to report what he had seen. Squarcini called it “a non-coercive administrative interview, we were not in the framework of a juridical process.” Merah was thus freely giving French intelligence the information it wanted; that is, he was functioning as an informant, officially or otherwise.
In La Dépêche du Midi, Yves Bonnet, another high-ranking domestic intelligence official, asked if Merah was an informant of Squarcini's Central Directorate of Domestic Intelligence (DCRI): “What is remarkable, really, is that he was known to the DCRI not because he was an Islamist, but because he had a handler in domestic intelligence. That is not banal. … I do not know how far these relations, or the 'collaboration' with this agency, went, but one can indeed ask questions about this.”
Abdelkader Merah's trial confirmed these relations.
Under questioning from the court, Christian Balle-Andui, the former intelligence chief for the Toulouse area, said that on June 15 and 29, 2011, he had asked for judicial proceedings over Mohamed Merah's “worrying” attitude. According to Balle-Andui, Merah was the subject of an intelligence file. On March 15, 2012, Balle-Andui was denied access to video surveillance footage of the attacks, and claimed he was “60 percent sure he could have identified the killer based on his silhouette.”
Balle-Andui reported that Merah was on the short list of “most important” terrorists in the Toulouse area, including “the white emir Olivier Corel, the Clain brothers, who promoted the 13 November attacks, or the Islamic State jihadist Sabri Essid.”
These revelations vindicate the analyses of the WSWS on the role played by the involvement of the state and intelligence services in Middle East wars in the Islamist terror attacks in France over the last five years.
These attacks are the product in particular of NATO wars for regime change, starting in 2011 in Libya and in Syria, based on collaboration with Al Qaeda-linked Islamists serving as proxy forces. Intelligence services were in contact with individuals like Merah, helping them to travel internationally to gather intelligence and build up networks that could be used to send Islamist recruits from France and Europe to fight in Middle East wars.
This also provided the ruling class with political ammunition to wage war against workers at home. Merah has been presented as a “lone wolf” to hide the fact that the networks in which he was active, which were being used before and during his attacks in the Libyan and Syrian wars, included the individuals who carried out the Islamic State attacks of 13 November 2015 in Paris. This was the pretext the French ruling class used to impose a state of emergency that allowed it to ram through the 2016 labor law, violently repressing mass protests by workers and youth.

Sixty thousand fascists march in Warsaw

Clara Weiss

On Saturday, November 11, at least 60,000 fascist demonstrators from Poland, Hungary and Slovakia gathered in Warsaw, the Polish capital, on Poland’s “Independence Day” to stage what has been described as the biggest far-right demonstration since the fall of Nazism. Some estimates suggested as many as 100,000 participants.
The rally was organized by a variety of far-right groups, including the Polish National-Radical Camp, the National Movement and the All Polish Youth, all of which are anti-Semitic and white supremacist. The historical antecedents of these forces were responsible for violent anti-Semitic pogroms in the 1930s, and helped the Nazis hunt down Jews during the German occupation, even when they themselves were persecuted by the Nazis.
Slogans at the rally effectively called for an ethnic purge of Europe. Banners read: “White Europe of Brotherly Peoples,” “Europe will be White or Depopulated,” “Pure Poland, White Poland!” “Death to the Enemies of the Fatherland,” “Pray for Islamic Holocaust,” and “Refugees, Get Out!” Marchers waved Polish flags and carried burning torches. Some also displayed the falanga, the main symbol of Polish fascism.
Thousands of fascists and ultra-nationalists travelled from other countries to attend the march, including from Sweden, Hungary and Slovakia. The well-known American white supremacist Richard Spencer was invited to speak at the rally but was apparently banned by the Polish government from traveling to the country.
Nothing about this demonstration was spontaneous or accidental. It was a carefully planned provocation and show of strength by the Eastern European far-right, aimed at intimidating everyone opposed to the right-wing shift in European and international politics and the ever more feverish war preparations. It was consciously staged in a city that was all but destroyed in 1944 by the German Wehrmacht, and whose Jewish population was wiped out in Auschwitz and Treblinka. Poland suffered some five million losses under Nazi occupation, three million of them Jews, and was the main site of the industrial extermination of European Jewry.
The fascist forces that have now unabashedly and provocatively shown themselves in Warsaw have been strengthened and even armed, by both right-wing governments in Europe, and US imperialism.
The slogan of the demonstration was “We Want God,” the words from an old religious Polish song that US President Donald Trump quoted during his July visit to Warsaw. As the WSWS noted at the time, Trump was deliberately whipping up fascist sentiments and religious bigotry in a speech that implied support for anti-Semitism, nationalism, Catholicism and white supremacy.
Moreover, during this visit, Trump signaled the full support of the White House for Polish Law and Justice (PiS) government plans to build a so called Intermarium (between the seas) alliance of states in Eastern Europe, directed against both Russia and Germany. Historically, attempts to build such an alliance were always centered in Poland, which has thus sought to become a regional power, while relying on fascist and ultra-nationalist formations in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, Romania, and Slovakia. It is these forces to whom Trump appealed in his speech, and they understood it very well.
Even before the Trump administration took office, the US government had worked to strengthen the far right throughout Eastern Europe, most notably in Ukraine. The US-orchestrated coup in Kiev in February 2014 critically relied on the country’s fascist forces. They have been given almost free reign in the ongoing civil war that has ravaged the country ever since. Formations such as the Azov Battalion, which played a major role in the coup, have been employed to fight separatist troops in eastern Ukraine and terrorize the local population. Like so many far-right groups in the region, the Azov battalion openly advocates a resurrection of the Intermarium alliance.
The Law and Justice government in Warsaw has done its part to strengthen the far right ever since it won a parliamentary majority in the fall of 2015. It has constantly promoted xenophobia, anti-Semitism, nationalism and militarism. Moreover, there are an estimated 400,000 people involved in paramilitary organizations dominated by far-right ideologies in Poland, a country with a population of less than 40 million. The Defense Ministry has undertaken to arm these forces and integrate them into a paramilitary militia that is being established parallel and, to some extent, in opposition to, the country’s regular armed forces.
It is thus no accident that the Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak praised the demonstration: “It was a beautiful sight. We are proud that so many Poles have decided to take part in a celebration connected to the Independence Day holiday.” Other sections of the Polish government, including the Foreign Ministry, issued similar statements.
Polish President Andrzej Duda condemned the demonstration, arguing that there was no room for xenophobia and nationalism in Poland. Under conditions of growing social and political opposition to the PiS government, Duda has tried to distance himself from the government’s policies over the past year. But he too is responsible. Not only has he played a key role in propping up the PiS-government by playing the role of a mediating buffer between the government and the opposition. He was also one of the first to proclaim the building of an Intermarium-style alliance as official governmental policy when elected president in the summer of 2015.
The resurgence of the far-right in Eastern Europe, which was the site of some of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity, perpetrated by the German National Socialists and their local fascist allies, is a stark warning to the international working class. As in the 1930s, the bourgeoisie is preparing for war and the suppression of social revolution by building up the far right.

EU member states take major step toward a European army

Peter Schwarz 

The European Union has taken a major step toward developing the capacity to wage war in the future independently of and, if necessary, against the United States.
Foreign and defence ministers from 23 of the 28 EU member states signed a framework document on a common defence policy in Brussels on Monday. Along with Britain, which will leave the EU in 2019, only four smaller countries—Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Portugal—did not sign on to the deal. However, they can do so at any time.
With the “agreement on permanent structured cooperation” (PESCO), the EU states committed themselves to close cooperation in the development and purchase of weapons, and in making available troops and equipment for joint military interventions.
“PESCO is an ambitious, binding and inclusive European legal framework for investment in the security and defence of the EU’s territory and citizens,” the document states. The key issue is to make Europe more efficient, capable of acting and quicker, said a representative of the German defence ministry.
The agreement signifies an escalation of European militarism. The first of 20 conditions to which all parties must commit is a regular increase in military spending. At least 20 percent of this must be directed to the purchase of new weapons. For its part, the EU intends to contribute €500 million annually and €1 billion after 2021 to joint arms projects.
Details concerning the form of cooperation will be worked out over the coming weeks. There are currently 47 proposals for joint projects. These include a joint crisis response corps, the establishment of multinational combat units, a joint “centre of excellence” for European training missions, precautionary plans for military interventions in various regions around the world, a “military Schengen” zone, which would allow the swift deployment of troops and heavy weaponry without bureaucratic hurdles, joint satellite reconnaissance, a European medics commando, and joint logistics hubs. Ten of these 47 projects are to be initiated in December.
The driving forces behind PESCO are Germany and France. In recent months, Berlin, Paris and Brussels have promoted the project by holding six workshops. French President Emmanuel Macron, in a speech delivered at the Sorbonne University in Paris in September, declared, “By the beginning of the next decade, Europe must have a joint intervention force, a common defence budget and a joint doctrine for action.”
German Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen said the signing of PESCO was “a great day for Europe.” The parties were taking “a further step towards an army for Europe.”
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel described the agreement as “historic.” It was a “major step towards independence and the strengthening of the EU’s security and defence policy.” He anticipated that PESCO would result in a major increase in military capabilities.
Europe currently spends half of the money the US does on its military, he said, but achieves a capacity of only 15 percent. Closer cooperation could bring about an improvement.
Berlin, Paris and Brussels are seeking to portray EU military cooperation as complimentary to, rather than at odds with, NATO. The PESCO agreement itself states: “The strengthened military capacity of EU states will also be of use to NATO. It will strengthen the European pillar and serve to answer repeated demands for stronger transatlantic burden-sharing.”
Von der Leyen also sought to deny any opposition to NATO. The transatlantic alliance would always be responsible for national and collective defence, she said, while the EU, with its “networked security,” would carry out tasks that are not part of NATO’s remit, such as “assistance” to African states.
This is nonsense. Commentators are generally agreed that two key events have encouraged the implementation of long-discussed but repeatedly frustrated plans for a European army: the election of Donald Trump and Brexit.
A first attempt to found a European Defence Community failed in 1954 in the face of French opposition. No further attempt was made for several decades. At the turn of the new century, efforts to establish closer military cooperation failed due to resistance from London, which, as Washington’s closest ally, wanted to prevent the emergence of any alternative to NATO.
Trump’s “America First” policy has sharpened the tensions between the United States and Europe. US policy in the Middle East and Southeast Asia is viewed in Berlin and Paris as an attack on their interests, and America, Europe and China are fighting among themselves for influence in Africa. Only in the preparations for war with Russia are the European powers and the US cooperating closely via NATO. But even here, there are tactical differences on how far the conflict should be pushed.
At the same time, Brexit has removed the most important opponent of a European army from the EU.
The PESCO agreement does not mean that all of the conflicts within Europe have been overcome, and that Germany and France will toe the same line from now on. Even prior to the agreement, sharp differences emerged.
While Paris wanted to restrict the agreement to a small, exclusive group of states with large armies that could intervene decisively in a crisis situation, Berlin pressed for the broadest possible range of participants, with a wide spectrum of tasks. Germany prevailed.
Since unanimous decisions are required, decision-making will be difficult. But Berlin feared that the Eastern European states, which are increasingly dominated by nationalist and anti-EU sentiment, would align with the US.
The huge hike in military spending connected with PESCO will exacerbate class tensions in Europe. The ruling elites are already responding to class tensions in every European country with a major buildup of the apparatus of state repression. This is encouraging right-wing and nationalist forces and tearing the EU apart.
In the final analysis, the growing tensions between the US and Europe are “not simply the product of the extreme nationalist policies of the current occupant of the White House,” as the World Socialist Web Site wrote in its June 2, 2017 Perspective column titled “The Great Unraveling: The crisis of the post-war geopolitical order.”
The column continued: “Rather, the tensions are rooted in deep contradictions between the interests of the major imperialist powers, which twice in the last century led to world war…
“The events surrounding Trump’s trip to Europe reflect a crisis not only of American imperialism, but of the entire world capitalist system. None of Washington’s rivals—neither the EU, despised at home for its austerity policies, nor the economically moribund, right-wing regime in Japan, nor the post-Maoist capitalist oligarchy in China—offers a progressive alternative. Anyone who asserted that a coalition of these powers will emerge to stabilize world capitalism, and block the emergence of large-scale trade war and military conflict, would be placing heavy bets against history.”
The rearming of Europe confirms this. Only the construction of an international antiwar movement based on the working class and fighting for a socialist programme and the overthrow of capitalism can avert the catastrophe of another world war.

The Geopolitics of Floating Bases and the New World Order

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


US naval officer and strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan’s advice in 1890 for the US to push outwards to rule the oceans is still heeded by US maritime forces in the present day. The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier, standing 23 stories high and 333 metres long with 5,000 personnel on board, arrived in Sri Lanka in October this year after 32 years since the last arrival of a US aircraft carrier. Aircraft carriers are sea-faring air bases equivalent to floating geographical land masses with significant firepower which have been proven as key strategic war machines in the recent past.
The visit of the USS Nimitz is a clear indication of the military and economic might that the US projects through floating bases, not only in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) but globally. Floating bases are indicative of the US world order – one that is predominantly unilateral, save for 'collective security' partnerships and one that seeks hegemony.
Nevertheless, the presence of USS Nimitz in the IOR intends to symbolise the strong cooperation between the US and Sri Lanka during the Sirisena regime. Back in 1985, the US aircraft carrier visit would have raised concerns for Sri Lanka’s immediate neighbour, India. However, today, the US and India enjoy a different relationship than in the past. The US has clearly cemented strong 'collective security' relations with India, Japan, and Australia.
In this context, countries with a geostrategic advantage such as Sri Lanka are seen as ideal sites to further strengthen these lateral ties. From 2010 onwards, there have been more than 200 foreign naval visits to Sri Lanka, including India’s INS Vikramaditya, another aircraft carrier that visited the Colombo Port in 2016. Sri Lanka strives to balance all major powers’ interests in the country and thus accommodate these war ships as friendship visits. The prevalent counter-argument is that some major powers, most notably China, are aggressively and one-sidedly pursuing their own self-interest through setting up military bases in the IOR. However, one could also contend that aircraft carriers as floating bases (such as the US’) in the deep oceans are trying to showcase and achieve a similar military strategy and projection of power.
President Sirisena’s government is enacting this balancing act for Sri Lanka and creating equidistant foreign relations with the US, India, and China. In the region, India has also engaged in joint military exercises, the most recent being ‘Mitra Shakti 2017’ with Sri Lanka in October. According to the Indian Express, the joint military exercise was India’s response to China’s growing influence in South Asia and the IOR. However,this author’s opinion is that the article is speculative since the military exercise clearly falls short of limiting China’s growing power in the region. In this vein, many speculative media stories will raise similar questions with regard to Sri Lanka’s relationship with its neighbour, India.
President Trump visited China against the backdrop of all these geopolitical events in the IOR. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has arguably presided over more domestic stability and economic prosperity in his country than Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Vladimir Putin, and Trump combined. President Xi, in his speech to the 19th National Congress in October, highlighted the founding aspirations of Chinese communist values. This included moving 80 million people from rural to urban areas, boosting the country’s GDP from 54 trillion to 80 trillion yuan, projecting China as the world’s second largest economy, and contributing to 30 per cent of global economic growth in a span of only five years. While propelling innovation and scientific advancement, China has also made more than 1500 reforms of a socialist nature to pursue modernisation, including fighting corruption. On the latter point, President Xi remarked “We have taken out tigers, swatted flies and hunted down foxes,” leaving no space for corruption.
At the 19th National Congress, China’s external approach to the world was discussed. President Xi’s gigantic One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project has already altered the natural geography in many parts of the world. This includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), connecting to Gwadar Port as well as Hambantota Port, which will change trading patterns in the region. The Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Silk Road Fund are other economic initiatives working towards funding a new economic order. Thus, it is apparent that China has charted its own course in creating an Asian-led new world order that is geo-politically, economically and militarily in direct contravention of the US’ world order, and that renounces the perceived Western view.
Today, China projects itself as a proud country, at a time when socialists around the world are celebrating the centennial of the great October Revolution of 1917, spearheaded by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin. From its long history of struggle, China has set itself in the right direction to alter the existing world order (the one contravened by the US), by pursuing a strategy that is rooted in economic and geopolitical prowess. Much like the US, China’s power projections are articulated through the amassing of land-bases. Yet, China’s world vision is far broader, in that it is striving to combine its economic and military might with its socialist-political orientation as well as the geo-strategic interests of developing countries.

‘Gas Chamber’ Cities and Dangers Nuclear

Manpreet Sethi


Come November and the entire Indo-Gangetic plain running across the northern regions of Pakistan and India comes under a dirty grey haze. Major cities in these areas begin gasping for breath. A mix of a natural phenomenon and mindless human activity makes for a lethal cocktail of air pollution. Winter smog in Beijing and other Chinese cities puts its residents to the same risk year after year.
As air purifiers become the new status symbols and face masks run into short supply, thinking the unthinkable looks like a good idea. Hopefully, this health emergency will pass and the air quality index will return from severe to moderate soon. But, what if the air had been radioactive? What if it had been caused after a few mushroom clouds went up, in which case, the air would also contain vast amounts of toxic gases generated by thermal fires devouring modern buildings made with synthetic materials and chemical components? How soon could normalcy be expected in that situation?
For those who talk about the use of nuclear weapons in a rather cavalier fashion and project nuclear war-fighting as feasible, this is a moment to pause and think deeply about what this use can mean in real terms. Strategies that propagate battlefield use of nuclear weapons cannot guarantee the possibility that the situation will not escalate into a larger exchange. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incidents of one bomb use each. This luxury will not be obtained in the future.
During the years of the Cold War when the two nuclear superpowers were in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation and the risk of nuclear war was considered imminent, several studies estimated the likely damage to life and society. These ranged from accounting for the mutual assured destruction of civilisation, to the more ‘limited’ damage caused if the two sides were to exchange only a fraction of their nuclear arsenal. Yet, even in the case of the latter, the effects were beyond imagination with at least 35 million dead and 10 million seriously injured in each country, besides long-term health hazards of ionising radiation and electromagnetic pulse. There are also risks to the ozone layer, including the prospect of nuclear winter as nuclear explosions create immense quantities of dust and smoke, which would blanket out sunlight.
Such a spectre was believed to have passed with the end of the Cold War. However, the possibility of a deliberate or inadvertent nuclear war, even if at a much smaller scale, still exists. If such a scenario were ever to occur, god forbid, the implications would be more than nation or region-specific. Of course, the immediate areas of destruction and suffering would be the ones closest to ground zero, but the ripples would go deeper and wider.
Nuclear weapons are in a category of their own because their impact transcends space and time. Just to provide one example, it has been calculated that for up to a few decades after a few nuclear explosions of even kiloton yield, the local and regional fallout would result in thousands of cancers through ingestion of radionuclide deposited on plants and soil, and inhalation of ground level air, genetic abnormalities, miscarriages, increased susceptibility to disease, vision impairment, and lifelong emotional and social problems among the survivors.
Besides the immediate human tragedy, one can only imagine the likely environmental consequences and the damage that would be caused to the biosphere’s capacity to support human life of the quality that exists. While some argue that contaminated regions could be isolated, one has to only imagine (if possible) the implications of this in terms of large-scale migrations, population pressures on ecologically fragile areas, and the social upheaval it could cause. The possibility of food shortages, the paucity of shelters, and the strain on health infrastructure will make sheer physical survival an ordeal.
Meanwhile, given the large-scale interdependence of modern economies, a nuclear exchange will have far-reaching and most unintended economic consequences. Fuel supply disruptions would bring many activities to a standstill and leave an impact on the economies of more than the countries that have suffered a nuclear exchange.
Lastly, the consequences for the international standing of the countries involved cannot be ignored since factors such as human resources, economic performance, education, health, etc would all be weakened and recovery would be a long drawn process with unpredictable impact on the societal patterns of behaviour and human interaction.
Therefore, nuclear war-fighting is not a subject to be taken lightly. Countries that indulge in casual nuclear brinkmanship and maintain a first use posture place the fate of countless individuals – directly or indirectly – at peril. The ‘gas chambers’ that Delhi and Lahore today are, a situation that is not unfamiliar to Beijing either, provides a very, very, very low-level sample of what countries could face after the use of nuclear weapons. And, no one finds this bearable! Grey skies, burning eyes and a choking sensation that afflict all equally is a good time to think more seriously about the ongoing nuclear stalemates across the world, and of course, in the South Asian region.

13 Nov 2017

Google Africa PhD Fellowship Program for African Students 2018

Application Deadline: Friday 19th January 2018 (11:59pm GMT ).
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: Nurturing and maintaining strong relations with the academic community is a top priority at Google. The Google Africa PhD Fellowship Program has been created to support and recognize outstanding students pursuing or looking to pursue PhD level studies in computer science and related areas.
Fields of Study: Computer science and related areas
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
For current PhD Students
  • Applicants must be enrolled into a full-time PhD program at a university in Africa. Applicants who are currently in their first year of a part-time PhD program and transferring to full-time positions are also welcome to apply.
  • Students should be early stage PhD students, i.e., should not have been into more than 1 year of their PhD. Applicants for the 2018 Fellowship must have started their program on or after 1 January 2017.
  • Students must remain enrolled in the PhD program for the duration of the Fellowship or forfeit the award.
  • Applicants must be pursuing a PhD in Computer Science or related areas.
  • Google employees and family members of Google employees are not eligible.
  • Students who are already receiving another corporate fellowship are not eligible.
For current Undergraduate/Masters students and Professionals
Grant of the fellowship to this category of applicants is contingent on them joining a full-time PhD program at a university in Africa within the calendar year of the award.
  • Student applicants must be current full-time Undergraduate or Masters students enrolled at an African university. Professionals must be employed/affiliated with an organization registered in Africa.
  • The Google Fellowship award shall be contingent on the awardee registering for the full-time PhD program of an African university, in Computer Science or related areas, within the calendar year 2018, or the award shall be forfeited.
  • Grant of the Google Fellowship does not mean admission to the PhD program of a university. The awardee must also complete the PhD admission process of the respective institute/university where he/she wishes to register for a PhD.
  • Grant of the Google Fellowship will be subject to the rules and guidelines applicable in the institute/university where the awardee registers for the PhD program.
  • Google employees and family members of Google employees are not eligible.
  • Applicants who are already receiving another corporate fellowship are not eligible.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Details of Award: 
  • Successful students receive named Fellowships, which include a $10,000 award per year over 3 years.
  • The funds are given directly to the university to be distributed to cover the student’s expenses and stipend as appropriate.
  • The funds are given as an unrestricted gift, and it is Google’s policy not to pay for overhead on unrestricted gifts.
  • In addition, the student will be matched with a Google Research Mentor who we hope will become a valuable resource to the student.
  • There is no employee relationship between the student and Google as a result of receiving the fellowship.
  • Fellowship recipients are not subject to intellectual property restrictions unless they complete an internship at Google.
  • Fellowship recipients serving an internship are subject to the same intellectual property and other contractual obligations as any other Google intern.
  • If a Fellowship student is interested, an internship at Google is encouraged, but not guaranteed or required.
How to Apply: 
  • Applications are accepted directly from students. There is no limit to the number of students who may apply from each university.
  • Applicant’s areas of research interest must be one of the areas listed at https://research.google.com/.
  • Awardees will be announced on the Google Research blog by mid-March 2018

Instructions for Applicants

  • Gather the following documents:
    1. Applicant’s resume with links to publications (if available).
    2. One-page resume of the student’s PhD program advisor.
    3. Available transcripts (mark sheets) starting from first year/semester of Bachelor’s degree to date.
    4. Research proposal (maximum two pages).
    5. Three letters of recommendation from those familiar with the applicant’s work (at least one coming from the thesis adviser in case of current PhD students). If the recommendation writers want to send the letter separately, they can mail it directly to research-africa@google.com with the subject “Recommendation for [applicant-name]”.
  • Last date for receiving applications and recommendations is at 11:59pm GMT on Friday 19th January 2018.
Apply here. For any questions, please email research-africa@google.com.
Award Providers: Google

Seplat Petroleum Development Company Graduate Scheme for Nigerian Students 2018

Application Deadline: 23rd November, 2017.
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To Be Taken At (Country): Nigeria
About the Award: The Graduate Scheme is a 4-6 year programme designed to attract, retain and accelerate the development of young, talented and ambitious graduates through a combination of on-the-job training and structured learning and development programme. The GS will equip participants with the appropriate competencies and provide experiences that will facilitate their integration into a challenging business environment and enable them to unleash their potential in a truly rewarding work environment that we provide. Throughout this campaign we aim to provide a world-class candidate experience that will enable us to secure the best talents and enhance our reputation as an ‘employer of choice’.

Type: Internship/Job
Eligibility: Prospective candidates must meet the following requirements:
  • A minimum of Second Class (Upper Division) degree obtained in any of the following NOT EARLIER than 2012.
    1. Engineering; Materials, Chemical, Mechanical, Civil, Petroleum, Electrical/Electronics, Process, Industrial and Oil and Gas
    2. Geology, Geophysics, Petro-Physics
    3. Industrial Chemistry, Chemistry
    4. Finance, Accounting
    5. Law
    6. Business Administration, Finance
    7. Mass Communication, Economics, and other Social Science disciplines (A relevant professional qualification is an added advantage)
  • A minimum of 5 credits (including Mathematics and English) in one sitting in the
  • Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (SSCE).
  • Graduates participating in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) must be on schedule to complete national service in 2017 to be eligible for consideration.
Selection Criteria: Prospective candidates should also be able to demonstrate the following attributes:
  1. Determination to be the best.
  2. Strong passion for excellence.
  3. Ability to thrive in a dynamic and fast-paced business environment.
  4. Excellent interpersonal and team-working skills.
  5. Strong analytical and presentation skills.
  6. Strong verbal and written communication skills.
  7. Good problem-solving focus, with a great appetite for learning.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Duration of Program:  4-6 years
How to Apply: 
  • Eligible applicants who meet the criteria stated above should apply via: https://e-recruiter.ng/portal/seplat
  • All candidates should provide the following details in their resume:
    1. Name
    2. Date of Birth
    3. State of Origin
    4. Local Government Area
    5. Community (If applicable)
    6. Functional email address and valid GSM number(s) through which they can be reached at all times during the course of the selection exercise
    7. Education Qualification and Class of Degree
    8. NYSC Completion Date
    9. Work experience (If applicable)
    • Information provided by applicants will be treated in strict confidence.
    • Only short-listed candidates will be contacted and invited for an Aptitude Test.
    • Aptitude test notifications will be sent via email and SMS.
    • All educational qualifications presented by applicants will be verified.
Award Providers: Seplat Petroleum Development Company PLC

Shell Ideas360 Global Student Competition for Innovative Business Ideas 2018

Application Deadline: 23:59 GMT on 19th January, 2018
 To Be Taken At (Country): Shell Ideas 2017/2018 winning idea will be announced at Make The Future, Live in London
About the Award: Shell Ideas360 is a global competition for students to learn & develop innovative ideas to tackle the challenges on energy, water and food resources. Students can submit an idea and stand a chance to win an adventure!
Type:
  • Eligibility: The team of experts read and review every idea. They need to be able to assess the strength of each idea and consider how well the submission answers the following questions. To help you, Shell360 has included some guidance of what you will need to consider.
  • Novel: How novel or original is the idea? Your answer should include: What existing idea could you be compared to and why is your idea different? Why is your idea innovative?
  • Doable: How easy is it to achieve the idea? Think about How do-able, achieveable or feasible is this idea? What are the obstacles; be realistic and what would you need to deliver this.
  • Value: What benefits (business/social/etc.) would the idea deliver? What is the potential value of this idea? Consider the wider value whether its financial, political, social or technology etc. And don’t try and sell this to Shell. This isn’t about Shell, this is about the idea.
  • Relevance: How relevant is the idea to the Food/Energy/Water topic? Many of the ideas touch more than one of the topics, so please consider this in your answer. The greater the relevance, the greater the impact.
  • Image: A picture can tell a thousand words, so this year, our reviewers have asked for the image to ‘represent’ your idea. You can be creative as you like, but remember, this could make or break your entry. A diagram or drawing of your idea, well illustrated, may be a lot easier to understand than trying to explain your idea in a few hundred words.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • Stage 1: Each member of a team that submits an idea receives a 3-month subscription to WIRED’s interactive digital edition (accessible on iPad, iPhone and Kindle Fire) and a certificate of participation.
  • Stage 2: Each member of a team that submits an idea receives a certificate of participation.
  • Stage 3: Each member of the finalist teams will fly to Make The Future, London and receive a personalized medal and certificate of completion.
Winners: The team will receive the Shell Ideas360 trophy and each member of the team wins an Adventure.
Duration of Program: See in Program Webpage (See Link below)
How to Apply: Register and begin your journey!
Award Providers: Shell

MENA-Michigan Initiative for Global Action Through Entrepreneurship (M²GATE)

Application Deadline: 1st December 2017
Eligible Countries: Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and students from these countries at the University of Michigan.
To Be Taken At (Country): University of Michigan
About the Award: Join a virtual exchange program with fellow students from Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and the University of Michigan.  This program is open to any undergraduate / post-secondary student.
M2GATE is a team-based social entrepreneurship program that offers experiential learning and cross-cultural interactions with international peers through a virtual exchange.
The program covers the following topics, taught by experienced instructors:
  • Cross-cultural Team-building
  • Communication Skills
  • Leadership Development
  • Introduction to Entrepreneurship
  • Design Thinking & Creative Inquiry
  • Business Model Canvas

Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: This application is open to post-secondary (undergraduate) students aged 18-25 at the University of Michigan (USA) Ann Arbor Dearborn, or Flint campuses and postsecondary (undergraduate) students aged 18-25 from Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia (or refugees currently residing in one of these four countries). We encourage applicants from a variety of disciplines – including Engineering, Business, Healthcare, and Liberal Arts – to apply. We strongly encourage women, refugees, and persons with disabilities to apply. (Students who have previously participated in a U.S. Government-funded exchange program are, unfortunately, ineligible for this program.)
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: There is no cost to participate in this program. The program is not for credit.
Duration of Program: 8 weeks
How to Apply: Apply now
Award Providers:  William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan

Reuters Journalism Training Program for Journalists in Middle East and Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd December 2017
Eligible Countries: Countries in Middle East and Africa
To Be Taken At (Country): London, UK and Cairo-Egypt; Dakar-Senegal; South Africa; Nairobi-Kenya.
About the Award: The Reuters Journalism Programme is an opportunity for recent graduates, early career reporters, or professionals with proven experience who are looking to switch careers into journalism. The programme in 2018 will consist of 6 months of formal and on-the-job journalism training, initially in our London newsroom, followed by one of our other main reporting newsrooms or bureaus in the Middle East or Africa.
We are excited to work with emerging talents who can tell stories from new perspectives and in different formats. As a global business we rely on diversity of culture and thought to deliver on our goals.  To ensure we can do that, we seek diverse, talented and qualified employees with proven knowledge of the Middle East or Africa and fluency in Arabic or a language (apart from English) that is widely spoken in Africa.
Reutersthe news and media division of Thomson Reuters, is the world’s largest independent news provider, reaching more than one billion people every day. Over 2,000 journalists in nearly 200 locations around the globe deliver unparalleled international and national news coverage in 16 languages with speed, impartiality and insight to professionals via Thomson Reuters desktops, to the world’s media organizations, and directly to consumers on Reuters.com and Reuters TV. Reuters stays true to the letter and spirit of the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles, ensuring independence, integrity and freedom from bias.
Type: Training
Eligibility: 
Prerequisites
  • Clear commitment to a career in journalism
  • Drive to build sources, break news and deliver deeply reported stories
  • Strong interest in issues that affect companies, markets and economies
  • Ability to generate original, relevant story ideas
  • Ambition to deliver journalism with real impact
  • Fluency in written English
  • Fluency in Arabic or a language (apart from English) that is widely spoken in Africa.
  • Experience living in the Middle East or Africa, alongside a grasp of the history, politics and culture
  • Proficiency with data
  • An international outlook
Other desired skills (not prerequisites)
  • Knowledge or expertise in a relevant field such as banking, financial analysis, accounting, law or computer science
  • Proven professional journalism experience
  • Proven ability to generate exclusive and agenda-setting stories
  • Experience in multi-media story-telling
  • Skills in investigative reporting
  • Expertise in data analysis or data-driven journalism
  • Understanding of how to use social media to report and find sources
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The Reuters Journalism Programme offers an opportunity to fast-track your journalism career and develop your skills across a variety of subjects and media. Successful applicants will predominantly report in text, but visual reporting skills and story-telling ideas will be welcome.
Key elements
  • Competitive pay
  • Placements in an African or Middle Eastern bureau
  • Fast-paced reporting on top news stories of the day
  • Opportunity to develop journalism skills
Duration of Program: 6 months
How to Apply: 
  1. Application Form: you must complete all the questions including the written exercises, using the following link here. Your written answers must follow the guidelines on length and format. If not, your application will not be considered.
  2. Upload CV: your CV should be no more than two pages long and written in English.
  3. Upload Cover Letter: cover letter of no more than one page to explain your interest in a career with Reuters. You can attach your Cover Letter under the CV section of ‘My Experience’ when you register
Applicants must be eligible to work in the region to which they apply, with exceptions considered for specialist regional knowledge or language skills
Please note if you do not provide all of the above, your application may not be considered.
Award Providers: Reuters