23 Nov 2017

FCC plan to repeal “net neutrality” gives telecom giants control of public access to Internet

Kevin Reed

Donald Trump’s appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai released a final draft on Wednesday of an order that will enable privately-owned US broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to control public access to online content.
The blatantly anti-democratic plan to deregulate the US Internet infrastructure will be voted on at a December 14 open FCC hearing. It is expected to be adopted by a 3-to-2 majority.
Following Pai’s appointment in January, the overturning of Obama-era net neutrality rules has been a top priority of the White House and Republican Party in cooperation with the giant telecom monopolies such as AT&T, Verizon, TimeWarner and Comcast.
The concept of net neutrality means that all content on the Internet is treated equally, that the ISPs cannot adjust or prioritize the kind of data or the website content that individuals or organizations access online based on business considerations.
Net neutrality “Open Internet Rules” that became effective on June 15, 2015 prohibited high-speed ISPs from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites to customers or charging different rates for the quality of high-volume data content such as streaming video over the Internet to homes and businesses.
Although denied by representatives of the broadband companies, the terms of the FCC plan make it possible for access to certain information or data to be blocked entirely or made subject to additional fees or service charges depending on what is in the profit interests of the Internet carrier being used.
With characteristic hypocrisy, Pai released the final draft of his “Restoring Internet Freedom” plan, which has been in the works since April, declaring, “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet.” As is widely acknowledged by tech industry experts and online access advocates, the FCC proposal has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with controlling content and throttling broadband data delivery based on service tiers paid for by customers.
A primary false premise of the repeal of net neutrality rules is that government regulation of the big ISPs is “burdensome and unnecessary” and stifling investment and innovation in Internet infrastructure. However, the reality is that telephone and cable corporations are leveraging their Washington influence to regenerate Wall Street interest in their “legacy” Internet corporations. In comparison to the investment in content giants like Google, Amazon, Netflix and Facebook, the broadband industry has stagnated and been devalued on Wall Street.
One of the objectives of the ISP monopolies is to enter the content business themselves either by developing their own programming or through acquisition of TV networks or other media organizations. By lifting net neutrality regulations, the broadband providers can enhance access to their “own” content and throttle, i.e. restrict, the performance or block the content of their competitors.
Under Obama, the net neutrality rules for regulating Internet infrastructure companies as utilities or “common carriers” is based on Title II of the Telecommunications Act signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934. Since the election of Donald Trump, the Republican-led offensive has been exploiting the limitations of the antiquated “utility” framework of the landline telephone era to abolish entirely any government regulation of the privately-owned aspects of US Internet infrastructure.
The timing of the announcement by FCC Chairman Pai that he is moving forward aggressively with the new plan is significant. Despite mass public opposition to the repeal of net neutrality—the overwhelming majority of 22 million responses on the FCC website were opposed to the order—the FCC is moving ahead now for transparently political reasons.
Opening up the ability of ISPs to control the flow of Internet content to the public is being implemented as part of the expanding campaign by the state—with the full cooperation of the major telecom, Internet and social media corporations—to censor access to socialist political opposition within the US. Providing the ISPs with carte blanche control over the flow of content takes this censorship to the most fundamental level of Internet technology.
These same ISPs—AT&T and Verizon in particular—have a long history of collaboration with the military-intelligence establishment in spying on the public and gathering data on the online activity of the global population.
No one should accept as good coin the nominal opposition of Google, Amazon and Facebook to the attack on net neutrality by the Trump administration and their competitors in the Internet infrastructure industries. These same corporations have been working hand-in-glove with the state over the past year to block and censor access by the public to socialist and left-wing Internet content under the guise of the fight against “fake news” and unsubstantiated claims of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. The campaign has been spearheaded by the Democratic Party.
Left-wing sites, and the World Socialist Web Site in particular, have been the primary targets of this censorship campaign. The latest changes to the FCC’s regulatory policies are being lined up to intensify this censorship and prepare further attacks on the democratic rights of the entire working class.

22 Nov 2017

World Bank Blog4Dev for East African Countries (Blog to win a trip to Washington, DC) 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd December, 2017
About the Award: What will it take to end Gender Based Violence in your country?
According to the World Health Organization, Gender Based Violence (GBV) is a global epidemic affecting more than one in three women worldwide, at a huge cost to individuals, families, and economies that spans generations.
Gender-based violence (GBV) is a human rights violation perpetrated against a woman or girl, man or boy and has a negative impact on their well-being. It comes in many forms, including physical violence, rape and sexual assault, child and forced marriages, female genital mutilation, human trafficking, and the denial of resources and services. GBV knows no socio-economic or national boundaries.
It is undeniable that GBV has a significant negative impact on a country’s socio-economic well-being. It is therefore imperative to seek ways to prevent and end gender-based violence to help build a better and more inclusive future in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.
Every opinion counts. Tell us, in no more than 500 words; what it will take to end gender-based violence in your country.
Offered Since: 2016
Type: Contest
Eligibility: Must be a Kenyan or Rwandese or a Ugandan residing in your home country, and aged between 18-28 years.
Selection Criteria: A panel of judges made up of World Bank staff will review the submissions to determine the winning entries.
The winning submissions will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:
  • Originality
  • Creativity
  • Clarity and Practicality
  • Potential for scale-up
Number of Awardees: 5
Value of Contest
  1. A trip to the Washington, DC, April 20-22, 2018
  2. The top five blog submissions in each country will be published on the World Bank Nasikiliza blog, and promoted in the social media channels.
How to Apply:
  • Submit your entry by December 22, 2017 here: http://ow.ly/QhgA30gB1z8
  • Submissions through email or mail post are not acceptable
Award Provider: World Bank Group

VU Holland Scholarship Programme for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st February 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International (non-EEA countries)
To be taken at (country): Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
About the Award: The Holland Scholarship Programme (HSP) is financed by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Dutch research universities, and universities of applied sciences.
Students eligible for the VU Holland Scholarship Programme are students from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) who are applying for a Master’s programme in the Netherlands. Students from Suriname and Switzerland are not eligible to apply for the HSP scholarship.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam embraces diversity as an enrichment to our teaching, research and our contribution to society. Furthermore, we aim to prepare our students for a global and diverse society and workplace.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • You hold a non-EEA nationality that is not Surinamese or Swiss.
  • You are applying for a full-time English taught Master’s programme at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  • The degree with which you are seeking admission has not been obtained in the Netherlands.
  • You need to have applied for VUFP. We will only award HSP scholarships to recipients of the VU Fellowship Programme.
  • We select excellent students who contribute to the diversity at our campus.
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship amounts to € 5,000.
Duration of Scholarship: You will receive this in the first year of your studies.
How to Apply: Interest candidates will need to have applied for VUFP. VU will only award HSP scholarships to recipients of the VU Fellowship Programme.
It is important to go through the Application requirements before applying.
Award Provider: Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.

World Bank #AfricaCAN Story Competition for Young Leaders in Africa 2018

Application Deadline: 15th December 2017
Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan countries
To be Taken at: Washington, D.C, USA
About the Award: The World Bank’s Africa Region and its Social Development Department are launching a Story Competition to identify positive role models for African youth that illustrate a #AfricaCAN spirit.
Its primary purpose is to change Africa’s development narrative by highlighting inspirational and transformational African success stories.
The competition aims to identify some of the young Africans working  to support the inclusion of vulnerable people.
We hope that it will build up a community of Social Inclusion leaders.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: Any person aged 40 or under on December 1, 2017, living in a sub-Saharan country where the World Bank has an office, can take part in the competition. However, World Bank Group staff and their dependents cannot participate.
Selection Criteria: Stories will be judged on four points: (a) clarity, (b) the quality of information provided, (c) the relevance of the activity regarding social inclusion, and (d) the results.
Number of Awards: 1
Value of Award: 
  • Winner becomes one of World Bank’s Social Inclusion Heroes
  • Win a trip to Washington, D.C., USA
  • Participants will gain networking opportunities, organized by the World Bank.
Timeline/Duration of Program: 
  • October-December 2017: Story competition
  • January 2018: Selection of three stories per country by a jury set by the local World bank Country office
  • February 2018: Selection of 15 regional finalists by a jury set at the World Bank Headquarters. Selection of three finalists by a high-level jury, from which an overall winner will receive the Africa Region Social Inclusion Heroes Award during a ceremony to be held at the World Bank HQ during the Spring Meetings 2018.
How to Apply: Send your story by email addressed to AFREC africateam@worldbank.org, with the following in the subject line : “Social Inclusion Heroes Competition”. You can either nominate yourself or someone else, provided that the proposed hero is under 40. Only one submission per entrant will be allowed.
  • Format. Submit your story in only one of the following formats: (a) a written essay, preferably as a Microsoft Word file attachment, not exceeding 700 words ; or (b) a 3 minute video, uploaded to YouTube, with the link shared in your mail ; or (c) a 3 minute audio recording in mp3 format. Longer submissions will be disqualified.
  • Mandatory accompanying documents. Your submission must be accompanied by these three documents: (a) one photo portrait of you in high resolution, (b) one photo illustrating the activity mentioned in the story, and (c) a page mentioning your name, date of birth, phone number, email address, and name of your organization (if any).
  • Submission deadline. December 15, 2017. Late submissions will be disqualified automatically
  • Language. The story must be in one of these three languages: English, French, or Portuguese.
Award Provider: World Bank

Valeo Car Innovation Challenge for Students Worldwide (200,000 Euros Prize) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th March 2018.
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): The prizes will be awarded in mid-October 2018 in Paris, France.
About the Award: The aim of the competition is to reward an innovative project, whether it concerns a technological innovation or an idea for new ways to use cars. Participants should propose new solutions in one of the three areas revolutionizing the automotive industry today:
  • – Vehicle electrification
  • – Autonomous vehicles
  • – Digital mobility
Students are asked to develop bold and revolutionary solutions for the benefit of society.
The competition is a way for Valeo to show that innovation lies at the core of its DNA and that Research and Development is a priority for the group. It is a guiding principle for Valeo’s 14,000 engineers who each day innovate to invent the car of tomorrow.
Type: Contest
Eligibility: Eligibility for the Valeo Innovation Challenge for interested candidates:
The competition is open to post-baccalaureate students worldwide in higher education from all disciplines and to the teachers, one per team.
Entrants must compete in teams made up of between two and a maximum of five people.
Teams can take part to the challenge by presenting a relevant, innovative project in English by submitting:
1. mp4 video pitch (maximum 3 minutes) that explains the project in a clear, simple and audible way,
2. accompanied by 5 slides describing the composition of the team; the problem identified; the existing or known solutions; the proposed technical solution; the target market and the business model.
The following people may not enter the contest:
  • Employees of the organizer, of any company that it controls, that controls it or that is under joint control with it, and their children.
  • People who have been involved in organizing the contest, and their children.
  • People who have a conflict of interest (especially interns, apprentices and PhD students still working for the Valeo company).
Selection Criteria: 
  • Bold, innovative and original idea of the project
  • Challenges and relevance of the problem addressed and how the expectations of automakers, end-users and society have been factored in
  • Project quality with a view to creating a start-up:
  • – Project feasibility
  • – Structured business model
Number of Awards: 3
Value of Award: At the end of the competition the sum of €200,000 will be shared, as decided by the Jury, between the three winning teams of the Challenge. In addition to their prize, they will be offered the opportunity to join Valeo’s business accelerator.
Duration of Program: Prizes will be awarded on October 12 2018
How to Apply: It is important to read the Rules of the Competition before applying. Apply via link below.
Award Provider: Valeo

Westerwelle Young Founders Program for Young Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Germany) 2018

Application Deadline: 18th December 2018
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All African and Developing countries
To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany/Applicant’s Home Country
About the Award: The Westerwelle Young Founders Programme is a fully funded year-long programme for 25 exceptional entrepreneurs from developing and emerging economies. As part of the programme, the Westerwelle Foundation hosts an annual conference in Berlin: the Young Founders Conference. Its focus is to connect young founders from developing and emerging economies with each other and with the German startup scene.
The participants of the Young Founders Conference will have the unique opportunity to meet and interact with successful entrepreneurs, investors and political decision makers. They will also join a network of like-minded outstanding young founders from developing and emerging economies.
Type: Entrepreneurship; Career Fellowship
Eligibility: Applicants should:
  • Have recently (in the last 5 years) started a for-profit company with a scalable business model
  • Be based in a developing or emerging country or have a strong business focus on developing and emerging economies
  • Possess a good working knowledge of English
  • Foreign applicants must possess valid travel documents (including a visa, if necessary) to enter Germany, and valid travel medical insurance.
Selection: Applicants will first be shortlisted according to their written application. The shortlisted candidates will then be invited for a Skype interview. Results of written application and Skype interview will be discussed by a jury and the selected candidates will be invited to participate at the Young Founders Programme.
Value of Program: During the year-long programme, all fellows will get access to:
  • The Young Founders Conference in Berlin, Germany; 10 – 14 April 2018
  • A mentoring programme: monthly mentoring calls with an experienced entrepreneur and with the group of Westerwelle Young Founders
  • Invitations and scholarships for entrepreneurship conferences
  • An international alumni network
Travel and accommodation will be covered by the Westerwelle Foundation.
Duration of Program: 1 year.
  • 10 – 14 April 2018: Young Founders Conference in Berlin, Germany
  • April 2018 – March 2019: Personal mentoring, peer mentoring (remotely)
How to Apply: The application form is open until 18 December 2017 here
Award Provider: Westerwelle Foundation.

Reconciling With Extremists in Afghanistan

Edward Hunt

As the war in Afghanistan enters its seventeenth year, the Trump administration has begun looking for ways to make a deal with the Taliban, offering Taliban officials leadership positions in the Afghan government. In August, President Trump alluded to the possibility of a deal when he announced in a televised speech to the nation that “perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
Since then, administration officials have repeatedly confirmed that they are looking to negotiate with the Taliban. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Afghanistan last month, he said that the administration was looking for “moderate voices among the Taliban” who are willing to stop fighting the Afghan government.
“So we are looking to engage with those voices and have them engage in a reconciliation process leading to a peace process and their full involvement and participation in the government,” Tillerson said.
The administration’s search for a deal comes at the same time that it is escalating the war against the Taliban. Currently, the administration is sending more than 3,000 additional U.S. soldiers into Afghanistan, raising the total U.S. troop presence from 11,000 to 14,000.
The Trump administration is also providing U.S. military forces with more authority to go after the Taliban. Today, “we are no longer bound by the need for proximity to our forces,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Committee on Armed Services last month. “In other words, wherever we find the enemy, we can put the pressure from the air support on them.”
As part of the escalation, the administration is pushing Afghan military forces to launch their own offensive military operations against the Taliban. Administration officials say that it is necessary to wage a more aggressive military campaign to pressure the Taliban into negotiations.
Everything is “designed to bring the Taliban to the table,” Gen. John Nicholson, commander of coalition forces, explained earlier this month. “And so this is a fight-and-talk approach.”
The administration’s fight-and-talk approach represents a sharp shift for President Trump. The president, who has acknowledged that his “original instinct was to pull out,” has pledged not to send U.S. troops into wars that they will not win.
“I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary—and will only do so if we have a plan for victory,” Trump promised in his major foreign policy speech during his presidential campaign.
Rather than act on his promise, however, Trump has decided to keep the war going while the search for Taliban partners continues. Indeed, Trump is prolonging the stalemate with the Taliban, making it likely that the United States will remain involved in Afghanistan for years to come.
With the new strategy, “we’re prepared to invest the resources that will be, at a minimum, a stalemate but a stalemate increasingly in the government’s favor,” State Department official Alice Wells has explained.
What Reconciliation Means
Even if the Trump administration finds Taliban partners, reconciliation could make life much worse for the Afghan people. Although the Trump administration insists that it is looking for moderate voices, it has done little to challenge the warlords and extremists who already play an influential role in the Afghan government.
One of the more ominous signs is the Afghan government’s recent political agreement with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an extremist who has spent his entire adult life spreading terror and mayhem throughout the country. In May 2013, Hekmatyar’s forces orchestrated a suicide bombing in Kabul that resulted in the deaths of at least 16 people and six U.S. military advisers.
Last year, the Afghan government signed a peace agreement with Hekmatyar’s forces, despite the fact that Hekmatyar had been designated a “global terrorist” by the United States.In fact, officials in the Obama administration applauded the peace agreement, portraying it as a positive development. “This is a model for what might be possible,” Secretary of State John Kerry announced.
After the Trump administration entered office, Gen. Nicholson continued to praise the agreement as a model for reconciliation. The agreement “has the potential to serve as a catalyst for similar settlements with the Taliban or portions of them,” Nicholson insisted.
Nicholson made his point at the same time that 20,000 members of Hekmatyar’s forces were returning to Afghanistan, preparing to reintegrate into Afghan society. “So if this goes well, then this hopefully would be a catalyst for further reconciliation,” he repeated. “So that is the ultimate goal.”
Not everyone shares the same view. At Human Rights Watch, Patricia Grossman has criticized the agreement for impeding efforts to bring peace and justice to Afghanistan. For the families of victims, Grossman says, “Hekmatyar’s return brings no peace, and the continuing impunity it represents heralds no new beginning for Afghanistan.”
Certainly, reconciliation with extremists will do nothing to change an already notoriouslycriminal Afghan government. Since its creation after the overthrow of the Taliban in the final months of 2001, the Afghan government has come to include all sorts of gangsters and warlords.
“Mujahadin commanders and warlords continue to hold both appointed and elected positions and often put tribal and ethnic interests ahead of the nation’s,” U.S. diplomats in Afghanistan confirmed in an internal report in February 2008.
In the past decade, the situation has barely changed. Since the last presidential election, the country’s vice president has been Abdul Rashid Dostum, one of the country’s more notorious warlords. In May 2017, Dostum fled the country in order to avoid an investigation into charges that he ordered one of his political opponents to be raped and tortured.
U.S. Strategy
Although officials in Washington remain well aware of the problems, they have still decided to send more U.S. forces into the country to pressure Taliban forces to follow the Hekmatyar model of reconciliation. Indeed, they are putting more lives at risk as part of a process that could create an even more reprehensible government that will only make life worse for the people of Afghanistan.
Officials in the Trump administration are well aware of what they are doing. When Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently questioned Secretary of Defense Mattis on the administration’s strategy, he confirmed the basic situation.
“Corruption is up,” Warren said. “There is no support for the government. And more and more people keep dying.” In spite of all this, Warren continued, “we keep hearing our generals come in here and tell us over and over, ‘Just give us one more military plan, and it is going to work.’” Ultimately, Warren said, “it is just hard to buy that. And it is hard to buy it on behalf of the people who put their lives at risk.”
In response, all that Mattis could muster was a brief acknowledgement. “Sure,” he said.

Besieged Australian government postpones parliament

Mike Head

In a desperate manoeuvre on Monday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull abruptly cancelled next week’s scheduled sitting of the House of Representatives, the lower house of the Australian parliament. He also unilaterally delayed, from December 1 to December 5, the deadline for all members of parliament to lodge documents proving they are not entitled to citizenship of any other country.
Whatever the immediate calculations of Turnbull, who is clinging to office by a thread, the postponement of the parliamentary sitting is the latest in a series of crises pointing to the unravelling of not just his ruling Liberal-National Coalition, but the parliamentary establishment as a whole.
A decade of instability since 2007, during which time no government has lasted a full parliamentary term, is being intensified by the mounting tensions produced by the Trump administration’s aggression toward North Korea and China, and growing social inequality and political disaffection.
If Turnbull’s edict stands, the lower house will not return from a five-week recess until December 4, even though the Senate, the parliamentary upper house, resumed last week. The prime minister’s instruction to the House of Representatives Speaker to halt next week’s session overturned a parliamentary timetable that was set at the start of the year.
These actions indicate that the Turnbull is no longer confident that the Coalition can control the numbers in the lower house, where the government is currently in a minority after two of its MPs were disqualified or resigned for being entitled to dual citizenship.
Eight MPs have been removed already this year following an October 27 ruling by the High Court. The judges applied a literal interpretation of the 1901 Constitution, insisting that MPs must have “single-minded loyalty to Australia,” with no “foreign loyalties or obligations,” including even entitlement to dual citizenship in another country.
Today, the ninth MP fell victim to the nationalist and profoundly anti-democratic witch-hunt. Australian-born Nick Xenophon Team senator Skye Kakoschke Moore resigned on the basis that she is entitled to claim British citizenship because her mother was born in Singapore in 1957 before it was granted independence from Britain.
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, the leader of the rural-based National Party, and John Alexander, a Liberal backbencher, are presently contesting by-elections to seek to regain their seats. Even if the government wins the by-elections on December 2 and 16, it evidently fears that another slew of Coalition MPs could be disqualified once their citizenship papers are tabled, further undermining its survival.
The Coalition now has only 73 votes in the lower house, while Labor has 69 and could persuade crossbenchers, or dissident Coalition MPs, to back it on votes that endanger the government. Labor Party leader Bill Shorten yesterday secured support from four of the five crossbenchers to write a joint letter to Turnbull demanding that he bring back the lower house next Monday as scheduled.
The immediate trigger for Turnbull’s move was apparently a threat by several government MPs to support a motion to force the government to conduct an inquiry into the country’s rapacious banks. Such a defeat for the government on the floor of the lower house could be taken as a vote of no confidence, possibly precipitating the government’s fall or a new general election.
However, the crisis goes far deeper. Since the landslide defeat of the Howard Coalition government in 2007, followed by the eruption of the global financial breakdown in 2008, successive Labor and Coalition governments have been unable to fully impose the austerity agenda demanded by the corporate ruling class. This is due to seething popular hostility to the ongoing destruction of full-time jobs, living conditions and basic services.
Support for the two major parties has fallen to historic lows, with a variety of right-wing populists being the immediate beneficiaries. The present turmoil is another milestone in the breakdown of the two-party system that has prevailed since World War II.
The conflict over the banking inquiry is symptomatic of the broader divisions wracking the Coalition. This reportedly includes threats by its most right-wing MPs to break away and possibly join a Liberal Party defector, Senator Cory Bernardi, in seeking to create a Trump-style nationalist formation to divert social unrest.
In the latest manifestations of these rifts, an unnamed government MP has threated to quit the Liberal Party unless Turnbull is removed as party leader. Ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whom Turnbull deposed in September 2015, last night publicly criticised Turnbull’s postponement of the parliamentary session.
Various right-wing government members, including Treasurer Scott Morrison, are further stoking divisions in the Coalition. They are demanding that laws be enacted to legalise discrimination against same-sex couples, following last week’s announcement that a postal survey produced a 61 percent national majority for legal recognition of same-sex unions.
Turnbull attempted to justify delaying the parliamentary session by asserting that the extra week would enable the Senate to finalise proposed changes to the Marriage Act so it can be sent to the lower house. This was a transparent ploy, not least because 53 other bills are currently under debate in the House of Representatives. Turnbull said the lower house would then sit for a week, or possibly longer, before Christmas, but only to deal with the marriage bill and the disqualification of MPs over citizenship.
The prime minister’s gambit has been lambasted in the corporate media. There is widespread dissatisfaction in ruling circles with Turnbull’s failure to deliver on his promises to find a way to impose the sweeping budget cuts and other pro-business policies that his predecessor Abbott also proved unable to deliver.
“By attempting to shield his government from the complexity and acrimony of parliament, Malcolm Turnbull has only added to his political woes,” yesterday’s Australian editorial proclaimed.” It declared that a “depleted government under siege is running away.”
Turnbull sought to divert from the crisis by telling a Business Council of Australia dinner on Monday night that he was working with Morrison to develop a package of income tax cuts to accompany promised company tax cuts. No details were provided, however, compounding the frustration within the corporate and media ruling elite.
Significantly, earlier on Monday, Turnbull declared his government’s “strong support” for US President Donald Trump’s aggressive decision to re-list North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. Turnbull’s immediate backing for Trump’s latest escalation of the confrontation with North Korea marks yet another commitment to back a potentially catastrophic war that could draw in China and Russia.
When he was in opposition, Turnbull was a critic of unconditional Australian alignment with Washington. Since taking office, however, he has repeatedly pledged full support for US military actions. His alignment is shared by the Labor Party, with both parties anxious to retain Washington’s backing. In 2010, the US embassy worked with key Labor Party leaders, including Shorten, to oust then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had advocated trying to convince the US to accommodate itself to the economic rise of China.
The short-term outcome of the turmoil in Canberra is not yet clear. A defeat for the Liberal-National Party in this Saturday’s state election in Queensland could hasten a move against Turnbull, the break-up of the Coalition or a split in the Liberal Party. What is certain is that the old parliamentary order is breaking apart. The political system is being refashioned along nationalist lines by the purge of MPs, at the behest of the High Court, who allegedly lack “sole loyalty” to Australia.
As the WSWS warned in its Perspective on November 17: “The stoking of patriotism is motivated by the fear of the ruling elite. It is a desperate attempt to cultivate a right-wing constituency that will defend the ‘nation’—that is, the class interests of the capitalist oligarchs—from the inevitable eruption of struggle by the working class against the danger of war and social inequality.”

France arranges Hariri’s return to Lebanon amid danger of regional war

Kumaran Ira

On Saturday, French President Emmanuel Macron received former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri at the Elysée presidential palace in Paris. Hariri had come from Saudi Arabia, where he had resigned on November 4 under pressure from Riyadh. Last night, Hariri left Paris for Cairo, where he will meet Egyptian dictator General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi before returning to Lebanon.
Hariri’s resignation plunged Lebanon into a deep political crisis. Paris is intervening in an explosive situation that could destabilize the entire Middle East, while in neighboring Syria the proxies of Saudi Arabia and Washington are fighting the forces of the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran, the main supporter of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah. Riyadh is violently hostile to Hezbollah, which is a partner in Hariri’s current coalition government in Lebanon.
Riyadh’s action threatens the fragile political equilibrium in Lebanon established after Lebanon’s 1975-1990 sectarian civil war between Sunni, Shiite, Christian and Druze factions. Druze politician Walid Jumblatt tweeted, “Lebanon is too small and vulnerable to bear the political and economic burden of [Hariri’s] resignation. I will continue to call for dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Iran.” In 2008, Sunni-Shiite conflicts nearly plunged the country into a new civil war.
Paris, which intervened in the current Syrian conflict alongside Washington, is trying to find a graceful resolution to the dispute that benefits Saudi Arabia. Macron declared that he was hosting Hariri “as prime minister,” since “his resignation has not been recognized by his country, because he did not go there.”
On Sunday, Macron announced that he had spoken to Trump, Sisi, the Saudi monarchy and UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres in order to find “ways to stabilize the Middle East and to build peace,” the Elysée announced.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun refused to accept Hariri’s resignation unless he returned to Lebanon, calling Hariri a “hostage” of Saudi Arabia. Hariri said that he would return to Lebanon Wednesday to celebrate the national holiday.
Important questions remain, however, as to how much influence Riyadh will continue to have over Hariri. His children did not travel with him to Paris, which could “raise a lot of questions” in Lebanon, noted Al Jazeera journalist Zeina Khodr. “Some in Lebanon will doubtless say that in one way or another, Saad Hariri is still a political hostage.”
Hariri himself is issuing improbable denials that he resigned under pressure from Riyadh. In a tweet, he asserted that his voyage to Riyadh aimed simply “to carry out consultations regarding the future of Lebanon and its relations with its Arab neighbors. … Everything that was said […] about my trip [to Saudi Arabia] is only rumor.”
In fact, credible reports indicate that when Hariri arrived in Riyadh, the Saudi monarchy took him hostage and forced him to read a prepared speech. On Saudi media, Hariri announced his resignation, denounced Iran and Hezbollah, and accused Iran of having “control” of his country via Hezbollah.
If Paris intervened to try to smooth over the crisis in the short term, it is clearly not resolved. The Financial Times of London opined, “While undoubtedly a diplomatic coup for Mr. Macron, some regional and French diplomats have cautioned that his strategy to try to appease all sides in the region may backfire.”
France, the former colonial power in Lebanon and in Syria between the two world wars, aims to play a mediating role to advance its own reactionary imperialist interests. Macron’s government has let it be known that it is intervening to prevent an “explosion” of the entire Middle East. But its intervention to defuse the current crisis does nothing to resolve the broader conflicts that produced the Hariri crisis, which emerge from decades of bloody neo-colonial wars waged by successive French governments allied to the other NATO powers.
Over the more than a quarter-century since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the USSR eliminated the main military counterweight to imperialism, Washington and its European allies intervened across the Middle East. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, wars claimed millions of lives and forced tens of millions of people to flee their homes. Now, a conflict between a Washington-Riyadh axis and a Moscow-Tehran axis is emerging that threatens to engulf not only the Middle East, but also Europe and the world in war.
Donald Trump’s election in 2016 and the defeat of Washington’s Islamist proxies in the Syrian war by the Russia-Iran-Syria coalition mark profound shifts in the political situation. The collapse of the US-led policy undermines the policy of Paris, which had participated alongside Washington in the financing and arming of Islamist militias in Syria. However, it has also intensified conflicts between Washington and its nominal European allies.
Trump’s visit to Riyadh in May provoked bitter criticisms in Europe, where it was seen as giving Riyadh a blank check for military escalation against Iran. Trump is also signaling he could repeal the nuclear treaty with Tehran signed in 2015 by the Obama administration and the European powers, which threatens European economic interests in Iran and could provoke an all-out war with Iran.
If their intervention is less visibly aggressive than Washington’s, the European powers nonetheless play a reactionary role that feeds the imperialist drive towards all-out war in the Middle East.
Increasingly opposed to Trump, the European Union (EU) aims to impose deep austerity on the workers to finance the creation of a war machine, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), that can fight independently of Washington. In the meantime, the European powers play an unclear game, trying to advance their commercial and strategic interests independently of Washington without provoking a break that could lead to open conflict.
Berlin denounced Riyadh’s intervention in Lebanon. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel declared that Europe “cannot tolerate the adventurism that is spreading over there.” The Saudi monarchy reacted by denouncing Gabriel’s remarks, which it called “shameful and unjustified,” and recalled its ambassador in Germany to Riyadh for consultations.
French imperialism tacks between the different powers, trying to profit as much as possible from the ongoing conflicts. Lebanese political scientist Ziad Majed, at the American University in Paris, said: “France is right, given that US foreign policy is far from clear, to mediate between the Saudis and Iranians, to be a major actor, but also for its economic interests in Iran (a major potential market if sanctions are lifted) and also in Saudi Arabia.”
Since the signing of the nuclear accord with Iran in 2015, Paris has been reinforcing its commercial ties with Tehran despite US sanctions against Iran. Automakers Renault and PSA Peugeot-Citroën and oil major Total have signed billion-euro contracts with Iran. Paris also wants to snap up contracts in Saudi Arabia, which announced an ambitious construction project for 2030, the “Neo-M project,” for €500 billion.
Currently, Paris seems to be tacking towards Riyadh. Macron recently paid a surprise visit to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, sent Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to Riyadh, and invited Hariri to Paris. The Macron government may also host a meeting in Paris of the international support group for Lebanon, which includes the United States, the UN and the EU.
Paris is also increasingly critical of Tehran. In Riyadh, Le Drian denounced the “hegemonic ambitions” of Iran. Macron has also demanded that Iran explain its ballistic missile program.

Trump administration ends temporary residency for 60,000 Haitian nationals

Trévon Austin

On Monday, the Trump Administration announced that some 60,000 Haitian nationals would not have their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) renewed. Under TPS, Haitians that sought refuge after Haiti’s earthquake in 2010 have been allowed to live and work in the United States. The nationals now have until July 2019 to leave the country or face detention and deportation.
A statement from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says the 18-month lead time is to “allow for an orderly transition before the designation terminates on July 22, 2019.”
Haitians are the second-largest group of foreigners with temporary protected status currently living in the US. The program was created in 1990 to protect foreign nationals from deportation if the executive branch determined that natural disasters or armed conflict in their countries had created conditions unfit for their return. There are currently some 300,000 foreigners living in the United States under TPS.
Monday’s decision came after DHS officials determined that Haiti’s recovery from the 2010 earthquake had been sufficient. A senior official of the department stated the “extraordinary conditions” that followed the disaster “no longer exist.”
“Since the 2010 earthquake, the number of displaced people in Haiti has decreased by 97 percent,” Homeland Security secretary Elaine Duke said in a statement. “Significant steps have been taken to improve the stability and quality of life for Haitian citizens, and Haiti is able to safely receive traditional levels of returned citizens.”
The 18-month deadline, Duke said, will allow for an “orderly transition,” permitting the Haitians to “arrange their departure” and their government to prepare for their arrival.
However, the government’s claims about conditions in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere are utterly false. Haiti is still struggling to recover from the earthquake. Many in Haiti rely on money from expatriated relatives in the United States. The Haitian government has asked the Trump administration to extend the protected status.
On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake devastated Haiti, claiming up to 316,000 lives and displacing more than 1.5 million people. A report by the United Nations in January claimed that 2.5 million Haitians are still in need of humanitarian aid.
The earthquake further injured approximately 300,000 people and left 3.3 million facing food shortages. The disaster destroyed or damaged more than 80 percent of rural housing, and hundreds of thousands were forced to live in makeshift tent cities. Public buildings such as schools and hospitals were destroyed during the quake, severely damaging crucial social infrastructure.
Only months after the quake hit, one of the worst cholera epidemic in recent history rapidly engulfed Haiti, killing thousands and infecting more than 6 percent of the population in just over two years. Haiti’s healthcare system, already strained, was exacerbated by the outbreak.
Reconstruction efforts in Haiti have been slow as well, despite the billions raised in international aid. The Red Cross is accused of building only six homes in Haiti since the disaster. With nearly half a billion dollars in donated funds, the Red Cross has spent millions on internal expenses.
The country has experienced multiple disasters since the initial earthquake in 2010. Hurricane Sandy crashed through the country in 2012, causing drastic flooding, scores of new deaths, and cases of disease infections. A three-year drought followed sending the country into deeper levels of famine and poverty. In October 2016, Hurricane Matthew killed at least 1,000 people and devastated rural and urban areas alike. Collapsed trees and buildings blocked roadways, making it difficult to distribute medical supplies and support.
Beyond natural disasters, Haiti is victim to decades of US and UN occupation. The legacy of occupation and invasion has continued to shadow the island of Hispaniola in the decades since the US officially pulled out in 1915.
United States Marines invaded Santo Domingo in 1965, and carried out an intervention in Haiti in 1994. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, also known as MINUSTAH, has kept peacekeepers in the country since 2004. The UN peacekeepers in Haiti have been accused of accidentally spreading cholera after the earthquake.
Sending the Haitian nationals back to Haiti is nothing short of criminal, but the Trump administration has insisted that the TPS program was only meant to be temporary, not a way for people to become long-term legal residents of the United States.
Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, Royce Bernstein Murray, told NPR that Haitians with TPS have 27,000 American-born children with citizenship, and that the Trump Administration’s decision will throw these families into crisis as their lives are uprooted.
Earlier this month, the administration announced that it would not renew the provisional residency of 2,500 Nicaraguans as well.