Young African Leaders Journal of Development (YALJOD) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th March 2018

About the Award: The YALJOD is Africa’s first youth-led pan-African journal of development, and it is aimed at fostering the collective progress and development of the African people. The journal also provides the blueprint for our development mission as well as many other organisations.

The journal was established in 2015 to host scholarly analysis and competing viewpoints about the development of Africa. Our motive for establishing this historic journal is to garner the ideas of young Africans as pertaining the development of the continent. We want to know what young people are thinking, and how we can harness their potentials for the development of Africa and the realisation of both the SDGs and the Agenda-2063 vision.

YALJOD’s multidisciplinary approach makes it more formidable. It accepts papers from varied disciplinary areas – including Social Sciences, Physical Sciences and Humanities –that show direct relevance to the development of Africa. In this sense, it publishes researches understood as highlighting the social, political, cultural and technological processes of positive change in the continent. The specially targeted audience of the journal are the continent’s leadership operators, civil societies and NGOs, development academics, researchers and youth leaders.

Type: Call for Papers

Eligibility:  Articles submitted to YALJOD must be original work that has not been published anywhere previously. It also must not be currently under consideration by any other publication. Any consequences for the violation of these copyright laws or infringement will be duly borne by the defaulting author. The journal is not scholarly peer-reviewed; but in some cases, manuscripts will be sent to our specialists and scholars (YALF Consultants) for evaluation.

We are regrettably unable to provide individualised critiques of most of the manuscripts that we reject. However, we will ensure we confirm the receipt of articles once they arrive.

OTHER CONDITION FOR SUBMISSION OF ARTICLES:

• To successfully submit articles for publication, prospective Authors must meet the following requirements:
• – Must hold, at least, a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree obtainable from tertiary institutions.
• – Must be between the ages of 20 – 50 when submitting the article.
• – Must not have sent the article for consideration in another publication.
• – Must be willing to participate and present the paper in any of the YALF Conferences when called upon.

Duration of Program: The 2nd edition of YALJOD will be officially launched during the 2018 Annual Summit of the Young African Leaders Forum (YALF).

How to Apply: Please carefully read through and ensure you comply with the stated guidelines as any breach of the submission rules may lead to the rejection of your paper.

• – Each paper must be accompanied by the Author’s profile summary of no more than 100 words. This should include Author’s qualification and other affiliations.
• – Each paper must be accompanied by an abstract of not more than 150 words.
• – Article must not exceed 3,500 words.
• – All articles must be properly proofread by the author.
• – Articles must be double spaced.
• – Tables, models, diagrams or photographs should be within the text, and NOT as appendix.
• – Citations and referencing should follow the recent APA style.
• – Manuscripts should be submitted via regular email, and should take the form of attachment formatted in MICROSOFT WORD (send to yaljod@yalf-africa.org )

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Young African Leaders Forum (YALF).

JAUW International Fellowship Program for Women Leaders (Fully-funded to Japan) 2018

Application Deadline: 31st March, 2018

Eligible African Countries: Any country other than Japan

To be taken at (Country):  Japan

Subject Areas: Advance studies or research in areas that require being undertaken in Japan

About the Award: This program is to offer core funding to financially help you come and stay in Japan when you have found that it is preferable or very important for you to stay in Japan to further pursue your ongoing study/research.

Type: Fellowship, Research

By what Criteria is Selection Made? Must be a woman from any country other than Japan

Who is qualified to apply?

1. Applicants must be of non-Japanese women in the age below 45.
2. Applicants must live outside Japan at the time of application.
3. Applicants must hold a Master’s Degree or above.
4. Applicants need to identify an institution/university in Japan where to conduct research.

They need to have contacted and obtained a consent from a host at the identified institution/university before application.JAUW won’t extend any help regarding this matter.

5. Applicants must submit application forms according to the Instructions.

Number of Awards: Up to two fellowships will be awarded under this Program.

What are the benefits?

• The program will allow maximum of 2recipients,  each winning between Yen500,000 and up to Yen1,000,000 to support transportation to and from Japan and cost for her stay in Japan.
• The amount granted will vary depending on duration of stay in Japan and the nature of the work. One-third of the amount will be given to the grantee upon arrival in Japan.  The rest will normally be paid within 40 days after the initial payment. However, the latter amount (i.e. two thirds of the total) may be payable in two or three installments, depending on circumstances surrounding the grantee in Japan

How long will sponsorship last? This grant is for 4 to 6 months between September 2018 and March 2019.

How to Apply: To apply, you have to use the designated forms, downloadable on the Fellowship Webpage (Link below)

It is important to go through the Application Requirements before applying.

Visit the Fellowship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: The Japanese Association of University Women (JAUW)

University of Reading Masters and PhD Scholarships for Developing Countries 2018/2019 – UK

Application Deadline: 30th January 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): UK

Eligible Field of Study: Any full-time MPhil/PhD programme or Taught Masters programme.

About the Award: Under the prestigious Felix Scholarships scheme, four Felix Scholarships will be available to well qualified students with Indian citizenship to pursue postgraduate study (PhD or Masters) at the University, starting their programme in September 2018.

One further award, for study at Masters level only, will be made to a student from a developing country* who can demonstrate academic excellence and financial need.

Type: PhD, Taught Masters.

Eligibility: 

• You must demonstrate financial need
• You must possess at least a first-class honours degree from a University or comparable institution
• You must not hold a degree from a University outside your home country
• You must not have studied outside your home country for one year or more
• Candidates are expected by the Trust to return to work in their home country following their study
• You must have been accepted for admission by the University by 30 January 2018 to be considered for shortlisting. You should therefore apply for admission at the earliest opportunity. Candidates who have an academic condition on their offer of admission (such as completion of a qualification they are currently working towards) will need to successfully meet that condition by the short-listing stage (w/c 9 April 2018) in order to be considered for this year’s competition; they should otherwise consider applying to the competition next year.

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Scholarship:These scholarships cover tuition fees at the international rate and provide a stipend (maintenance grant) to cover living expenses (the current level of which is £14,005). They also provide generous allowances for clothes, books and a return flight home.

Duration of Scholarship: The awards are available (depending on eligibility) for up to 3 years.

How to Apply: Candidates must:

Complete an online application for admission to a Postgraduate Degree at the University of Reading and hold an offer of admission by the deadline (30 January 2018).

Apply online for admission to your postgraduate degree at Reading

2) Complete the electronic form at the bottom of this webpage in order to express your interest in being considered for the Felix Scholarships. This will ask you to confirm that you have read (and comply with) the Felix Scholarship criteria listed above. Do not complete this form unless you have a valid 8-digit applicant number (ID number) from the University’s online Admissions system otherwise it will not be accepted.

3) Eligible candidates will then be considered for nomination by their academic School / Department at Stage One. If you are successful in being nominated, you will receive a request on Wednesday 7 March 2018 asking you to complete a full Felix application form. This must be returned by Wednesday 14 March 2018.

4) Nominees will then be considered for shortlisting by the University level panel in April 2018. If you are shortlisted by the University, you will be notified. Candidates for the Indian awards will be asked by representatives of the Felix Trust to attend an interview in India during April/May 2018.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Reading

Goethe-Institute BACKSTORY Residency Program for Film-makers in MENA Region 2018

Application Deadline: 1st December, 2017

Eligible Countries Filmmakers from Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Qatar, Yemen, Sudan and Germany can participate in a residency.

To be taken at (country): Beirut, Lebanon.

About the Award: The program is designed:

• To support regional filmmakers in shaping their professional careers by providing creativity-enhancing working conditions
• To initiate and facilitate networking in the region and between the region and Europe
• To provide opportunities for exchange and exposure
• To give Master Classes to enhance the capabilities of filmmakers
• To give technical support for film projects by providing technical equipment

Type: Training

Eligibility: BACKSTORY invites emerging filmmakers:

• Who have already professional work experience and are up to 40 years old
• Who plan to realize a film project or part of it (pre-production, production or post-production)
• Who are working on any film genre except commercial ads
• Who must be citizens of, and currently residing in, an eligible country (list above)

Value of Residency: Fellows will receive a monthly stipend of US$1,000. The organizers will cover:

• Accommodation at Beirut Art Residency
• Stimulating workspace in the heart of Gemmayzeh, Beirut’s artistic district
• Administrative and logistical support
• Access to technical equipment according to project needs
• Specialized master classes provided during the residency
• Flights to and from Beirut

Duration of Residency:

Residency 1: July 1 – August 31, 2018
Residency 2: September 1 – October 31, 2018

How to Apply: The Jury selection will take place in March 2017.
Applicants will also be notified in March 2017.

Apply via the link in the Residency Webpage (See below)

Visit Residency Webpage for details

Award Provider: Goethe-Institute Lebanon, Beirut Art Residency (BAR) and Metropolis Art Cinema Association

Progress Toward Nuclear Weapons Abolition

David Krieger

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been working to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life for 35 years.  We were one of many nuclear disarmament organizations created in the early 1980s, in our case in 1982.  Some of these organizations have endured; some have not.

We were founded on the belief that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age, that nuclear weapons must be abolished, and that the people of the world must lead their leaders to achieve these goals.  As a founder of the organization, and as its president since its founding, it now seems an appropriate time to look back and reflect on the changes that have occurred over the past 35 years.

War and Peace. Although there has not been an all-out world war since World War II, international terrorism may be viewed as a world war taking place in slow motion, and points to the continuing need to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.  From a different perspective, those countries in possession of nuclear weapons may themselves be viewed as terrorists for their implicit, and sometimes explicit, threats to use nuclear weapons against their adversaries.  Also, there have been many proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia (formerly Soviet Union).

Dramatic reductions. While nuclear weapons have not been abolished, there have been dramatic reductions in their numbers.  By the mid-1980s, there were some 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Now the number is under 15,000, a reduction of 55,000.  This is positive movement, but there are still more than enough nuclear weapons in today’s nuclear arsenals to destroy civilization many times over and to send the planet spiraling into a new Ice Age.

People leading. There are some signs that the people are leading their leaders on issues of peace and disarmament.  One of these is the July 2017 adoption of the new United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  This treaty was spearheaded by non-nuclear weapon states in cooperation with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a campaign composed of more than 450 civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  ICAN was recognized for this achievement with the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.

Proliferation. In the early 1980s, there were six nuclear-armed countries: the U.S., Soviet Union (now Russia), UK, France, China and Israel.  Now there are nine nuclear weapons states, adding to the first six India, Pakistan and North Korea.  The proliferation of nuclear weapons, although limited, raises the odds of nuclear weapons use.  In addition to these nine nuclear-armed countries, the U.S. still keeps approximately 180 nuclear weapons on the soil of five European countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey.

Curtailing nuclear testing. In the early 1980s, there was widespread nuclear testing, but today nuclear testing is almost nonexistent.  North Korea is the only country still conducting physical nuclear tests, although some countries, including the U.S., continue to conduct subcritical nuclear tests and computer simulation tests.

Cold War. The Cold War ended in 1991, causing many people to think the dangers of nuclear weapons had ended, but this is far from the reality of the Nuclear Age, in which nuclear detonations could occur by accident or miscalculation, as well as by intention, at any time.

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 1995, the NPT was indefinitely extended, despite the failure of the parties to the treaty, particularly the five original nuclear-armed countries, to fulfill their obligations to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.

Ignorance. Many people alive today know little to nothing about the dangers of nuclear weapons, not having lived through the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the frequent atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, the duck and cover drills that were conducted in schools, or civil defense drills.  Many younger people do not recognize the seriousness of the continuing nuclear threat, or else believe that the threat is limited to countries such as North Korea or Iran.

Thermonuclear monarchy. In the 1980s and still today, we live in a world in which very few people in each nuclear-armed country hold the codes to order the use of nuclear weapons.  Thus, these individuals hold the keys to the human future in their hands.  This has been described by Harvard professor Elaine Scarry as “Thermonuclear Monarchy.”

Survivors. The survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as hibakusha, have grown older and few in number.  Their average age is now above 80 years.  They are the true ambassadors of the Nuclear Age, and their testimony remains critical to awakening people to the nuclear threat to all humanity, and to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

Over the past 35 years, there have been significant reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear testing, but there are more nuclear-armed countries now than then.  There is still widespread ignorance about nuclear dangers.  Despite this, civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, are making progress by working with non-nuclear weapons states.  The most recent example of this is the adoption by the United Nations of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  The civil society organizations working in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons will be instrumental in encouraging countries to sign and ratify the treaty for its early entry into force, which will occur 90 days after the fiftieth ratification of the treaty is deposited with the United Nations.

Despite having gone more than 70 years without a nuclear war since the first atomic weapons were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no guarantees that these horrendous weapons will not again be used, by accident or design, on any given day. The nuclear-armed countries continue to rely upon the human-created theory of nuclear deterrence to avert a nuclear war.  This is a shaky foundation on which to base the future of civilization and of the human species.  Although some progress has been made toward eliminating nuclear weapons, it is not at all sufficient.  Far more people need to awaken to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and to demand an end to the nuclear era.  We would be wise to listen to the hibakusha and abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.

From An Open Internet, Back To The Dark Ages

Jonathan Cook

Nazareth: Can anyone still doubt that access to a relatively free and open internet is rapidly coming to an end in the west? In China and other autocratic regimes, leaders have simply bent the internet to their will, censoring content that threatens their rule. But in the “democratic” west, it is being done differently. The state does not have to interfere directly – it outsources its dirty work to corporations.

As soon as next month, the net could become the exclusive plaything of the biggest such corporations, determined to squeeze as much profit as possible out of bandwith. Meanwhile, the tools to help us engage in critical thinking, dissent and social mobilisation will be taken away as “net neutrality” becomes a historical footnote, a teething phase, in the “maturing” of the internet.

In December the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to repeal already compromised regulations that are in place to maintain a semblance of “net neutrality”. Its chairman, Ajit Pai, and the corporations that are internet service providers want to sweep away these rules, just like the banking sector got rid of financial regulations so it could inflate our economies into giant ponzi schemes.

That could serve as the final blow to the left and its ability to make its voice heard in the public square.

It was political leaders – aided by the corporate media – who paved the way to this with their fomenting of a self-serving moral panic about “fake news”. Fake news, they argued, appeared only online, not in the pages of the corporate media – the same media that sold us the myth of WMD in Iraq, and has so effectively preserved a single party system with two faces. The public, it seems, needs to be protected only from bloggers and websites.

The social media giants soon responded. It is becoming ever clearer that Facebook is interfering as a platform for the dissemination of information for progressive activists. It is already shutting down  accounts, and limiting their reach. These trends will only accelerate.

Google has changed its algorithms in ways that have ensured the search engine rankings of prominent leftwing sites are falling through the floor. It is becoming harder and harder to find alternative sources of news because they are being actively hidden from view.

Google stepped up that process this week by “deranking” RT and Sputnik, two Russian news sites that provide an important counterweight – even if one skewed in its pro-Russia agenda – to the anti-Russia propaganda spouted by western corporate media. The two sites will be as good as censored on the internet for the vast majority of users.

RT is far from a perfect source of news – no state or corporate media is – but it is a vital voice to have online. It has become a sanctuary for many seeking alternative, and often far more honest, critiques both of western domestic policy and of western interference in far-off lands. It has its own political agenda, of course, but, despite the assumption of many western liberals, it provides a far more accurate picture of the world than the western corporate media on a vast range of issues.

That is for good reason. Western corporate media is there to shore up prejudices that have been inculcated in western audiences over a lifetime – the chief one being that western states rightfully act as well-meaning, if occasionally bumbling, policemen trying to keep order among other, unruly or outright evil states around the globe.

The media and political class can easily tap into these prejudices to persuade us of all sorts of untruths that advance western interests. To take just one example – Iraq. We were told Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda (he didn’t and could not have had); that Iraq was armed with WMD (it wasn’t, as UN arms inspectors tried to tell us); and that the US and UK wanted to promote democracy in Iraq (but not before they had stolen its oil). There may have been opposition in the west to the invasion of Iraq, but little of it was driven by an appreciation that these elements of the official narrative were all easily verified as lies.

RT and other non-western news sources in English provide a different lens through which we can view such important events, perspectives unclouded by a western patrician agenda.

They and progressive sites are being gradually silenced and blacklisted, herding us back into the arms of the corporate propagandists. Few liberals have been prepared to raise their voices on behalf of RT, forgetting warnings from history, such as Martin Niemoller’s anti-Nazi poem “First they came for the socialists”.

The existing rules of “net neutrality” are already failing progressives and dissidents, as the developments I have outlined above make clear. But without them, things will get even worse. If the changes are approved next month, internet service providers (ISPs), the corporations that plug us into the internet, will also be able to decide what we should see and what will be out of reach.

Much of the debate has focused on the impact of ending the rules on online commercial ventures. That is why Amazon and porn sites like Pornhub have been leading the opposition. But that is overshadowing the more significant threat to progressive sites and already-embattled principles of free speech.

ISPs will be given a much freer hand to determine the content we can can get online. They will be able to slow down the access speeds of sites that are not profitable – which is true for activist sites, by definition. But they may also be empowered to impose Chinese-style censorship, either on their own initiative or under political pressure. The fact that this may be justified on commercial, not political, grounds will offer little succour.

Those committed to finding real news may be able to find workarounds. But this is little consolation. The vast majority of people will use the services they are provided with, and be oblivious to what is no longer available.

If it takes an age to access a website, they will simply click elsewhere. If a Google search shows them only corporately approved results, they will read what is on offer. If their Facebook feed declines to supply them with “non-profitable” or “fake” content, they will be none the wiser. But all of us who care about the future will be the poorer.

Paris: Protests erupt against slavery in Libya

Kumaran Ira

The re-emergence of slavery in Libya exposes the reactionary character of the imperialist war waged by the NATO alliance against the country and across North Africa and the Middle East.

In Paris Saturday more than 1,000 people gathered in front of the Libyan embassy, after a CNN documentary showing the auctioning of refugees as slaves inside the North African country circulated on social media.

The CNN report showing the sale of migrants has shocked and angered masses of people around the world. It shows two young men for sale. The proceedings are filmed secretly on a cell phone camera. A voice-over explains, “A man addresses the crowd: ‘A strong man for farm work,’ he says. ‘400 [dinars]! 700? 700! 800? The prices rise!’” The voice-over adds, “The men are sold for 1,200 Libyan dinars, that is US$400 each. This is an auction of human beings.”

Several organizations, including the Collective Against Slavery and Concentration Camps in Libya (CECCL), created after the CNN report spread over social media, organized the Saturday demonstration. Protesters carried signs saying “No to slavery in Libya” and reportedly burned the national flag.

French security forces violently attacked the protest. CRS riot police fired tear gas at the demonstrators. In videos shared on social media, one can see tense stand-offs with shouting and charges by protesters and police units. According to police sources, two people were arrested.

The police prefecture issued a statement denouncing the supposedly illegal and undeclared character of the protest, while admitting that “no damage had been caused” during the event. Nevertheless, the prefecture demanded that the organizers of the protest be identified, so “that legal proceedings can be started in order to prepare appropriate charges.”

The emergence of slavery in post-war Libya and the police-state repression of protests against slavery in France expose the advanced state of collapse of democratic forms in Europe. French imperialism and its supporters in the petty-bourgeois “left” have their hands drenched in blood.

Contemporary slavery in Libya is the product of the barbaric war waged by the United States, France and other NATO powers in 2011 to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Amid revolutionary uprisings of the working class against dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt, NATO launched a violent military intervention in North Africa. Petty-bourgeois charlatans like the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) and Bernard-Henri Lévy demanded a “humanitarian” war against Libya, supposedly to prevent Gaddafi from repressing protests in Benghazi.

The now infamous Professor Gilbert Achcar wrote much of the NPA’s pro-war propaganda on Libya. He reassured his readers that the different members of the “heterogeneous” coalition of NATO allies in Libya, “a mixture of human rights militants, intellectuals, tribal currents and Islamist forces,” were “united by their rejection of dictatorship, desire for democracy and respect for human rights.”

Achcar insisted that people in Europe had a moral duty to support war and attacked all left-wing criticism of the imperialist character of the NATO intervention. “If Gaddafi were allowed to pursue his military offensive and re-take Benghazi, there would be an enormous massacre. We are in a situation where a population is truly in danger and there is no other alternative to protect it. The assault from Gaddafi’s forces is coming in a matter of hours or days. One cannot, in the name of anti-imperialist principles, oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians.”

All these shameless justifications for an imperialist war that killed tens of thousands of people and devastated an entire country were political lies. In fact, the Libyan war is a classic example of the role of imperialism. In the wake of a conflict waged supposedly to defend democracy, the freedom to protest and the Rights of Man, slavery has been reintroduced in Libya and non-state-sanctioned protests have been banned in France.

This vindicates what the World Social ist Web Site wrote on the war in 2011: “Far from a ‘revolution’ or struggle for ‘liberation,’ what the world is witnessing is the rape of Libya by a syndicate of imperialist powers determined to lay hold of its oil wealth and turn its territory into a neo-colonial base of operations for further interventions throughout the Middle East and North Africa.”

The war left behind a catastrophic situation for refugees. Hundreds of thousands of them now pass through Libya, which is mired in a six-year civil war between rival Islamist and tribal militias. Detained in various networks of concentration camps by the Libyan regime, by armed militias or criminal gangs, they are subject to extortion, torture, sexual assault, sometimes execution or sale in modern slave markets set up in parking lots in the capital city of Tripoli.

The European Union (EU) has reacted by doing everything it can to try to prevent the refugees from leaving and reaching Europe. The Macron government, which has established a permanent state of emergency that attacks basic democratic rights, works closely with the forces persecuting refugees on the ground inside Libya. It has proposed building triage centers in Libyan detention camps where French officials would work with their Libyan counterparts to admit a minority of refugees to Europe and prevent most of them from escaping North Africa.

This underscores the fact that the struggle against slavery and for the defense of refugees requires a political mobilization of the working class against the EU and NATO. Opposition to imperialist war, the source of the crimes against humanity now being reported in Libya, based on mobilizing the working class internationally on a struggle for socialism, is the perspective advanced by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and the WSWS.

UK to offer larger EU “divorce settlement” to overcome stalled Brexit talks

Robert Stevens

Britain’s government has reluctantly said it will offer the European Union (EU) a near £40 billion “divorce settlement” in an attempt to move forward stalled negotiations over Brexit.

The sum was reportedly agreed at a meeting of Prime Minister Theresa May’s inner cabinet Monday, after the EU rejected a previous offer of £20 billion as derisory. The EU wants a financial settlement from the UK of around £53 billion as part of the terms of its separation from the bloc. It has also stipulated a commitment that there will be no “hard” border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and that there is agreement on EU citizens’ rights in the UK before it will discuss trading relations post-Brexit.

While the government did not stipulate a final figure, the Financial Timesreported that May would offer £38 million to European council President Donald Tusk at a meeting in Brussels Friday. The following week, May will meet European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. This is in the run-up to the EU summit on December 14, which the bloc has said is the deadline by which it will determine if “sufficient progress” has been made to proceed to the next phase of talks.

May’s Brexit committee is split. It includes five ministers who backed, as May did, the Remain campaign in the 2015 referendum. These are Chancellor Philip Hammond, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Business Secretary Greg Clark, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson and First Secretary Damian Green. The main four pro-Leave ministers are Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Brexit Secretary David Davis, Environment Secretary Michael Gove and Trade Secretary Liam Fox.

Pressure from the four secured a commitment that the government should be prepared to withdraw its financial offer if it was not satisfied with the EU’s final deal after the scheduled 18 months of negotiations. According to the FT, “Johnson and David Davis … insist some money must be held back to ensure the UK has negotiating clout to strike a favourable trade deal next year, a potential stumbling block for many net contributor countries, including Germany and the Netherlands.”

The increased offer only provoked further rancour within the Conservative Party. Channel Four cited a “source from the Brexit wing” who said, “The Party can cope with another 20 [billion pounds] but not more.” Peter Bone MP declared, “One pound is too much. … If anyone should get any money from this divorce, it’s us.”

The “hard Brexit” faction of the Tory party, who want as few concessions to the EU as possible, represent a minority faction of the British ruling elite. The pro-European wing is seeking to advance its “soft-Brexit” agenda, with some sections together with a faction of the Labour Party around former Prime Minister Tony Blair seeking to overturn the referendum vote entirely.

Earlier this month, the Confederation of British Industry demanded an end to what it described as the Brexit “soap opera.” CBI President Paul Drechsler said, “We need a single, clear strategy, a plan for what we want, and what kind of relationship we seek with the EU.”

The deepening divisions within the Tory Party have placed the government in such a parlous state that it is only kept in office with the support of 10 MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party. This would be insufficient if more than 11 Tory MP’s were to back any of the amendments.

The Labour Party, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and Tory rebels, have tabled some 300 amendments to the European Union Withdrawal Bill, incorporating EU legislation into British law.

While Labour MPs are tabling amendments, however, the party is anxious to ensure it does nothing to further destabilise the government, and consequently undermine the interests of British imperialism globally. On Monday evening, 18 Labour MPs including John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor and ally of party leader Jeremy Corbyn, voted with the government to defeat an amendment to the (Cross-Border Trade) Bill by Labour MP Ian Murray, which had sought to keep the UK in a post-Brexit Customs Union arrangement with the EU.

McDonnell and company joined 283 Conservatives, eight DUP and two independent MPs to enable the government to win the vote by a large majority. Murray’s amendment had the support of two Tory pro-Europeans, Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke.

Speaking for Labour ahead of the vote, Shadow Treasury Minister Anneliese Dodds said Murray’s proposal could "worsen our situation," adding, "I think he will know that ultimately, as I stated before, the Labour position is to leave all options on the table and that is the best thing for Britain to be doing.”

On Tuesday, a further five votes on Labour amendments were held on the EU Withdrawal Bill after eight hours of debate, with the government winning them all by small majorities. Just how tenuous is May’s position was revealed as a Labour amendment to retain the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK law was defeated by just 311-301—a government majority of just 10, with Tory Ken Clarke backing Labour.

The vote was especially significant as amendments on the future status of EU human rights measures in UK law were tabled by Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general and Brexit opponent. May was only able to stave off a larger rebellion and possible defeat when Solicitor General Robert Buckland agreed the government would “look at this issue again” and “bring forward its own amendment” during later stages of the bill’s passage. With this, Grieve backed down, stating he would not force a vote at this stage on the amendments.

The competing factions within the British ruling elite are seeking to steer a way out of unprecedented crisis under conditions in which the entire edifice of the EU is crumbling. At the heart of the EU, a political disaster is unfolding in Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of the main stabilising power within the bloc, has been unable to form a government fully eight weeks after a federal election. The collapse of coalition talks and possible new elections heralds the possible end of her 11-year period in office, with Spiegel Onlinedeclaring that Germany was experiencing its own “Brexit moment” and “Trump moment.”

Merkel, in alliance with France, has taken a hard line against Britain in the talks to discourage any further break-up of the EU and to ensure that Britain does not gain any competitive advantage. However, the German bourgeoisie is divided on Brexit, with its political crisis prompting the formation of a wing demanding that Britain be offered concessions to stem a continuing breakdown.

A group described by the Daily Telegraph as “seven influential figures” are demanding that concessions be offered to the UK on restricting immigration and free movement, under the slogan “Exit from Brexit: a new deal for Britain and the EU.” If concessions were not forthcoming, they warn that Germany could lose “its most valuable partner within the EU.”

The group is led by Hans-Olaf Henkel, a Member of the European Parliament from the right-wing Liberal Conservative Reformers party, and is supported by two former heads of the Federation of German Industry and a leading economist, Hans-Werner Sinn. Henkel said, “We want to offer Britain the right to stop people who have no jobs entering the country and entering its social welfare system.”

Seeking to win broader support for their agenda, Henkel said, “The collapse of talks could help if we can persuade one of the parties to adopt this as policy.”

The Politico web site reported the comments of a diplomat from an EU country who warned that “with the collapse of German coalition talks, the ‘process is going to be increasingly driven by Paris,’ which is seen as having a more hardline than Berlin on Brexit.”

US sanctions against North Korea target China

Peter Symonds

The US Treasury announced new sanctions on Tuesday that not only target North Korea, but a number of Chinese companies and individuals. The latest penalties underscore Washington’s determination to exploit the current confrontation with Pyongyang to undermine China economically and strategically.

The announcement followed Trump’s decision on Monday to redesignate North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism—an utterly cynical move that further undercuts the possibility of negotiations to end the crisis. A North Korean spokesman yesterday denounced the step as “a serious provocation” and warned that Pyongyang would continue to strengthen its nuclear arsenal as long as the US continued its “hostile” policy toward his country.

The new US sanctions will hit six North Korean shipping companies and 20 vessels, along with the Korea South-South Cooperation Corporation, which allegedly organises the employment of North Korean guest workers in other countries, including Russia and China.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declared that the US was “steadfast in our determination to maximise economic pressure to isolate it [North Korea] from outside sources of trade and revenue.” His comments demonstrate that Washington is seeking a complete blockade of North Korea, aimed at strangling it economically, not simply the enforcement of existing UN sanctions.

The impact of the latest US sanctions on the Pyongyang regime is limited. Successive UN Security Council resolutions already ban virtually all North Korean commodity exports, including coal, iron, other minerals and seafood, as well as limiting joint investment and the hiring of extra North Korean guest workers, and capping the sale of oil and related products to North Korea.

The US, however, is going well beyond the UN measures, which were pushed by Washington and reluctantly agreed by China and Russia in a bid to forestall war. In effect, the Trump administration has unilaterally declared that any trade or investment with North Korea is out of bounds and any individual or company that does so faces exclusion from the US financial system.

The US Treasury imposed secondary sanctions on three Chinese companies—Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade, Dandong Xianghe Trading and Dandong Hongda Trade—which it claimed had done more than $750 million in combined trade with North Korea over almost five years up to August 31. This included trade in coal, iron ore, lead, zinc and silver ore, lead metal and ferrous products, as well as notebook computers.

The Trump administration has not attempted to justify its move against these companies by referring to UN sanctions, international law or even previously declared US policy toward North Korea. Up until the latest UN resolution in August, the purchase of coal, iron ore, lead and ferrous products was not subject to a total ban. The US has arbitrarily singled out Chinese companies for retrospective penalties.

Chinese citizen Sun Sidong and his company Dandong Dongyuan Industrial were also sanctioned for allegedly exporting more than $28 million worth of goods, including items connected to nuclear reactors, to North Korea over several years.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang on Wednesday condemned the US actions, saying: “We consistently oppose any country adopting unilateral sanctions based on its own domestic laws and regulations and the wrong method of exercising long-arm jurisdiction.” Lu warned that “if other parties wish to have effective cooperation with China” they should share intelligence and cooperate with China “to appropriately handle the issue.”

The Trump White House, however, has no intention of winding back the confrontation with North Korea or China. During his visit to Beijing earlier this month, Trump demanded that China “act faster and more effectively” to force North Korea to capitulate to US demands for it to abandon its nuclear programs.

However, every step taken by China is only met with new US pressure. The decision to rename North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism was a deliberate slap in the face to Chinese efforts to bully Pyongyang to the negotiating table on US terms. Just last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping sent a special envoy to North Korea for the first high-level talks with its leaders in more than two years.

The US confrontation with North Korea is also aimed at weakening and ultimately subordinating China, which Washington regards as the chief threat to its continued dominance in Asia and the world. The sanctions against Chinese companies are just an element of Washington’s far broader plans for trade war measures against China. In Beijing, Trump demanded that China “immediately address the unfair trade practices” in order to reduce its trade surplus with the US.

Trump’s trade representative Robert Lighthizer, who accompanied Trump to Beijing, is notorious for his advocacy of trade war measures against China. According to a Wall Street Journal article this week entitled, “US throws out playbook on China trade,” Lighthizer “shocked the Chinese hosts by declining their proffered trade concessions including a financial-opening package… His message: Half-measures won’t work for a White House seeking fundamental change.”

Beijing is reluctant to impose a complete economic blockade on North Korea, fearing it will provoke an economic and political crisis in Pyongyang that Washington will exploit. An implosion in North Korea would not only threaten chaos on China’s border but raise the possibility that the US could impose a pro-American regime in Pyongyang.

At the same time, China is acutely aware that the US has advanced military preparations and plans for an all-out war and, to use Trump’s words, the “total destruction” of North Korea, which is formally a Chinese ally.

A debate has opened up in Chinese ruling circles over how to respond to the US over North Korea. According to an article in the Diplomat this week, a rare public debate between academics over the contentious issue points to deep divisions in the Chinese state apparatus. While one wing blames the US for the crisis and continues to call for a negotiated end to the standoff, its opponents suggest that China should cut ties with North Korea and draw up “contingency plans” with the US in case of war, or regime collapse in Pyongyang.

The very fact that a public debate is taking place at all suggests real fears in Beijing that the US will wage a war of aggression against North Korea that could drag China and the world into a catastrophic conflict.

US bombing of Afghanistan up by 300 percent

Bill Van Auken

The US media this week broadcast videos provided by the Pentagon purporting to show American airstrikes against Taliban-run “drug labs” in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Parroting claims by the top US military commander Gen. John Nicholson, television news broadcasters reported that Washington is attempting to stop the Islamist insurgency from “profiting from narcotics trade and other criminal activities.”

The bombing raids in Helmand announced on Monday are merely part of a sharp escalation in the US air war in Afghanistan that is claiming increasing numbers of civilian casualties. Statistics released Tuesday by the US Air Force Central Command establish that the Pentagon is on track to drop more than triple the number of bombs and missiles on the impoverished country this year, compared to 2016.

According to the US military’s own figures, it has dropped 3,554 weapons on Afghanistan during the first 10 months of this year and, at the current rate, is expected to top 4,000 before year’s end. Last month, it recorded 653 bombs and missiles used against Afghan targets, the highest number since November 2010 at the height of the Obama administration’s “surge”, when over 100,000 US troops were deployed in Afghanistan.

The latest raids included strikes by advanced F-22 stealth fighters, which the Pentagon claimed were employed in order to carry out “precision” bombing designed to avoid civilian casualties. This assertion was undercut by the fact that B-52 strategic bombers dropping 2,000-pound bombs were used in the same operation.

Under the new rules of engagement unveiled by the Trump administration in August, the military brass has been given a free hand to escalate the conflict as it sees fit. A total of 16,000 American troops are slated to be on the ground in Afghanistan by the beginning of next year, while the air war is expected to continue escalating

The claims by the Pentagon and the US media that the latest attacks were designed to combat drug trafficking are a patent fabrication aimed at evoking public sympathy for the more than 16 year-old war--America’s longest--that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Afghans, while turning millions into homeless refugees.

The reality is that poppy cultivation and drug trafficking from Afghanistan--which were banned by the Taliban regime--have grown exponentially since the US invaded the country in 2001. In the 16 years of US war and occupation, there has been a 20-fold increase in the territory under poppy cultivation, and the amount of opium produced in the country is 25 times that of 2001.

According to conservative UN estimates, opium production accounts for some 16 per cent of Afghanistan GDP and more than two-thirds of the entire agricultural sector of the country. Not just the Taliban, but government officials, from the top of the US-backed regime of President Ashraf Ghani to local police, are heavily involved in the trafficking of drugs, as are the collection of warlords cultivated by US imperialism as a counterweight to the Taliban.

Local leaders in Helmand province condemned the US raids, saying that they targeted rudimentary sheds in rural areas and did nothing to stop the production and trafficking of opium.

Moreover, among the victims of the airstrikes, unseen in the video-game style footage broadcast on US television news, were Afghan civilians, men, women and children. The entire family of a Helmand resident identified by local authorities as Habibullah was wiped out when a bomb struck their home on the western outskirts of the Musa Kala district center. A total of 12 were killed, including the man, his wife and their children.

The number of civilian casualties is today higher than at any time since the 2001 invasion, with the sharpest increase in deaths caused by air strikes and artillery barrages carried out by US and Afghan puppet forces.

The buildup of troops and airstrikes in Afghanistan is part of a broader US military escalation that is being carried out from the south Asian country, through the Middle East and into ever growing territory on the African continent.

Figures released by the Pentagon indicate that the number of US troops and contractors deployed in the Middle East has risen by 33 percent in the last four months alone, going from 40,517 to 54,180. This is undoubtedly a significant undercount, as the US military often fails to include forces that are rotated in and out of the region on a supposedly temporary basis.

This troop buildup has been carried out without any public announcement, much less debate, and is being decided by the cabal of current and former US generals who largely control US foreign policy. Sharp increases in the number of American troops deployed in a number of Persian Gulf countries are indications of Washington’s preparations for a war against Iran.

According to the latest quarterly reports from the Pentagon, between June and September, the US military deployment increased in the area’s two active war zones; in Iraq, from 8,173 to 9,122 and in Syria, from 1,251 to 1,723.

Far larger increases have been registered in neighboring countries. In Turkey, the number went from 1,405 to 2,265; in Qatar from 3,164 to 6,671; in Bahrain from 6,541 to 9,335; in the United Arab Emirates from 1,531 to 4,240 and in Kuwait, from 14,790 to 16,592. Further increases have been registered across the region, including in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen and Oman.

Russia, Turkey, Iran meet on Syria at Sochi Summit

Halil Celik

Yesterday, the presidents of Turkey, Russia and Iran met at a summit in the Black Sea resort town of Sochi to discuss the future of Syria, as a military victory against the Islamic State (IS) and other Islamic forces is imminent.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani issued a joint statement calling on “representatives of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the opposition to constructively participate in the Syrian National Dialogue Congress.” The three presidents also restated their commitment to protecting “the national sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Describing the talks as “constructive and businesslike,” Putin said the presidents “discussed in detail the basic aspects of the Syrian settlement and agreed to continue taking the most active efforts to solve the main task: to establish peace and stability in that country, preserve its sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.”

About “the idea of convening a pan-Syrian forum–a Syrian National Dialogue Congress,” Putin said: “It has been agreed to arrange for this most important event at the proper level and to ensure participation in it of the wide strata of Syrian society. The foreign ministries, special services and defense ministries were instructed to work on a date and composition of the Congress to be held here in Sochi.”

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani welcomed the proposed Syrian National Dialogue Congress, saying, “The congress will become a new step towards peace and stability in Syria and towards free elections in Syria on the basis of a new constitution.”

While seeming to share the satisfaction of his Russian and Iranian counterparts, Turkish President Erdogan sounded a skeptical note. In his speech, he emphasized that the “success of their efforts depends on the attitude of the parties, first of all the regime and opposition.” This means, he added, that “continuation of the sense of respect and consensus for mutual sensitivity” of the three guarantors –i.e. Ankara, Moscow and Tehran—that would “play a critical role in this process.”

He raised a central point of conflict, the Kurdish issue: “In this regard, political unity and territorial integrity of Syria and exclusion of the terrorist elements, which threaten the national security of our country, will continue to be among our priorities. No one should expect us to be together under the same roof, to share the same platform with a terror organization. If we express our commitment to the territorial integrity and political unity of Syria, we cannot regard a bloody gang as a legitimate actor.”

Ankara has long considered Syria’s Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) as a terrorist group and stressed that its militia, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), should withdraw from Afrin, a multi-ethnic region in northern Syria bordering Turkey, where Russian troops are also stationed. Erdogan repeatedly asked Putin to withdraw Russian troops from the region, so that the Turkish army could take its “own measures to secure the borders.” Recently, the Turkish army deployed additional troops near Afrin.

It is not only Ankara that opposes Kurdish autonomy in Syria for fear of provoking separatist moods within its own Kurdish population. For decades, Iran also fought Kurdish separatist groups.

The policy of Ankara and Tehran towards Kurdish people is utterly reactionary, both at home and in Syria and Iraq. They have bloodily oppressed their Kurdish population and deprived them of political and cultural rights for decades, and threatened the Kurds of neighbouring countries–i.e., Iraq and Syria—with military intervention. They initiated and joined in the Astana talks, along with Russia, not to establish “peace and stability” in Syria and in the Middle East, but based on their own domestic and regional interests, amid the ongoing imperialist carve-up of the region.

This applies to the policy of Moscow, as well. Under pressure from its two regional partners, the Russian government, which supports PYD participation in the projected Syrian National Dialogue Congress, may well take a step back. This, however, does not exclude the possibility of a Russian-US agreement over talks with the Syrian Kurds for a political settlement against the wishes of Ankara and Tehran.

Beyond the conflicts over how to handle the Kurdish issue, the essential contradiction underlying the Sochi talks is the deep hostility of the NATO imperialist powers, particularly Washington. As NATO proxy forces retreated in Syria, US President Donald Trump traveled to Saudi Arabia in May for talks and issued a blank check to Saudi Arabia for military escalation against Iran. The NATO powers do not intend to tolerate a defeat in the Middle East, and are doubtless preparing their next escalation, amid explosive war tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe.

Under these conditions, Moscow is clearly seeking to balance between its partners at the Sochi conference and the more openly pro-US regimes in the region. On Tuesday, the eve of the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin held an hour-long phone call with Trump, in which Syria, where both the US and Russian military are deployed, was a principal point of discussion. He also called the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel to discuss recent developments in Syria and cooperation on various projects, including in the security and energy sectors, according to a Kremlin statement.

Citing the statement, Sputnik news reported that Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “expressed interest in the further expansion of mutually beneficial cooperation in various areas, including contacts between security services … A substantive exchange of views was held on the prospects for the development of the situation in the Middle East region, primarily in the context of the final stage of the fight against international terrorism in Syria.”

Putin’s press service added that the Russian president had informed the Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah Sisi “in detail about Russian assessments of the latest developments in the situation in Syria in the context of the final stages of the military operation to destroy terrorists in that country and discussed the results of the recent talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

In their phone call on Tuesday, Putin and Saudi King Salman “continued the exchange of views on the situation in the Middle East region and discussed issues related to the prospects for a long-term settlement of the Syrian conflict in light of recent successes in the fight against terrorist groups there,” the statement continued.

There seems to be little hope, however, of reconciling the Russian and Saudi positions amid escalating Saudi-Iranian tensions and the Saudi offensive against Yemen. Indeed, Saudi officials wasted no time in making clear their basic hostility to the proposals being made in Sochi.

While the Russian, Iranian and Turkish governments tried to further “their own solution” to the Syrian war in Sochi, a Saudi-sponsored Syrian opposition conference took place on the same day in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It decided to stick to the demand for Assad’s withdrawal from power as a precondition for any political solution. About 140 opposition members took part in the conference to discuss the formation of a single delegation and agree on a common position in upcoming peace talks in Geneva, on November 28.

Quoting from an official from the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, commonly known as the Syrian National Coalition, the Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency reported on Tuesday that the US and Saudi-sponsored opposition “called on Arab countries to form a coalition against interference by Iran in the region.”