Thomas Friedman’s Whitewashing Of The Dark Saudi Kingdom

Taj Hashmi

Thomas Friedman is a big name in the realm of journalism and the study of Globalization. He’s known for his anti-Republican liberal views, and for his pro-Israeli sympathies, especially among Arabs and Muslims. I sometimes agree with his strong opinions, especially his critiquing America’s counterproductive foreign policies. I liked one of his comments on the stupidity of spending billions of dollars on the so-called “training” of Afghan soldiers to fight the Taliban. So much so that I quoted him verbatim in my book on “global jihad”: “Americans’ training Afghans to fight is like someone training Brazilians to play soccer…. Who are training the Taliban? They even don’t have maps, and don’t know how to use one.” So far, so good!

However, after reading his latest column in the New York Times, “Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring, at Last: The crown prince has big plans for his society” (Nov 23, 2017), I have mixed feelings about this op-ed piece. While on the one hand, it reads like a piece by a biased and ill-informed journalist; on the other, what he has mentioned is better than what he has deliberately hidden, as he has inadvertently revealed a lot about the ongoing chaos in the Kingdom.

Friedman tells us: “The most significant reform process underway anywhere in the Middle East today is in Saudi Arabia. Yes, you read that right. Though I came here at the start of Saudi winter, I found the country going through its own Arab Spring, Saudi style.” What’s even more interesting and ambiguous when he tells his readers: “Unlike the other Arab Springs – all of which emerged bottom up and failed miserably, except in Tunisia – this one is led from the top down by the country’s 32-year-old crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and if it succeeds, it will not only change the character of Saudi Arabia but the tone and tenor of Islam across the globe. Only a fool would predict its success – but only a fool would not root for it.” His clever use of “if” and “but” at the right places gives some semblance of objectivity and hence legitimacy to this pedestrian piece by a gifted scholar of Thomas Friedman’s stature.

What I find most problematic in his article, is the grossly misleading title, “Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring, at Last”, followed by his ambiguous optimism about the success of this Crown Prince-led move for an “Arab Spring” in the Kingdom, only because unlike elsewhere in the Arab World, this one “is led from the top down”. Historians across the world have so far only glorified the grassroots-based movements as true revolutions. Friedman’s frequent citing of Prince Mohammed – despite his sceptical comments on the Prince’s assumptions – are problematic.

Friedman, sort of, gives credence to the Prince’s assertion that his anticorruption campaign wasn’t a “power grab”, and asserts: “If the public feels that he is truly purging corruption that was sapping the system and doing so in a way that is transparent and makes clear to future Saudi and foreign investors that the rule of law will prevail, it will really instill a lot of new confidence in the system.” Then he registers his scepticiism about the whole process initiated by the Prince: “But if the process ends up feeling arbitrary, bullying and opaque, aimed more at aggregating power for power’s sake and unchecked by any rule of law, it will end up instilling fear that will unnerve Saudi and foreign investors in ways the country can’t afford.”

He has ridiculously taken the Prince’s vow to “destroy extremism”, which is a euphemism for fighting pro-Iranian elements in and around Saudi Arabia. His naiveté is well reflected in the following assertion: “He’s (the Prince) not sugar-coating. That is reassuring to me that the change is real”. This assertion alone is good enough to turn this piece into a vain effort to whitewash the dark kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Freedman seems to be awe-stricken by the Crown Prince’s balderdash about his intent of introducing liberal Islam as prevailed during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when “there were musical theatres … mixing between men and women … respect for Christians and Jews in Arabia” and even the “first commercial judge in Medina was a woman!”

However, Friedman seems to have disliked the Crown Prince’s praise for President Trump as “the right person at the right time”, and writes: “I am skeptical”, and points out Iran indirectly controls four Arab capitals today – Damascus, Sana, Baghdad, and Beirut. Friedman seems to be too optimistic about the future of Saudi Arabia as now women are able to drive. He quotes one of them who thinks: since women can drive, “anything is possible” in the Kingdom in the coming days.

Renowned Indian-American Middle East analyst and author Ehsan Ahrari, in a private communication to me wrote today (25th Nov): “I am not as pessimistic as others about the tone or the coverage of Thomas Friedman in this essay. He is examining Saudi Arabia from a pragmatic perspective.  We know that Saudi Arabia has to abandon the Wahhabi Islam before it can modernize or successfully implement any major aspects of MBS’ [Mohammed bin Salman] ‘Vision 2030’. What we are not sure about is exactly what strategies does he have to adopt to implement that vision, and how sincere he really is in dealing with his political opponents.”

Then again, despite my reservations about his lack of objectivity, I sort of “like” his article under review, because although he has deliberately hidden some embarrassing facts about Saudi Arabia, yet two things are clear from his article that: a) a wind of change is blowing in the autocratic and corrupt Saudi Arabia, where human rights, gender equality, and democracy are alien, and “un-Islamic concepts”; and b) the powerbrokers in the Kingdom are in a state of perpetual nervousness. The Crown Prince’s offensive postures (mainly against other contenders of the throne) simply reflect the state of prevalent uncertainties in Saudi Arabia, and the brewing discontent against the Saudi dynasty among its own people. His defensive gestures, his trying to sell himself as a benign, liberal, pro-moderate Islam, and a modern leader who even allows women to drive are simply signs of his weakness, not strength.

Can he go all the way to the different direction to liberal Islam by discarding Wahhabi extremism? I don’t think so. He can’t afford to antagonize the well-entrenched Wahhabi clerics, who have strong ideological and matrimonial ties with members of the Saudi dynasty for more than 200 years now. In view of the growing strategic ambitions and influence of Iran across the region, as Ehsan Ahrari believes, there is room for scepticism about the success of the Prince’s “Vision 2030”, and even about his becoming the next king of Saudi Arabia.

In sum, Saudi Arabia (and the geopolitics in the region) won’t remain the same in the coming years. Who wins at the end of the day, Iran or Saudi Arabia, US or Russia-China is still uncertain. As long as America, and Israel are with the Kingdom – which has virtually led to another “Axis of Evil” – it would possibly survive, but growing Iranian influence across the region is very ominous for Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately for the Saudi regime, not only Shias but most Sunnis across the world also dislike the Kingdom, a lot. However, the way Thomas Friedman – no friend of the Muslims and Arabs – has whitewashed one of the worst autocracies in the world, it appears to be another vain attempt to refurbish the tarnished image of a great friend and ally of America and Israel, whose heydays virtually seem to be over.

Investigating The Banks: A Royal Commission In Australia

Binoy Kampmark

On Collins Street, Melbourne lies a monument that acts as a gloriously loud remark about how banks are treated in Australia.  The ANZ Gothic Bank, studded with stain glass windows, and equipped with a chapel for bankers is a secular tribute to capitalism.  It sprung up as a result of discovering gold and remains a shrine to Australian materialism.

Despite historical disasters, appalling decisions punctuated by periods of prosperity, the Australian banking sector has become smug, self-serving and automatically exploitative.  It abounds in assumptions of self-superiority and global majesty.

It is also highly oligopolistic, a culture that encourages manipulation of lending standards, the bank bill swap rate and the forging of loan documentation. “The share of banking assets owned by the four largest banks in Australia,” observed the Financial System Inquiry in December 2014, “is higher than equivalent shares in most other jurisdictions.”

Smaller lending institutions and non-bank lenders have made the understandable point that such concentration frustrates competition.  Not so for Australia’s Big Four, who insist without irony their presence guarantees competition, keeping low net interest margins and supplying good equity returns.

When grand public announcements are made by industry representatives, customers are meant to bow in appreciation.  The recent move by the Commonwealth bank to abolish withdrawal fees from ATMs was trumpeted as a boon for customers.  It was badged as a noble, kind gesture when it was merely a statement about the greater user use of online banking and relentless march to the moneyless economy.

While the Australian banker is deemed a sacred cow by captains of industry, valuable for the shareholder despite spiting the customer, the same cannot be said for a good stretch of the country whose citizens see banks as unaccountable providers of dubious services.

Suspicions abound that the Australian public is being hoodwinked even as the money pours in and profits soar.  Australian banks alone have paid out over $1 billion in compensation and fines to clients in the last decade, and know that they are facing a corporate regulator with more bark than bite.

Spectacular individual instances also abound, including the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s 55,000 breaches of terrorism financing and money laundering regulations.  These are just a few instances of transgression.  The list of banking improprieties compiled by former Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mangan provides a grim buffet to pick from the last decade.

Such suspicions, and dismay, were simply too much for some members of the Turnbull government.  While the cabinet resisted the grumbles from all sides of politics, various bank benchers were insistent.  While the government did give some ground, hauling banking representatives before parliamentary committees and promising a future complaints process for the aggrieved, the calls refused to die down.  An inquiry with sufficient powers was needed.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull duly relented.  “Government policy,” he weakly stated, “remains the same until it is changed.”  For Turnbull, the decision had been grudgingly taken to launch a Royal Commission.  “While we regret the necessity of the decision, we have taken it in the national economic interest.”

The effort to immunise banks from inquiry is unrelenting.  Even after the announcement of a royal commission, pundits in the banking industry and political supporters feel that business will suffer.  Don’t touch the banks – that way lies doom.  Former Australian prime minister John Howard had claimed, in rather novel fashion, that such an inquiry would amount to “rank socialism”. “Our banks demonstrated in 2009 that they were among the best-run, the most prudentially supervised, and the most well-capitalised in the world.”

What, then, would Howard’s view be on the policies of various governments after 2008 to essentially socialise banks in order to save them?  Australian banks, by way of example, received $120 billion in tax payer funds to assist refinancing international loans with an ongoing guarantee from the then Rudd government that they could continue borrowing using the AAA credit rating of the Commonwealth.  A deposit guarantee remains in place, initially peaking at $1 million, and now coming in at a quarter of a million.

The thrust of such thinking is simple.  To merely think of questioning the sanctity of banking is to undermine it.  Let them, it seems, pay out outrageous bonuses and seek protection and subsidies from governments when things go belly up.

The pertinent question to ask here is how far a royal commission will actually go to affect change.  Turnbull has reiterated that he has no intention of putting capitalism in the dock.  The very act of announcing this inquiry guarantees that he can, at the very least, manage it, including the terms of reference.

The government, for one, has appointed former High Court Judge Kenneth Hayne, hardly a rabblerouser of note and likely to be unadventurous in his digging.  “He is renowned,” went a joint government media release, “for his brilliant mind, his forensic skill, and his deep sense of justice.” Whether this translates into feasible and constructive findings will preoccupy the sceptics and detractors till 2019.

Intelligence agency involved in latest Australian “terror” scare

Richard Phillips 

Accompanied by lurid media headlines about a “New Year’s Eve terror plot,” police arrested a 20-year-old young man from a Somali family last Monday, claiming he had planned to carry out a “massacre” in Melbourne’s Federation Square during this year’s New Year’s Eve celebrations.

Every aspect of this affair is dubious and points to efforts being made to launch another terrorist scare campaign to divert attention away from the political turmoil engulfing the federal government and parliament.

Long before Ali Khalif Shire Ali faced a court, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government joined the police authorities in issuing prejudicial declarations that make it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

Police alleged that Ali was an “Islamic State” sympathiser and had attempted to obtain an automatic weapon in order to “shoot and kill as many people as he could.” Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton said Ali had not accessed a gun at any stage, but had “face to face interactions” about obtaining one.

Patton told a press conference on November 28 that Ali had attempted to obtain instructions from an Al Qaeda web site on how to launch a terrorist attack. Without presenting any evidence, Patton declared that “the potential of the attack was catastrophic” and “horrendous.”

Federal Justice Minister Michael Keenan wasted no time in politically exploiting the arrest. He said the “fact” that the Christmas—New Year period was a target “reminds us of the depravity of terrorists.”

It then emerged that the police and intelligence agencies had kept Ali under surveillance for two years after the teenager rejected demands by the federal political spy agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), to become an informer in the Islamic community.

Police told the media that Ali had been charged over actions taken in March, April and June. No explanation was provided as to why the police decided to arrest him now.

A police-intelligence operation against Ali reportedly intensified last December. Operation San Jose—a joint ASIO, Australian Federal Police and Victoria Police procedure—was evidently launched after Ali was questioned at an apparently routine traffic stop late last December.

As well as the unexplained timing of the arrest, ASIO’s involvement raises questions about the long record of the police and intelligence agencies seeking to recruit and manipulate vulnerable young men. This includes using undercover operatives to entrap them into trying to purchase weapons or making comments that can then be depicted as a terrorist plot.

In late 2015, Ali told a conference that ASIO had attempted to recruit him as an informant when he was 18 years old. He said ASIO agents persistently phoned him, followed him to university and visited his family’s house multiple times, when his parents were not there.

Ali said the agents offered him money for information but he refused. “I know their tricks and whatever you say to them they will use as evidence against you,” he said. The teenager said he was targeted because ASIO thought he was “young and naïve.”

The young man has been charged with vague counts of “acts in preparation to commit a terrorist attack” and “collecting documents to facilitate a terrorist act.” Under the draconian terrorism laws introduced since 2002, the first charge requires no proof of any specific terrorist plan, just “a” possible terrorist act. The second charge was reportedly based on Ali accessing material online. Both charges carry a life sentence. Denied bail, the young man has been detained pending a hearing next March 2018.

Among the other incongruities in the case, Ali was allegedly in possession of an Al Qaeda guidebook, although police describe him as a sympathiser with rival group Islamic State.

Media outlets, which were on the scene during police raids related to the arrest, reported that a computer and other “evidence,” including a “large-framed picture” were seized. In a slur against working-class Melbourne residents, Fairfax Media described Meadow Heights, where Ali lived, as part of “a belt of suburbs in the north-west long linked to violent extremism.”

There is a record of governments, police and the media using so-called terror plots to justify the introduction, or use, of wide-ranging anti-democratic measures. That includes alleged plans to attack ASIO offices, military bases, Anzac Day ceremonies and major sporting events, organise implausible airplane bombings and conduct street murders and beheadings.

Many of these cases, including the Lindt café siege in Sydney in December 2015, have involved disoriented or mentally-ill individuals who have been in direct contact with ASIO.

For the past 16 years, governments—Liberal-National and Labor alike—have seized upon alleged terrorist plots to introduce barrages of terrorism laws that overturn basic legal and democratic rights.

At last month’s Council of Australian Governments meeting, federal and state governments unanimously agreed to another package. It will introduce wide-ranging powers of arrest and detention without charge, and adopt real-time face recognition technology to enable the police and intelligence agencies to identify individuals instantly.

The latest “massacre” plot is being promoted under conditions in which the Turnbull government is in deep crisis and increasingly unravelling, facing deepening hostility among wide layers of the population.

One in 25 people homeless in some areas of England

Dennis Moore

A recent study carried out by the homeless charity Shelter calculates there are now 268,000 people in England classed as homeless. The figure for the whole of the UK stands at 307,000.

Even these figures are a conservative estimate, with many more going unrecorded. Often described as the hidden face of homelessness, they include those who are “sofa surfing”, having to move from one place to the next.

The number of homeless has risen by four percent since 2016. Legally this includes not just rough sleepers, the visible aspect of homelessness with people sleeping out on the streets, but also single people in hostels, and those in temporary accommodation.

According to Shelter, this would mean that at least one in every 200 people across the population are considered homeless. This involves an estimated 4,100 people sleeping out on the streets, 242,000 in temporary accommodation, and another 21,000 staying in hostels, or being housed temporarily by social services.

London has the highest number of homeless people in the country, and accounts for 31 of the worst hotspots, including the borough of Newham, with one in 25 people being recorded as homeless. However, other areas have been identified across the country including Brighton, with one in 69, and Birmingham, one in 88.

In the last year, the number of homeless people has risen by 13,000. Local authorities, who process homelessness applications, record the reason statutory homeless households have lost their last settled home.

The main cause is the loss of a private tenancy. Three in ten statutory homelessness applications are due to this, and these numbers have soared since cuts to housing benefit were introduced in 2011. The introduction of the Local Housing Allowance that applies to private tenancies has placed a ceiling on what rent will be paid on tenancies in particular areas, and has led to many people being unable to find a place they can afford to rent.

The rise in rental costs places enormous financial burdens on people trying to find accommodations. In London, rents in the private rented sector have soared, going up by 24 percent since 2010, eight times the average rise in earnings.

Local authorities face rising financial demands as they are left to foot the bill for the increase in homelessness. Local authorities are housing the equivalent of an extra secondary school’s worth of homeless children in temporary accommodation every month.

In 2015/16, the majority of the £1.1 billion spent on housing was used for providing temporary accommodation. That has increased by 39 percent in real terms since 2010/11, from £606 million to £845 million, and over the same period, spending on other services, prevention, ongoing support and administration has fallen by 9 percent, from £334 million to £303 million.

In August, the homeless charity Crisis reported that it estimates that by 2041 the number of homeless people in Britain will have doubled to 575,000. The numbers of people estimated to be sleeping rough will quadruple, from a 2016 figure of 9,100, to 41,000.

Those placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by local authorities are expected to rise from 19,300 to 117,500.

Rising homelessness is often associated with urban, inner city areas of the country, yet it is becoming a growing problem in rural areas. A study carried out by the Institute for Public Policy Research, found that in 2015/16, 6,270 households were accepted as homeless in England, across 91 largely, rural local authorities. This accounts for, on average, 1.3 people out of every 1000 households.

In sixteen of these predominantly rural areas, the figure rose to 2.0 in every 1,000 households. This is a higher rate than for urban areas for 2010/11. The figures for rough sleeping in largely rural areas increased by 52 percent between 2010 to 2016.

The rise in rural homelessness is not too dissimilar from urban homelessness, often associated with family breakdown, and the end of a short hold assured tenancy.

Many cases of homelessness, including rough sleeping, are hidden due to people bedding down for the night in places not in the public view—barns, out houses, parked cars, tents, and fields. It is likely that the numbers are in fact higher as they are harder to find and record.

Rural areas face specific problems, associated with communities often being isolated, having limited transport infrastructure, not able to effectively deliver services to homeless people and with restraints being placed on overstretched budgets.

These problems are exacerbated by the lack of housing supply and affordability, with homes in rural areas being less affordable than homes in urban areas. The growth of second homes and holiday lets are another factor contributing to the lack of supply. The figures for Devon in 2016 show that the number of second homes accounted for three percent of the total housing stock, 12,000 homes. This pressure on local housing stock has led to many local residents not being able to find anywhere to live.

The problem has been exacerbated by the lack of any major home building programme over the last 30 years. At the same time there have been major cuts to services working to prevent homelessness and a lack of decent temporary accommodation.

These cuts have been carried out with the complicity of local Labour authorities across the country. Despite all the hand wringing from Labour MPs such as Jim McMahon Labour MP for West Royton, who said that “This is a crisis of the governments own making”, one would have to ask, which government is he referring to?

According to government figures, the number of additional dwellings built between 2016/17 was 217,350, an increase of 15 percent on last year. This included 41,530 dwellings built in England that were classed as affordable, a figure well below the average for the past ten years.

Following last week’s budget statement, the government announced a further 300,000 homes a year to be built. Not even a fifth of these homes will be affordable, condemning many people to insecure accommodation for the rest of their lives.

Canada to co-host meeting with US to prepare for war with North Korea

Roger Jordan 

The Canadian government has announced it will host a US-led international meeting on North Korea early next year. In what amounts to the convening of a war council, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government will invite all of the participants in the Korean War (1950-53) to Ottawa to discuss a “diplomatic solution” to the crisis.

References to a negotiated settlement are for public consumption alone, with the Trudeau government well aware that a conflict on the Korean peninsula, which would likely be fought with nuclear weapons and cause the deaths of millions, is deeply unpopular. The true purpose of the gathering was let out of the bag by Liberal MP Andrew Lesley, a former army general who served in Afghanistan, who declared on Wednesday that the meeting would show a “united front” towards Pyongyang.

Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland revealed that she has been in talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for months on arranging the meeting. She did so the same day as she condemned North Korea’s latest missile test, describing the impoverished country’s rudimentary weapons program as “a direct threat to the world,” and adding, “we cannot tolerate this threat.” Freeland declaimed against the “repeated North Korean provocations” in remarks broadcast on CBC.

This turns reality on its head. In truth, chief responsibility for the war danger on the Korean peninsula lies with US imperialism, which has been systematically goading North Korea into a response to its aggressive military build-up in south Korea and throughout the Asia-Pacific region. President Donald Trump has issued bullying and bloodcurdling threats against the regime of Kim Jong-un, including his infamous declaration at the UN that Washington would “totally destroy” the country of 25 million people if necessary.

In what amounted to the latest indication that a US-led military operation is imminent, the New York Times reported a day after Freeland’s remarks that Trump plans to remove Tillerson, who has spoken of reaching a diplomatic settlement with Pyongyang.

Washington’s main target in a conflict with North Korea would be China, which both the Obama and Trump administrations have sought to isolate and encircle by deploying increased levels of military resources to the Asia-Pacific and stepping up economic pressure. US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley confirmed this Thursday, ominously warning Beijing that if it does not stop oil exports to North Korea, “we can take the oil situation into our own hands.”

Freeland’s pledge to invite China to the proposed gathering cannot disguise the fact that Canada’s ruling elite is fully on board with Washington’s anti-China strategy. As the Socialist Equality Party noted in its recent statement calling on Canadian workers to join the construction of an international anti-war movement, “Both Washington and Ottawa view China as the real obstacle to continued US dominance over the world’s most rapidly growing economic region and the Trump-incited North Korean crisis as a means of placing pressure on China, long Pyongyang’s principal ally.”

Canadian media outlets, led by the Globe and Mail, have been engaged in an incessant anti-China campaign ahead of Trudeau’s departure to Beijing this weekend for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Globe, speaking on behalf of the Bay Street financial elite, urged the Liberal government not to proceed with free trade talks with Beijing. Instead, the Canadian bourgeoisie is pinning its hopes on establishing an even more overtly protectionist North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Trump so as to uphold the global interests of North America’s twin imperialist powers against their Chinese rival.

Canada has played a warmongering role throughout the developing crisis on the Korean peninsula this year. Ottawa has maintained a studious silence on the aggressive moves by the United States, and Trump’s incendiary comments, while denouncing every action by North Korea as a “provocation.”

The Liberal government has backed up its words with deeds, deploying Canadian warships to the South and East China seas to participate in US-led exercises aimed at provoking China and testing cooperation with the South Korean navy. At the end of August, a small contingent of Canadian troops joined a US-south Korean military exercise, which prompted North Korea to fire a missile over Japan.

The assembling of the Korean War coalition, notwithstanding the diplomatic language being used to choreograph the meeting, is itself a major provocation. The US-led onslaught begun in 1950 laid waste to most of North Korea, claimed the lives of over 3 million people, destroyed the vast majority of the North’s cities, and raised the prospect of a direct clash with China and the Soviet Union. Canada participated in the slaughter with the deployment of 25,000 troops, over 500 of whom lost their lives. Canadian air and naval support also participated in the conflict.

Freeland’s leading role in organizing the North Korea summit is noteworthy. In her foreign policy address delivered to Canada’s parliament in June to coincide with the release of the government’s new defence policy, she proclaimed that “hard power,” i.e. war, has to be a key part of Canadian foreign policy. She praised the “outsized role” played by US imperialism over the past seven decades in stabilizing global capitalism, neglecting of course to refer to the millions who have perished or been maimed in Washington’s endless wars around the world. She also cited the economic rise of China as a threat to Canadian imperialist ambitions.

One day after Freeland’s bellicose speech, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan presented Canada’s new defence budget plan, which will see military spending increase by a whopping 70 percent over the coming decade. The Canadian military will purchase an expanded fleet of fighter jets, warships and armed drones so it can wage war in conjunction with American imperialism around the globe, including in the Asia-Pacific.

The fact that the Trudeau government’s latest announcement is bound up with war preparations was underscored Thursday, when the CBC revealed that the Canadian and US militaries conducted joint drills last spring aimed at testing the response to a nuclear weapons attack. The Canadian government has also reportedly reviewed secret plans to move the government to a secure location outside of Ottawa in the event of a nuclear attack.

The portrayal of these exercises as defensive measures should fool nobody. Discussions are ongoing within the Canadian ruling elite about joining the US ballistic missile defence system, an initiative aimed at allowing Washington to wage a “winnable” nuclear war. BMD plays a key role in the $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program unveiled by the Trump administration.

Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance, well aware of the widespread opposition to Canada’s integration into BMD, affirmed Thursday that the Canadian military has not, thus far, held talks with the US about joining. But he effectively admitted that such talks would commence soon when he noted that in-depth discussions on modernizing NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command) are due to get under way. He stressed that one threat over the next 20-50 years that would have to be considered within NORAD, the joint Canada-US military-security partnership initiated during the cold war, would be ballistic missiles.

The Liberal government and top military brass are able to engage in this deeply unpopular war conspiracy behind the backs of the population because no opposition exists to it within the political establishment. Canada’s ostensibly “left” New Democratic Party (NDP) has maintained radio silence on the North Korean situation, tacitly accepting the portrayal by the government and mainstream media of Pyongyang as the aggressor.

In addition, the NDP seized on Trudeau’s trip to Beijing to pour fuel on the fire of the anti-China campaign. In a statement drawing heavily on the right-wing rhetoric of the Trump administration and laced with Canadian nationalism, NDP critic for international trade Tracey Ramsey denounced China for “steel dumping…which put Canadian companies at a dangerous disadvantage.” Ramsey also railed against Beijing’s “questionable record on currency manipulation,” “unfair trade practices” and “the behaviour of state-owned enterprises in China, including through the takeover of Canadian companies that work on sensitive technologies.”

At Abidjan summit, EU and France intensify neo-colonial scramble for Africa

Francis Dubois

The European Union (EU) and African Union (AU) held a joint summit November 29-30 in Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. The meeting was overshadowed by the unfolding disaster caused by imperialist wars in Libya and the Sahel region, and escalating neo-colonial interventions of the EU powers, particularly France. It brought together leaders of 50 African and European countries to concentrate on EU plans to block immigration from Africa and, without saying it openly, to undermine China's growing influence in the continent.

In the lead-up to the summit, protests erupted across Africa and in France against the barbaric treatment of African refugees by the Islamist militias controlling Libya, where CNN filmed the operations of slave markets that have re-appeared since the 2011 NATO war. After these protests, African regimes withdrew their diplomats from Tripoli.

The reappearance of slavery expresses the political essence of European imperialism's neo-colonial intervention in Africa.

Six years after the military intervention on the pretext of “human rights” and the “protection” of the Libyan population against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's government, the result is not only a humanitarian disaster—as African migrants, interned by the hundreds of thousands in horrific conditions in the camps, are sold as slaves on Libyan markets. Those responsible for this crime are now proposing to carry out a similar policy. This time they are presenting it under the cynical label of a “struggle against slavery,” reinforcing the militarization of the region and creating conditions for great-power conflicts in Africa.

Citing the threadbare pretext of the “war on terror,” the summit declared the military operations launched in the Sahel by Paris and Berlin would be intensified, including the new G5 Sahel military force (Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mauritania), which operates together with French troops in the region.

“We will support ongoing efforts to fight terrorism, including by supporting the G5 Sahel,” declares the summit statement. French President Emmanuel Macron demanded that these countries, among the poorest in the world, provide thousands of troops for French-led military operations.

A specific summit statement on migrants in Libya calls for a “task force” to operate in the country. At the end of the summit, AU Commission President Mahamat Moussa Faki declared, “We have decided to set up a task force to act now to bring home 3,800 migrants from Libya.” He added that the main task “in the short term is to help … women and children who are in this inhuman situation.”

The day after the summit, Macron insisted that Africa police units be sent to Libya, adding that “the deployment of military forces or police by France is not being considered at this point.” Since France already unofficially operates within Libya, such a “rescue” operation can only signify the setting up of military operations to prepare a new imperialist war in Libya.

On the pretext of fighting “people smugglers and traffickers,” the EU wants to militarily control the routes taken by migrants across the Mediterranean and Europe. The summit announced the creation in each country of special forces in order to accelerate the deportation of migrants back to their countries of origin.

Another “priority” underscored by the summit statement is to increase European investment, particularly from private sources, in Africa. According to Ivory Coast president Alassane Ouattara, the goal is “the structural transformation of Africa” and a “transformation on the ground of Africa's resources.” This policy, including a pledge to use a European External Investment Plan to leverage up to €44 billion [$US 52.3 billion] in investments in Africa, is aimed at increasing European capital's influence with the African bourgeoisies.

Indeed, one of the EU's main goals in the summit was to block the development of Chinese influence in Central and Western Africa. Just before the Abidjan summit opened, the Second China-Africa Investment Forum—in which hundreds of Chinese and African officials discussed boosting Chinese investment in Africa—was ending in Rabat, Morocco.

The European imperialist powers are alarmed at China's rising economic and political influence in Africa. Le Monde recently cited a McKinsey & Company report noting that “Chinese firms already generate 12 percent of African industrial production now estimated at $500 billion (€430 billion). In the infrastructure sector, Chinese firms already have 50 percent of market share. More than 10,000 Chinese firms are operating on the continent, and 90 percent of them are private. … This is enough to deflate a lot of received wisdom.”

EU and especially French imperialism, which maintained considerable economic and political control over its former colonies after “decolonization,” aim to block this development. Throughout the post-1960s’ period, the economies and societies of Francophone West Africa were subordinated to the needs of French imperialism by countless mechanisms, including the denomination of African monetary reserves in the CFA franc and a network of permanent military bases in Africa. Paris organized dozens of coups in order to preserve this control.

Moreover, the Sahel, which has abundant reserves of petroleum and natural gas, constitutes a key zone for exploitation by the multinational corporations. Beijing recently set up its own aid fund for the Sahel.

Macron's trip to Burkina Faso on the eve of the Abidjan summit had already made clear the neo-colonial character of the EU intervention in Africa. When he arrived in the capital, Ouagadougou, on November 27, he was greeted by hostile protests. The next day, protesters threw stones at the vehicles accompanying him. Near Ouagadougou University, where Macron was to speak, cars were destroyed before his arrival. Fearing protests, Burkina Faso's government felt compelled to close all the schools on Monday and Tuesday.

A humiliating joke by Macron at the expense of Burkina President Roch Kaboré, whom he ordered to fix the air conditioning in the hall where they were speaking, only underlined his arrogant and neo-colonial outlook. Both in Burkina Faso and neighboring Ivory Coast, Macron's joke was widely seen as a humiliation for the Burkina government—perhaps deserved, given broad opposition to the Burkina government's collaboration with French imperialist wars.

Macron is already working closely with Libyan forces who are persecuting migrants. He has proposed to build triage centers in Libyan detention camps, where French officials would work with their Libyan counterparts to identify a minority of refugees to be admitted into Europe—and prevent all the rest from leaving North Africa.

The US Senate tax bill: The financial oligarchy on the rampage

Patrick Martin

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Friday afternoon that he had the necessary 50 votes to pass the tax cut for the wealthy and giant corporations through the Senate. Voting on a series of amendments by Democrats, all rejected on 52-48 party-line votes, will likely culminate in final passage of the measure Friday night or early Saturday morning.

The undemocratic process by which the tax cut bill has been pushed through the House and Senate testifies to its reactionary and socially criminal character. There have been no public hearings, no witness testimony, no submissions from economists or tax experts about the impact of the massive changes proposed in the federal tax code.

As late as 4:15 p.m., as debate continued on amendments to the bill, the actual text of the legislation was not available to senators preparing to vote on it, let alone the American people. Handwritten pages were being pasted into the bill after they had been reviewed and approved by corporate lobbyists. Entire chapters accounting for hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue were being rewritten behind closed doors to satisfy the demands of the last few Republican holdouts.

For Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted against Obamacare repeal, the price of her vote was incorporating into the tax bill an unrelated provision opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration. For Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, the price was another $60 billion in tax breaks for “S-corporations,” the mid-sized, multi-million-dollar enterprises that were treated less advantageously in the original bill than giant corporations. The families of both senators own such companies. Senator Susan Collins of Maine extracted a promise from Trump to support increased financial subsidies for big insurance companies participating in Obamacare.

Democratic senators made demagogic statements during the floor debate, denouncing the legislation as a handout to the wealthy and big business. The pretense of concern for the impact on working people is completely bogus, but the outrage on the part of the Democrats is real: they are angry that they have been cut out of the lucrative deal-making. The White House and the Senate Republican leadership decided to push the tax cut through under a procedure known as “reconciliation,” which requires only 50 votes and avoids the threat of a filibuster, depriving the Democrats of any input on the legislation. All previous tax cut bills have been bipartisan affairs, in which the two capitalist parties worked together to deliver the goods to their favored corporate interests.

The Democrats are not seeking to rally popular opposition to a brazen tax giveaway to the super-rich. Rather, they are appealing to the Republicans to let them participate in the grubby legislative horse-trading. At least 15 Democrats appeared at a press conference Tuesday to send a message to the Republican majority: “Why settle for just 50 votes on tax reform when you could get as many as 70?” Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the group, said. “If you’ve heard the rhetoric that Democrats don’t want tax reform, that’s false. We want tax reform. The country needs meaningful tax reform.”

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer was not in the group, but he has repeatedly indicated his support for the main goals of the tax bill, which are to slash the corporate income tax rate, now 35 percent, and to allow giant companies holding trillions in cash overseas to “repatriate” the funds and pay only a nominal tax. He closed out the Senate debate with unctuous praise for Republicans, “many of whom I admire,” and an appeal for them to reconsider and reach a bipartisan deal with the Democrats.

The White House and the congressional Republicans are seeking to conceal the brazen class character of the tax bill with an unprecedented barrage of lies. Trump appeared at a campaign-style rally in Missouri where he claimed that the tax bill would hurt billionaires like himself, while helping people of more humble means: “Our focus is on helping the folks who work in the mailrooms and machine shops of America, the plumbers and the carpenters, the cops and the teachers, the truck drivers and the pipe fitters.”

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post published analyses Friday of the impact of the tax cuts on Trump, based on his 2005 tax return, the only one available, showing that under the Trump-backed bill the billionaire president would save $31 million of the $38 million he paid in taxes that year, as well as (in the House version) escaping an estimated $1.1 billion in estate taxes.

The class character of the tax cut legislation must be understood historically. During the heyday of American capitalism, when the ruling elite could afford to extend modest concessions to working people, the income tax rate on the wealthiest families rose as high as 90 percent. Even if this rate could be evaded through tax avoidance schemes, it set a marker that those with the highest incomes were expected to pay significant amounts to underwrite federal social spending.

Over the past 40 years, as a central part of the social counterrevolution waged by the US ruling elite, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the top income tax rate has dropped sharply: from 90 percent to 70 percent in the 1970s, then from 70 percent to 28 percent under Reagan in the 1980s.

Huge tax cuts for the wealthy combined with a savage attack on working class wages to drive up economic inequality to staggering levels. Today, three American billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the population. Real wages have stagnated or declined since 1972.

The current tax bill marks a certain culmination in this process. American capitalism is in deepening crisis. The soaring stock market is not a sign of health, but the fever chart of a system on the brink of collapse. There is a genuine element of desperation in the frenzy in Washington to engineer one more transfusion of financial resources taken from working people and pumped into the sclerotic veins of the Wall Street addicts.

The money-grabbing is so reckless that the tax bill does not provide even a fig leaf of “fairness.” In 2027, for example, according to figures provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office (both Republican-controlled), the bill raises the taxes of people making $40,000 to $50,000 a year by $5.3 billion and cuts the taxes of those making $1 million a year or more by $5.8 billion.

The methods employed by the ruling elite to resolve its crisis at the expense of the working class will provoke increasing popular resistance. Under the pay-as-you-go rules enacted as part of a series of bipartisan budget deals between the Obama administration and the Republican Congress, the $1.5 trillion tax cut over ten years must be offset by yearly cuts of $150 billion in spending, unless Congress approves a waiver by a super-majority vote.

This means that the new year will begin with demands from the White House and Congress that the budget deficit—which they have made much worse by cutting taxes on the rich—be financed through across-the-board cuts in domestic programs, particularly the largest programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Wall Street, the biggest beneficiary of the tax cut bonanza, will lead the charge for austerity measures. Goldman Sachs has already sounded the alarm, sending a note to clients Thursday warning that US national debt was on track to hit unsustainable levels, and was already at its highest point, as a percentage of GDP, since 1950.

In its increasingly naked drive to monopolize all the wealth of society, the ruling class is fueling a growing mood of anger and opposition, with revolutionary implications. The coming struggles of the working class will require a complete political break with the two parties of big business, the Democrats and Republicans, and the building of a mass independent political movement based on a socialist program, to put an end to the profit system.

BHEARD/Michigan State University Agricultural Fellowship for Researchers in Mali 2018

Application Deadline: 1st January 2018.

Eligible Countries: Mali

Priority will be given to members of the following institutions:
1. National Meteorological Agency (Mali Meteo)
2. Regional Directorate of Agriculture of Mopti (DRA-Mopti)
3. Regional Directorate of Productions and Animal Industries in Mopti ( DRPIA-Mopti)
4. Institute of Rural Economy (IER)
5. NGOs located in the region of Mopti, working in areas related to climate and the environment

To Be Taken At (Country): United States or other English-speaking African countries.

About the Award: The US Agency for International Development (USAID) launched, as part of its the Future “, the Borlaug Higher Education, Research and Development Program (BHEARD). Implemented by Michigan State University (MSU), the BHEARD program honors the legacy of Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug. The program will support the long-term training of agricultural researchers for the Master and PhD levels. This is a major new effort to increase the number of agricultural researchers and strengthen research institutions in developing countries.

Mali has been selected to be one of 11 countries for the second cohort of Borlaug Fellows.

The financing of the Global Climate Change (GSC) for Mali comes from President Obama’s CGC Initiative. It is within this initiative that Mali’s Climate Change Program is supporting Strategic Objective (SO) 2; increasing the resilience of people, places, and livelihoods. Long-term training activities as part of the Mali Weather Serviceand its partners through the BHEARD mechanism will prioritize the first two intermediate SO results mentioned above; they will also facilitate access to science and analysis in the decision-making process, and enable the establishment of effective governance systems.

Field of Study: The fields of study are limited to Master’s degrees in the following disciplines:

• Numerical forecasts
• Weather forecast
• Advanced satellite meteorology
• Advanced tropical meteorology
• Synoptic forecast
• Agro-meteorological modeling and climate change modeling
• Master in Climatology and Society

Type: Masters, PhD, Fellowship

Eligibility: The Trainee Committee will review the applications submitted and select the candidates based on the following criteria:

1. Current and future role of the three priority institutions;
2. Malian national residing in Mali;
3. Solid academic performance at the Bachelor’s, Major or Senior’s level; or at the Master
4. Excellent oral and written French skills. Good oral and written English skills. A training period in English is provided for candidates who have chosen to continue their studies in English-speaking countries.
5. Candidates must be under 32 years of age if they are candidates for the Master level; and less than 35 years for the PhD level. However, women who are PhD candidates may be subject to an exception, extending the age of application up to 40 years in this case.

Qualified women candidates are strongly encouraged.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarship supports studies in the United States or other English-speaking African countries.

Duration of Program: The training programs will cover up to 2 years of courses for Master’s students, and up to 3 years of courses for PhD students.

How to Apply: 

All applicants are strongly encouraged to apply online through the application portal: (click “Apply”). 
If you are unable to create on-line application, you can use the form attached below and send your application documents to BHEARDAPPLY@anr.msu.edu.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: US Agency for International Development (USAID)

University of Glasgow African Excellence Full Tuition Scholarships 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st June 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): UK

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Applicants will be evaluated on the basis of their application for admission and must:

• be resident in Africa at time of applying have completed a first degree in Africa
• demonstrate academic excellence and achieve grades equivalent to a degree equivalent to a UK 2:1 Hons or better

Selection Criteria: Applicants will be automatically assessed for a scholarship based on academic merit.

Number of Awardees: 2 per College

Value of Scholarship: Full fee waiver

Duration of Scholarship:  1 year

How to Apply: Applicants who are being considered  will be notified within the timeframes above. There is no separate application form required.

Offer holders who are being considered for the scholarship will be contacted and asked to submit a 400 word personal statement detailing:

• why you have selected the programme at the University of Glasgow
• why you merit the funded-place (e.g academic/personal achievement)
• how you will benefit from it (e.g. employment prospects, financial relief, etc)
• Your personal statement should be around 400 words and include your full name and applicant number.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Glasgow

6th International Reggae Poster Contest 2018

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Jamaica

About the Award: The objective of the International Reggae Poster Contest is to build awareness for positive Reggae music and to celebrate the global achievements of Reggae and its impact on the world. The term Reggae used by the contest encompasses all the popular Jamaican musical genres; Ska, Rocksteady, Roots Reggae, Dub, Dancehall and the unique Jamaican Soundsystem.

We are looking for your talent and creative visual expressions and we are very excited to see what designers can come up with in their original poster designs that will capture the energy and the vibe of Reggae Music.

The goal is simple: Create a poster about Reggae Music – the rest is up to your imagination. Feel free to explore themes of Reggae covering any one of the genres; Ska, Rocksteady, Roots Reggae, Dub, Dancehall and the unique Jamaican Soundsystem. Also explores do capture the many musical pioneers, singers, producers, institutionsthat help establish the music globally. Good luck!

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

• Artists/Designers are allowed to submit any number of original poster Entries.
• Posters should not have been published in internet, social medias etc.

How to Apply: Interested candidates should follow the application instructions on the Contest Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider:  International Reggae Poster Contest

Amsterdam Talent Scholarship (ATS) for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st December 2017

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): The Netherlands

Type: Masters

Eligibility: An applicant must meet the eligibility criteria for the ATS. The applicant should:

• Be able to meet the conditions to obtain a Dutch visa (if applicable)
• Be enrolled in one of the programmes of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
• Have paid the institutional tuition fee for non-EEA students
• Not receive a full coverage scholarship for the same period of study
• Have obtained all 60 credits* in the present academic year of his/her study programme, with a minimum average grade of 7

* Students at the European School of Physiotherapy (ESP) should have obtained all credits relevant to their academic year schedule:

• Students who are enrolled in the 4-year programme (until class of 2018): 60 credits
• Students who are enrolled in the 3-year accelerated programme: Please check the specific number of credits with the ATS contact person

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The 3000 euro ATS is awarded at the end of every academic year to successful non-EEA students who have been enrolled in one of the programmes of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.

How to Apply: Applicants who meet the eligibility criteria for the ATS can download the application form. After filling in all required data on the application form, the form should be submitted to the appropriate ATS contact person (see the sidebar on the right), together with a copy of your residence permit (front and back) and a certified grade list.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS)

University of Bonn/UNU-EHS Fully-funded Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019 – Germany

Application Deadline:  15th January 2018, at 23:59 CET (Central European Time) for Bonn, Germany.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Germany

About the Award: From 2017 onwards, the Joint Master’s Programme is part of a selected group of international postgraduate programmes that benefits from the EPOS funding scheme offered by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Hence, the University will be able to offer a certain number of fully funded scholarships to students from “developing countries” for the student intake in 2017.

The joint M.Sc. programme provides postgraduate students with detailed knowledge, critical understanding, strategies and the tools required to take an interdisciplinary approach towards environmental risks and human security. It is the third study programme in Bonn to be admitted to the DAAD funding scheme, in addition to the ZEF Doctoral Studies programme and the ARTS study programme offered by the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn.

This Master’s programme is the output of the fruitful collaboration between the University of Bonn Department of Geography and the United Nations University. It is a substantial contribution to the internationalization of the University of Bonn  and  is supported by the German agency, DAAD.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Eligible candidates should fulfill the following requirements in addition to the general eligibility criteria for the Master’s programme:

• Being a candidate from a “Developing Country” (according to the classification of the DAAD)
• Having at least two years of practical work experience (e.g. with an NGO, GO, or the private sector) in a field related to the study programme
• Having graduated from the Bachelor no longer than five years ago
• Having completed no other Master in a similar field of studies
• Aiming at a career as a practitioner in a field related to the programme of study

Number of Awardees: 8

Value of Scholarship: Successful applicants will be funded to cover all expenses directly related to the study programme as well as their cost of living in Bonn.

Duration of Scholarship: 24 months

How to Apply: 

• Students wishing to be considered for these scholarships need to apply for the programme as well by filling the applications forms for the DAAD; acceptance to the former does not guarantee acceptance to the latter.
• The selection process for the EPOS funding among shortlisted candidates will happen between February and April each year.
• Candidates that do not fulfill the EPOS requirements but wish to benefit from financial support during their studies are invited to apply individually and early to other available funding programmes in Germany.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: DAAD