5 Dec 2017

Utrecht Excellence Scholarships for International Masters Students 2018/2019 – Netherlands

Application Deadline: Before 1st February 2018. In some cases you may need to apply before 1st December, 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Utrecht University, Netherlands
Accepted Subject Areas? The Utrecht Excellence Scholarship offers a number of highly talented prospective students the opportunity to pursue a degree in a selected number of fields at Utrecht University:
  • Graduate School of Geosciences
  • Graduate School of Humanities
  • Graduate School of Law, Economics and Governance
  • Graduate School of Life Sciences
  • Graduate School of Natural Sciences
  • Graduate School of Social and Behavioural Sciences
About Scholarship: The Utrecht Excellence Scholarship offers a number of graduate scholarship awards to highly talented prospective international students, with the opportunity to pursue a degree in a selected number of fields at Utrecht University. The scholarship programme is highly selective. Only candidates showing the highest achievement and promise may receive a scholarship. Selected students receive a scholarship for the duration of the degree programme, which is a maximum of two years for a Master’s degree. Approximately 20 to 25 scholarships will be awarded for 2018/2019.Utrecht University Scholarship
Type: Masters and Undergraduate taught
Eligibility: To be eligible for the Utrecht Excellence Scholarships, candidate must
  • Belong to the top 10% of your graduating class
  • Hold a non-EU/EEA passport and not be eligible for support under the Dutch system of study grants and loans
  • Have completed your secondary school and/or Bachelor degree outside the Netherlands
  • Have applied for an international master’s programme with a start date of September 2018.
Selection Criteria: Eligible candidates are selected for a scholarship on the basis of the following criteria:
  1. Academic excellence and promise in the proposed field of study;
  2. The academic quality and results of preceding qualifications, as evidenced by proof of belonging to the top 10% of the class, grades, test scores, a writing sample, letters of recommendation;
  3. The quality and relevance of the motivation letter for the Master’s programme (academic content, intercultural and communication skills, personal motivation);
  4. The quality of the application for the Master’s programme itself (completeness, accuracy, consistency)
  5. Your application for a scholarship will only be processed if you have submitted an application for a Master’s programme as well.
Number of Scholarships: 20-25 scholarships are available for 2018/2019, divided over the 6 Graduate Schools.
Scholarship Value: The Utrecht Excellence scholarships can be awarded as:
  • tuition fees
    or
  • tuition fees plus 11.000 euro living expenses
As the grant is not automatically a full scholarship, it may be necessary to find additional funding to be able to finance your studies and stay completely. Students requiring a residence permit in the Netherlands must prove to the IND (Immigration and Naturalisation Office) that they have sufficient financial means.
Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship is awarded for the duration of the degree programme, which is one or two years, depending on the degree programme. The scholarship will only be renewed for the second year if the student is making satisfactory progress towards the degree.
How to Apply: Your application for a scholarship will only be processed if you have submitted an application for a Master’s programme as well. After submitting an application for the Master’s programme, non-EU/EEA students will have the option to submit an application for an Utrecht Excellence Scholarship.
Prospective students who wish to be considered for the scholarship must apply before 1 February. Please note that in some cases you may need to apply before 1 December; check the ‘When to apply’ section under Admission and application of your master’s programme.
Sponsors: Utrecht Excellence Scholarship Fund, established by Utrecht University and from contributions by Utrecht University alumni.
Important Notes: Please note that in some cases you may need to apply before December 1; check the ‘When to apply’ section under Admission and application of your master’s programme.

Gordon Memorial College Trust Fund Scholarships for Sudan and South Sudan Students (Fully-funded) 2018 – UK

Application Timeline: Application opens on 1st December 2017 and closes on 28th February 2018.
Offered Annually? Yes
About the Award: The Trust was established in 1899 by public subscription to honour the name of General Charles George Gordon of the British army, who was killed during the Mahdi’s uprising in 1885. Gordon Memorial College, an educational institution in Sudan, was built between 1899 and 1902 as part of Lord Kitchener’s wide-ranging educational reforms, and also named in honour of Gordon. In 1924, the college was merged with the new Khartoum University, as was the Kitchener School of Medicine.
The Trust may also give financial assistance to Sudanese and South Sudanese nationals towards the costs of shorter training programmes, projects and courses in the UK, and applications for funding support of new courses will also be considered.
Eligibility
  • In awarding grants, priority will be given to students who are already enrolled on a course in the UK, rather than those wanting to embark on new postgraduate courses.
  • A letter of support from the student’s course supervisor is essential. Applications will not be considered without such a letter.
  • In awarding grants, preference will be given to those applicants whose chosen courses will enable them to contribute to the skills base of South Sudan or Sudan, and who demonstrate their intention to return to South Sudan or Sudan after their studies.
  • No support can be given for dependent relatives.
  • Organisations undertaking educational activities and projects in South Sudan and Sudan are also eligible for funding.
Value of Award: Grants may be given towards the cost of course fees, and/or food and accommodation, and occasionally for other academic expenses, such as books.
Duration of Program: Grants are only made for one year at a time.
How to Apply: If you wish to apply to the Trust Fund for financial support, please read the Advice to Applicants, refer to the Timetable, and complete and submit the Application Forms at the appropriate time.
Important Notes: Please note that at present due to current difficulties in transferring funds to the Sudan it is not possible for the Trust to support individual students studying in South Sudan or Sudan, nor can we normally provide funds directly to organisations in Sudan / South Sudan.

Karlstad University Global Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st February 2018.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Countries outside the European Union/European Economic Area (and Switzerland).
This scholarship programme is not open for students from the following 12 countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Students from these countries instead have the possibility to apply for The Swedish Institute Study Scholarships.
To be taken at (country): Sweden
About the Award: Karlstad University Global Scholarship offers scholarships covering tuition fees in part or in full. The application for scholarship will be considered only if the application fee is paid or if you are exempted from paying the application fee.  The application form will be published in this website before the application period starts.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Candidates are NOT eligible if they:
  • have already lived in Sweden for two years or more when the scholarship period is due to begin.
  • have a Swedish permanent residence permit or a work permit.
  • hold a scholarship for studies from Swedish Institute or from a Swedish university/university college.
  • already hold a master’s degree from a Swedish university/university college.
Selection: The selection process for scholarships is undertaken after the programme selection process. Priority will be given to students with high academic performance and who demonstrate a strong commitment and desire to study at Karlstad University.
The scholarship is only awarded for programmes starting in a fall semester. An offer of a scholarship is only valid for the year and the programme stipulated in the scholarship notification. If the student is granted deferment until the next academic year, the offer of a scholarship is not valid. If a student who has been awarded a scholarship changes programmes, the student will risk losing the scholarship as scholarships are programme-specific.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Scholarships cover 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the tuition fees. The value of the scholarship is stated in the notification of scholarship for each scholarship holder.
  • The scholarship value is deducted from the tuition fees of the programme for which you are awarded a scholarship.
  • Karlstad University Global Scholarships do not cover living costs.
  • To be able to finance your stay in Sweden and get a residence permit for studies you need to show that you have funds for the total study period the first time you apply for a residence permit. For further information contact the Swedish Migration Board.
How to Apply: A printed and signed scholarship application form, together with supporting documents should be sent to Karlstad University, International Office, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden. The application needs to be received 1 February 2018 the latest. Late applications will not be considered. You must apply for studies at Karlstad University before applying for scholarship.
Award Provider: Karlstad University.

Hopes And Nightmares Over Crypto Currencies

Binoy Kampmark

The crystal ball gazers, astrologers and tea leave readers have been suffering a lingering fever of late.  Bitcoin recently romped through the $10,000 barrier, an event that sent speculators swooning and conservative voices into a gloomy mood of pessimism.  Bitt founder and director Gabriel Abed was rushing to declare the imminent funeral oration for cash, a newly founded digital frontier that would envelop all before it.  “All currencies will be digitized.  Cash has seen its days.”
James Altucher, a tech investor with the usual grammatically challenged credentials (he runs Choose Yourself Financial), was given time on CNBC to spout several theories about how strength would beget strength in the currency revolution.
The mainstay of his prediction is the way currency is altering (remarkable!) and how there have only been a few periods in history when this has happened.  Gold came after barter; then paper money made its appearance, to be followed by the rise of the cryptocurrency.
His stab at value, taken with the kind of abandon a lecherous drunk unconcerned about consequences would have, is that bitcoin will reach a million dollars a coin.  “There’s $200 billion in cryptocurrencies out there and over $200 trillion in demand for money – that’s the amount of paper currency and gold bullion in the world.”
What are some of Altucher’s other predictions?  A currency will fail – take your pick.  (He suggests Argentina or Venezuela as appropriate victims.)  Banks will fold, caving in to the bitcoin mania.  A dotcom equivalent bust will be repeated, the US government will secretly stash a cryptocurrency of its choice, and the story will go on.
A sense about the dangers felt in traditional communities can be gathered by the remarks of Nobel Prize winner in economics, Joseph Stiglitz.  Outlaw it, he urges. “Bitcoin is successful only because of its potential for circumvention, lack of oversight.”  Unfortunately for Stiglitz, this would assume that traditional currencies are somehow stable, immune to the speculative bubble.  “It’s a bubble that’s going to give a lot of people a lot of exciting times as it rides up and then down.”
Certain institutions held with understandable contempt and suspicion are the ones most concerned with where these digital currencies will go.  Much of this is self-interest: transactions in digital currencies tend to be associated with subversion rather than conformity.  Banks, after all, were the first big rogues in the business, likely to catch a cold the moment the term “regulation” was mentioned.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon goes even further: dealing in such currencies is tantamount to lunacy, a breach deserving the harshest treatment from the firm.  Any employee trading in bitcoin, suggested Dimon, should see them packing. “I’d fire them in a second.  For two reasons: It’s against our rules, and they’re stupid.  And both are dangerous.”
A world without banks would be a world without a certain species of gargantuan crime, but the astrologers prefer to see them as ultimately accepting the value of such currencies.  Eventually, the use of blockchain technology underpinned by secure cryptography will find its way into more conventional circulation.  “I see a different future where central banks are issuing digital dollars,” fantasises Abed, “a new economic age of digital dollars.”
States are also on the cryptocurrency march, hardly surprising given the prospects open to control, regulation and monitoring.  Every heresy, in time, encourages incorporation, domestication, adaptation.  Kyrgyzstan and Russia (it will be called the CryptoRuble, according to such figures as Nikolay Nikiforov, the country’s minister for communications) are working on the project.
Other states are taking a different stance, suggesting the opening up of a future fault line of disagreement.  “The government’s position is clear,” suggests Arun Jaitley, Indian finance minister,
“we don’t recognise this as legal currency as of now.”
Chinese authorities have taken a dim view of the currency.  Deputy governor of China’s People’s Bank, Pan Gongsheng, who also doubles as head of the State Administration for Foreign Exchange, claimed it necessary to ban bitcoin trading and initial coin offerings (ICO), a move that Beijing made some three months ago.  “If things were still the way they were at the beginning of the year, over 80 percent of the world’s bitcoin trading and ICO financing would take place in China – what would things look like today?”
The words of frightened officialdom could also be found in the utterances of US Federal Reserve vice-chairman for supervision, Randal Quarles. “Without the backing of a central bank asset and institutional support, it is not clear how a private digital currency at the centre of a large-scale payment system would behave, or whether the payment system would be able to function, in times of stress.”
The truest test of whether such currencies will survive must lie in their ultimate acceptance by the authorities.  But there is a fundamental paradox at work here.  Traditional banks and officials, with exceptions, do not like this alternative currency culture, fearing volatility.  Yet it is precisely this volatility and unregulated conduct that underpinned the subprime mortgage collapse and the governance of US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
Regulation through the late 1990s was a dirty term, an unwarranted fetter on inventiveness in finance.  The partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under the Clinton administration separating commercial and investment banking was the brightest of green lights to speculators, even if debate continues about its actual effects. Now, the very individuals who saw the predations of rampant capitalism come back to roost find a mirror of themselves: the crypto currency rebel keen to upset the order.  In time, the sceptics may well be won over, and the prospects for more crashes, unstable deals, and a rocky economy, will come full circle.  Plus ça change.

Denial and Provocation: Failure of US' North Korea Policy

Sandip Kumar Mishra


North Korea's Hwasong-15 missile test on 29 November 2017 reached an altitude of 4,500 km and flew around 960 km. According to estimates, the missile would have flown around 13,000 km had it been fired in the right trajectory. If true, this means that North Korean missile capability is now within striking distance of Washington, DC. The test took place after a lull of almost two and half months, a period that included US President Donald Trump's 12-day visit to East Asia.

North Korea watchers have been keen to figure out Kim Jong-un's reaction to Trump's visit. Although North Korea remained restrained during the visit itself, the recent missile test has proved that Pyongyang is adamant on its course and that US' policy has failed to achieve its objective. Through contradictory announcement and statements on the issue from Trump and his administration, the US has attempted a 'game of madmen' with Kim. 

After the test, North Korea announced the successful completion of its nuclear and delivery programme-related targets. Rodong Shinmun, the official North Korean newspaper, noted that North Korea had “finally realised the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force.” This is an alarming state of affairs, and all options to deal with North Korea's nuclear progress must be considered. It is also important to analyse whether the North Korean announcement could be taken as its intent not to test any further. If North Korea has indeed achieved its targets, it may be ready to come to the negotiation table. This in fact could be an opportunity to talk to North Korea, though it cannot be guaranteed that such negotiations would necessarily lead to North Korea’s de-nuclearisation. 

However, it seems that the US is going continue its policy of denial vis-à-vis North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes. A US official told a CNN correspondent that the “North Korean missile broke up upon re-entry.” This seems to be a continuation of a past tactic, which is to doubt North Korea's nuclear and missile advancements. Earlier, too, the US administration maintained that North Korea could not have sophisticated and miniaturised warheads, and that its missiles were not precise and reliable enough to travel beyond East Asia. Gradually, many of these claims have been proven wrong. However, the US administration has deliberately been moving the goal post or ‘redlines’ regarding North Korea. 

Another standard response came from the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. She said that if war comes, “the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed.” She further threatened that in case China did not restrict its oil supply to North Korea, the US would “take the oil situation into its own hands.” This is part of the larger pattern of threatening statements from the US administration in response to North Korean developments. 

Within a week of the test, the US has begun its largest ever joint air exercise with South Korea, called 'Vigilant Ace'. The exercise will last five days, with the participation of 230 aircraft, including 24 stealth fighter jets (six F-22s and 18 F-35s). Although the US held a similar exercise in 2016, its timing and more significantly, the scale, are unusual enough for North Korea to characterise it as a grave provocation." 

The US policy towards North Korea seems to be based on denying Pyongyang's capability and provoking it further until Jong-un makes a mistake. The idea is that if North Korea crosses the ‘redline’ by attacking South Korea, Japan or US territory, the Trump administration would be justified in undertaking military action to eliminate the Jong-un regime. If North Korea makes the first move, it will not be easy for China to come to the rescue. In fact, this policy will cost enormous human and material damage to South Korea as well as Japan, and is not a wise course of action.  

However, this adventurist US policy of seems to have been well deciphered by North Korea. The regime has been careful not to cross the ‘redline’ and is working within its limits. It has been able to concentrate on developing its nuclear and missile programmes without crossing the 'redline'. It could be said that because of the US policy, North Korea has been able to make huge strides in a very short span of time, which would otherwise have taken decades. It is high time to accept that not only is the US policy dangerous, it has been successfully used by North Korea to augment its nuclear and missile development goals. Only after this acknowledgement can a better policy option be considered.

Australian foreign policy White Paper underscores danger of war

Peter Symonds

The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper released on November 23 by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s government is another indication of global crisis and uncertainty, severe geo-political tensions and the escalating drive to war in Asia and other parts of the world. It is the first comprehensive official document on Australian foreign policy since 2003.
As a middle-order imperialist power, Australia has always relied on a more powerful ally—first Britain, then after 1941 the United States—to prosecute its economic and strategic interests. However, the relative decline of the US and the economic rise of China are undermining the post-World War II framework in which Washington was the primary power.
While the white paper is written in bland official language, it nevertheless reflects the rising anxieties in ruling circles over the breakdown of the post-war order and the emergence of “a more competitive and contested world.” While the US had been the dominant power in the region since World War II, “today China is challenging America’s position.”
The document warns: “Navigating the decade ahead will be hard because, as China’s power grows, our region is changing in ways without precedent in Australia’s modern history.” The fundamental dilemma confronting Australian capitalism—how to balance between the US, its long-term strategic ally, and China, now its largest trading partner—has reached a turning point.
The mantra repeated by successive governments over the past decade—Australia does not have to choose between the US and China—has been shelved. The document insists that Australian interests depend on maintaining US global dominance, stating: “International challenges can only be tackled effectively when the world’s wealthiest, most innovative and most powerful country is engaged in solving them.”
The limited ability of Canberra to manoeuvre between Washington and Beijing was underscored by the 2010 ousting of Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It amounted to an internal coup by a handful of powerbrokers, later revealed by WikiLeaks to be “protected sources of the US embassy. Rudd’s “crime,” as far as the US was concerned, was to argue for a compromise with China when the Obama administration was ratcheting up a confrontation under its “pivot to Asia.”
The white paper backs the expansion of subsequent military ties with the US, and Australia’s closer and closer integration into the Pentagon’s war plans against China. This includes opening up northern Australian bases to American Marines, warships and military aircraft. “Our alliance with the United States is central to Australia’s security and sits at the core of our strategic and defence planning,” the paper states.
While the document declares that the government is “committed to strong and constructive ties” with China and a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Beijing, its pro-US stance is unmistakable. The paper echoes the belligerent stance taken by the Trump administration toward North Korea, warning that “a North Korean attack on the US would also trigger Australia’s commitments under our ANZUS alliance.” In other words, Australia automatically would be involved in any US-led war against North Korea—a conflict that could lead to war with China.
The paper also backs Washington’s aggressive intervention into the territorial disputes in the South China Sea between China and its neighbours, under the bogus banner of “freedom of navigation.” Australia, it declares, “is particularly concerned by the unprecedented pace and scale of China’s activities” and “opposes the use of disputed features and artificial structures in the South China Sea for military purposes.” Canberra has supported the Pentagon’s provocative “freedom of navigation” operations, in which US warships have directly intruded into Chinese claimed-waters, threatening a military clash.
China’s response to the white paper has been relatively muted. However, on the South China Sea, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Kang declared that it was China’s hope that “Australia will stop issuing these irresponsible remarks, especially when ASEAN [Association of South East Asian Nations] countries have reached consensus.”
Analyst Michael Wesley, from the Australian National University, told the Australian that the white paper’s “language on China was more robust but was wound back.” Despite an escalating media witch-hunt over the past year against “Chinese influence” in Australian politics, the document does not name China when it expresses concern about “foreign interference.”
It states that “the government is concerned about growing attempts by foreign governments or their proxies to exert inappropriate influence on and to undermine Australia’s sovereign institutions and decision-making.” Given the current furore over Chinese “agents of influence” in Australia, the white paper’s meaning is clear.
Canberra nevertheless has two significant fears about US foreign policy. The first is that Washington could pull back from the Asia Pacific, leaving Australia and other allies to fend for themselves. As the white paper states, the government recognises “greater debate and uncertainty” in the US about the costs of its involvement, but argues that US engagement is in Washington’s own interests.
The government is boosting its military ties and diplomatic support for Washington, in part to ensure continued US involvement in Asia. At the same time, it is developing relations with countries throughout the region, in particular Japan and India. While the establishment of the so-called quad—the US, Japan, Australia and India—is an element of America’s anti-China strategy, it is also a means for Australia to become less reliant on the US, should Washington pull back. For similar reasons, the document calls for a more robust Australian intervention in the South West Pacific, which Canberra traditionally has regarded as its sphere of influence.
That said, the Trump administration has been ramping up its economic and strategic challenges to China throughout the Indo-Pacific, not retreating into American isolationism. Trump’s aggressive trade war policies are the second major concern in Canberra. Already Trump has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), significantly impacting on the economic interests of allies such as Japan and Australia. Without mentioning Trump, the paper states that Australia will work with other TPP partners to try to salvage elements of the deal.
The white paper devotes an entire section to “defending and supporting an open global economy” as essential for Australian trade and economic interests. Again without a reference to Trump, it warns about the dangers of rising protectionism. At the same time, the paper states that while China is Australia’s top trading partner, the US is still of “systemic importance to the global economy.” Australia remains heavily dependent on US investment and the American financial system.
The Australian ’s editor-at-large and pompous pundit Paul Kelly criticises the white paper, saying it “is based on a grand paradox—it warns that Australia faces the most unprecedented risks in its modern history, but then proposes a series of conventional, constructive but orthodox solutions.” However, in the course of the lengthy discourse that follows, Kelly has nothing to offer by way of an alternative.
The unstated fear in ruling circles is that the rising geo-political tensions through Asia and the world, the escalation of trade war measures, and the increasingly aggressive provocations and military threats, above all by the US, are leading to a catastrophic war involving the major nuclear powers. The pro-US thrust of the white paper underlines what is already evident: if US imperialism launches a war, Australia is totally committed and automatically will be involved.

Trudeau slams door on desperate Haitian refugees

Laurent Lafrance

Less than two years after he posed with Syrian refugees for the media at Toronto’s Pearson airport, Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has once again made clear that his “pro-refugee” posturing was a sham.
Speaking at an event in Charlottetown late last month, the Liberal Prime Minister declared that impoverished Haitians, together with millions more forced to flee war and poverty around the world, have no right to a better life. “Refugee status means that you have nowhere to go, you cannot be protected by your home state,” Trudeau intoned. “It’s not just a question of, ‘I’m looking for an economic future, so I want to come to Canada’.”
Trudeau’s callous remarks were part of the liberals’ months-long efforts at discouraging the growing number of refugees—many of Middle Eastern and African origins but most of them Haitians—who are fleeing the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants to seek asylum in Canada.
Trump’s measures include the suspension of the entire refugee assessment process, the travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries and the systematic rounding up and deportation of immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Trudeau and his Liberal ministers have deliberately avoided making any criticism of this reactionary agenda, confirming that the Liberal government, with the support of the entire ruling elite, is no less ruthlessly determined than the Trump administration to send migrants back to their war-torn, economically ravaged countries.
Since Trump announced his administration would end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) granted to 60,000 Haitians following the 2010 earthquake, an influx of Haitian migrants living in the US arrived in Canada. According to Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, out of the 14,467 refugees who crossed the border “irregularly” since February, 6,300 were Haitians.
While the numbers slowed somewhat in October, the Canadian government is apprehending a new wave of refugees as Trump officially announced that Haitians under the TPS have until July 2019 to leave the United States or face detention and deportation. The Department of Homeland Security indicated that it also plans to terminate the TPS program for some 260,000 Hondurans and Salvadorians living in the US.
The Liberal government responded by pledging to intensify its collaboration with Trump’s anti-refugee crackdown. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, who has repeatedly called for closer cooperation between Canadian and US authorities on immigration, said that the government is following the situation “very carefully” and added, “the physical apparatus required for the RCMP and border guards to deal with an influx is in place, as are contingency plans for a variety of ‘what if’ scenarios.”
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen used newly released numbers by the Immigration and Refugee Board to tout the government’s hardline stance, especially against Haitians. Hussen boasted of the fact that of the 298 Haitian cases that had been heard so far, only 29 were granted protection. In other words, authorities have rejected 90 percent of claimants.
Meanwhile, as decisions on asylum claims are expected to take months, many asylum seekers have received work permits and are sending their kids to school. The government, however, has made clear it will not hesitate to deport them anyway if their claim is rejected. Hussen, himself an immigrant from Somalia, coldly declared that “The principal applicants, after exhausting their appeal mechanisms, will be put on the removal stream and they will have to leave our country.” To underscore his point, he bluntly added, “That’s our law."
A recent article in La Presse showed that even the few refugees lucky enough to be accepted face harsh and unforgiving treatment. In addition to the complex issues of finding work, integrating into society and in many cases overcoming the traumas resulting from war and immigration, migrants coming to Canada are heavily indebted to the government—with figures ranging from US$3,000 to US$10,000. The US and Canada are the only two countries that don’t provide refugees with the necessary funds to cover the cost of paperwork and travel, while Canada is the only state charging interest on the loans.
As a preemptive measure, the liberals regularly send elected officials and Canadian representatives in the US to meet various immigrant communities in order to deter them from coming to Canada. A spokesperson for the Immigration Minister noted that “We have upcoming MP-led outreach trips to New York, Texas and California where we will continue to clear up misconceptions circulating about Canada’s system.”
The main “misconception” is that Canada deals with refugees in a more compassionate manner than the Trump administration. Since coming to power in 2015, Trudeau’s Liberals have sought to cloak Canadian imperialism’s predatory ambitions in “pro-refugee” and “humanitarian” garb. In this, they are supported not only by the corporate media but also by the union-backed New Democratic Party, which hailed Trudeau’s coming to power as a “progressive” alternative to the decade-long Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
In fact, the Canadian government’s cruel treatment of refugees is in keeping with its determination to deepen Ottawa’s military-strategic partnership with its southern neighbour. This includes the militarization of Canadian foreign policy, with the Liberals investing in massive defence spending hikes so as to prepare Canada’s armed forces for waging war around the world.
Since the first influx of migrants from the US at the beginning of the year, Trudeau has made clear that he has no intention of scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Under the deal, asylum-seekers who enter Canada from the US at a regular crossing are denied the right to make a claim for refugee status in Canada and are immediately returned to the US (or vice-versa). But a loophole exists enabling asylum applications to be made in Canada by those who cross the border outside of a regular crossing, referred to by the government as “illegal” crossings. Thousands of migrants have sought to take advantage of this option, often risking their lives by attempting to traverse difficult terrain to reach Canada. Even for those who make it, the experience of recent months has shown that they face the almost certain prospect of deportation by the Trudeau government.
The Trudeau government’s attitude toward refugees is all the more criminal given the fact that the poverty and desperation most of the refugees are fleeing are largely the result of US and Canadian imperialist aggression and intrigues. In the case of Haiti, Canadian imperialism has for decades ruthlessly exploited the country and the broader Caribbean region in pursuit of its predatory interests. Ottawa was deeply implicated in the 2004 US-orchestrated coup that ousted elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, that included US support for far-right and outright fascistic forces. Afterwards, Canada used a series of natural catastrophes, such as the 2010 earthquake which claimed the lives of over 250,000 people, as a pretext to keep troops in the country so as to ensure Canadian interests are defended – including in the textile and mining industries.
The Liberal government’s claim that Haiti is a safe country is a repugnant lie. Decades of imperialist plunder have left the Western hemisphere’s poorest country with an unemployment rate of more than 30 percent. Reports indicate that a quarter of the population live below the absurdly low poverty rate of $1.23 per day.
Despite the liberals’ anti-refugee crackdown, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel has complained that they have not gone far enough. She declared that the minimal social assistance provided refugees who are waiting a decision was costing the government too much. “You can enter the country illegally, and not have your case heard for a significant period of time while still being able to access social support services,” Rempel said.
The Conservatives, which call for the removal of the loophole in the safe third country agreement, have encouraged the most reactionary right-wing extremist forces with their anti-refugee agitation. During the party’s leadership campaign earlier this year, candidate Kelly Leitch appeared at a campaign event alongside a far-right Islamophobic group and called for a Trump-style approach to immigration, including questioning new arrivals as to whether they share “Canadian values.” In the months since, small groups of right-wing extremists and outright fascists have organized demonstrations across Canada, many of which have been shut down by widespread popular hostility.

Grenfell fire families challenge government inquiry cover-up

Robert Stevens 

Survivors and families of around 50 victims of the Grenfell Tower fire have threatened to withdraw support from the government’s inquiry.
They are demanding, via a petition, that Prime Minister Theresa May appoint a panel—with decision-making powers—to work alongside the judge of the inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick.
The petition is backed by the Grenfell United group representing many survivors and families. It calls on May to “exercise her powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint additional panel members with decision making power to sit alongside Chair in Grenfell Tower Inquiry: to ensure those affected have confidence in & are willing to fully participate in the Inquiry.”
It adds, “To secure trust in an establishment we feel has been distant & unresponsive, & to avoid a collapse of confidence in the Inquiry’s ability to discover the truth, it is fundamental that;
“1. The Inquiry is not led by a judge alone. Panel members must be appointed with relevant background, expertise, experience, & a real understanding of the issues facing those affected.
“2. Legal representatives of bereaved families see all evidence from the start & are allowed to question witnesses at the hearings.”
The petition represents the first major independent challenge to the government’s plans to carry out a cover-up of the events that led to the deaths of at least 71 people.
The inquiry is wholly controlled by the government. Moore-Bick is the only person empowered to say or do anything, but even he has no legal powers to prosecute anyone. His essential role is to report back to the prime minister with the findings and recommendations of the inquiry, with the government deciding what is done.
The BBC reported that the families want to add people to the panel who have the “breadth and experience” of the “big social issues” that led to the tragedy.
The survivors are demanding that the legal representatives of the families have access to all evidence presented from the outset, and be allowed to question witnesses at their discretion. This is in opposition to the present highly restricted remit of the inquiry, with all questions having to be submitted to Moore-Bick a week in advance. It is then Moore-Bick’s decision alone whether the witnesses will even be asked these questions.
The stand taken by survivors follows the move by Moore-Bick last month to appoint three assessors to assist him. The assessors have no power to refer evidence back to the prime minister and no other decision-making powers.
All three, Joe Montgomery, Joyce Redfearn and Professor David Nethercot, are longstanding pillars of the establishment. They were chosen after Moore-Bick ruled out submissions to appoint a local resident to act as an assessor to the inquiry—on the basis that this would undermine his “impartiality”—when he opened it in September.
The petition was set up by Adel Chaoui, who lost four relatives in the fire; his cousin Farah Hamdan; her husband Omar Belkadi; and two of their daughters, eight-year-old Malak and six-month-old Leena.
Chaoui told the Guardian , “[I]t’s hard to have faith in a process initiated by an establishment that’s been distant, detached and unresponsive to our concerns and an inquiry led by a judge who is far removed from the realities of our lives. To build trust and to discover the truth, we need diverse panel members to share decision-making power with Sir Martin Moore-Bick.”
Commenting on the restrictions placed on the legal representatives of the families and local community, Chaoui said, “Not committing to giving our legal representatives the ability to question witnesses on the day is not a picture of a balanced, impartial or fair process.”
Sky News cited comments from Chaoui that the demand for an impartial panel to be set up is “not about ethnicity. It’s nothing to do with whether you’re black, white, Arab, whatever—it is to do with experiences… At the same time, we are up against these industry bodies that are spending millions of pounds on legal resources that we are never going to get anywhere near.”
Sky News reported, “Chaoui warned that unless the format is changed, he and others were unlikely to attend the inquiry, which is due to begin hearing evidence in the new year.”
Karim Mussilhy, who lost an uncle, Hesham Rahman, in the fire, said the petition “is the first time we [survivors and families] have come together to issue a statement. We want to be listened to. At the moment we feel we are being ignored again, just like before and after the fire.”
He added, “We have launched the petition because we’re losing faith in the public inquiry. We want it to give us answers and help to heal the trauma we have experienced, but at the moment our concerns are being belittled and ignored, which is causing more upset and anxiety.”
Another relative, Sandra Ruiz—who lost her 12-year-old niece, Jessica Urbano, in the fire—told the Guardian, “Unless the prime minister takes urgent action to increase confidence in the process, the inquiry risks perpetuating the gross sense of injustice we feel and becoming a whitewash.”
The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) encourages the Grenfell families in their struggle to expose the undemocratic nature of the inquiry.
According to Mussilhy, May has told Grenfell families that she is now considering appointing a panel to the inquiry, after first ruling it out. However, the sort of fudge that can be expected was indicated by a government spokesman, who said, “We would like to assure all those affected by the tragedy that legal representatives of core participants will receive all relevant evidence, be able to offer opening and closing statements at hearings and will be able to suggest lines of questioning for witnesses.”
In other words, Moore-Bick will still determine which “suggestions” from core participants regarding questions are taken up, and he and no one else will have the right to pose them.

Amid mass protests, Honduran government and Trump administration seek to impose fraudulent re-election

Andrea Lobo

A full week after the Honduran general elections were held on Sunday, November 26, the country’s electoral tribunal (TSE) has announced that the current president, Juan Orlando Hernández, has been re-elected.
The ham-fisted electoral fraud, marked by the protracted delay in the vote count, a sudden shift in the electoral results and other inconsistencies, has fueled widespread indignation. This latest vote fraud follows the US-backed military coup in 2009 and a 2015 Supreme Court ruling, also supported by Washington, approving Hernández’s unconstitutional run for re-election.
After initial results showed the Opposition Alliance against Dictatorship candidate, Salvador Nasralla, with a consistent five-point lead—even with 71.4 percent of the voting centers computed—a 36-hour suspension of the vote count, and a subsequent system shut-down in the TSE building, the results shifted dramatically to eventually give Hernández a victory of 42.98 percent against 41.39 percent, supposedly including 99.96 percent of voting centers.
Even one of the TSE magistrates, Marco Ramiro Lobo, declared last Sunday, “Everything has to be checked, the system failed for 10 hours and damaged one of the servers, everything has to be investigated and the company that was hired needs to be questioned.”
Moreover, the day before the vote, the Economist reported on a two-hour-long audio of a National Party training session for representatives in the polling stations, in which the participants get instructed on “Plan B”: five methods to rig the election, including permitting multiple votes, spoiling ballots and tally sheets favorable to the opposition, and most importantly, inscribing themselves as representatives of smaller parties.
Once the results began to shift in favor of Hernández on Wednesday, the popular distrust and anger seething beneath the surface began to overflow. Marches, roadblocks and other protests against the ongoing electoral fraud have taken place across the entire country, with tens of thousands marching peacefully last Sunday in the largest cities of San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa.
On Friday, the government imposed a state of emergency and a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew for 10 days, granting special powers to the military to arrest protesters, even during the day. Over 600 people have already been detained.
While the repression is expected to escalate after yesterday’s announcement of the final results, on Sunday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that preliminary reports indicate that 11 people have already been killed in demonstrations. According to the Honduran press, more than 40 have been injured, many of them shot by the security forces.
One of the most egregious killings was that of 19-year-old Kimberly Dayana, whose sister described her death Saturday as follows: “Some military police officials came out of the bushes firing erratically and killed her with a shot to the head.” In Pedregal, a Tegucigalpa suburb, a video shows military personnel shooting live rounds at protesters, leaving six injured, including a minor.
In response, Nasralla and Manuel Zelaya, the ex-president overthrown in 2009 and now a leader of the Alliance, have split their week between offering reassurances to US imperialism, the Honduran military and the business elite, and trying to keep the social anger channeled behind their electoral aims.
Last week, in a demonstration of complete subservience to Washington and Wall Street, Nasralla promised to deepen military ties and judicial cooperation with the Trump administration. Moreover, in an interview by the Chilean La Tercera, Nasralla, who studied in Chile between 1970 and 1976, was asked whether he admired any regional leaders. He answered: “Since I had the opportunity to be in Chile right when Mr. Pinochet came in, I saw the situation of the country, it was bad and I saw how economists in his government rescued the country economically… turning it into a Latin American power.”
These extraordinary statements—evidence of the undemocratic basis of neocolonial rule in the country regardless of which bourgeois faction is in power—are a of piece with Nasralla’s delight that business associations congratulated him on his initial apparent victory and his appeals to the military to “save the Honduran people from the violence of the electoral tribunal.”
At the same time, the Alliance coalition has been calling for protests, and Zelaya’s LIBRE party even called to set up a “paro” or roadblocks across the country for the rest of the week. They are calling for either another round of elections or a “special scrutiny” of the 5,174 tally sheets computed after the results started shifting.
For their part, the TSE, the corporate press, and the Trump administration, which favors continuation of Hernández’s rule, have been putting the pieces together to impose the official results and legitimize a massive crackdown against the protests.
Despite the millions of dollars spent to prepare these efforts, however, the regime is facing serious problems. This includes the fact that most of the military and police forces come from the rural and urban poor. An initial reflection of this was seen yesterday, when a group of the US-funded and SWAT-trained special forces, “Los Cobras,” declared themselves on strike, refusing to obey orders to carry out repression. “We are part of the people and can’t kill our own people, we have family,” said a spokesperson for those in rebellion.
As part of the efforts to back the re-election of Hernandez, according to a document obtained by Reuters Monday, the Trump administration has certified that Honduras has fulfilled human rights and anti-corruption requirements to receive its share of the $655 million in US funds as part of the Obama-era Alliance for Prosperity plan. The program is aimed at further militarizing the region and preventing migrants from escaping the violence and extreme poverty gripping the Northern Triangle, which also includes El Salvador and Guatemala.
John Kelly, who was promoted from secretary of Homeland Security to become Trump’s chief of staff, is now in charge of overseeing the implementation of what constitutes a tightening of the control of Washington, and particularly the US military, over Honduran and regional politics.
In a 2015 interview, General Kelly, then head of the US Southern Command, shed some light on his approach. “The only functioning institutions that exist today are the militaries,” he stated, boasting that he had the power to call upon any president to step down.
In Honduras, the last two years have seen a massive drop in foreign direct investment, exports and capital formation, paired with a jump in unemployment, inequality and multidimensional poverty, calculated at 74.3 percent by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC).
Moreover, the Hernández administration has imposed draconian IMF austerity diktats since 2014 that have gravely eroded the thin social provisions to the 18 percent of Honduran workers that benefit from the pensions and healthcare offered by the Social Security Institute (IHSS). At the same time, Honduran dollar bonds have turned into some of the most profitable for Wall Street.
As a result of the state of continuous war and the legacy of US-backed military dictatorships and counterinsurgency operations in Central America during the 1970s and 1980s—based primarily in Honduras—today, both the US and Honduran military brass occupy leading political and executive positions in their respective financial and corporate elites. This has been reflected in the fact the two axes of the anti-immigrant Alliance for Prosperity plan are a buildup of security forces and measures to “open their economies to more investment,” as Kelly himself announced earlier this year.
After the three decades of military dictatorships and US client regimes, under the Liberal or National parties, Honduras and other war-torn Central American countries underwent a “democratic” transition in the 1990s, during which a veneer of “civilian” rule and miserable increases in social spending was placed on the still-dominant, US-backed military apparatuses.
A particularly pernicious expression of the essential continuity of the old regimes has been in the form of death squads composed largely of state forces, whose killings of activists and local leaders have spiked in recent years.
During the second half of the Liberal government of Manuel Zelaya, the “civilian” trappings assumed characteristics that Washington and the Honduran oligarchy considered unacceptable, particularly in the form of deals to get cheap oil from the Chavez government in Venezuela. Thus, Zelaya was removed in a 2009 military coup supported by the Obama administration, which installed a military-led regime initially under the Liberal Roberto Micheletti and then under the National Party President Porfirio Lobo.
Today, most of the support behind the Opposition Alliance is based on two illusions: that a removal of Hernández will lead to a strengthening of democratic institutions, including a curtailment of corruption, and that a Nasralla administration will bring back the minor initiatives in terms of social assistance and contributory programs that were seen during the second half of Zelaya’s presidency.
However, to slow down the austerity measures demanded by the US and international bondholders—not to speak of expanding social programs—would require a frontal challenge to the fundamental interests and repressive apparatus of the Honduran oligarchy and its imperialist bosses in Washington and Wall Street.
Neither Zelaya, Nasralla nor any section of the country’s neocolonial bourgeoisie intends to or is capable of pursuing this necessary road to lift the desperate economic and social conditions of the Honduran masses.
The working class in Honduras needs to organize independently of all parties and the trade-unions that not only serve the ruling elite and imperialism, but were set up by its agencies, including the AFL-CIO and the CIA. However, it cannot confront such forces alone, especially since they have grown even more belligerent as warnings of financial bubbles mount, social opposition grows and tensions between major powers worsen.
Honduran workers, leading all the oppressed layers behind them, can only advance their interests by uniting with their class brothers who face the same corporate and financial elites in the United States, the rest of Latin America and internationally, in a common struggle against the source of economic inequality, war, corruption and dictatorship: the capitalist system.

Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen's former dictator, killed in Sana’a

Bill Van Auken

Residents of the embattled Yemeni capital of Sana’a braced for a redoubling of air strikes following the killing Monday of the country’s former dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and the apparent unraveling of a Saudi plot to depose the regime headed by the Houthi Ansarullah movement.
Saleh, 75, had ruled Yemen as a US-backed dictator for 30 years until being forced out by a popular uprising in 2011-2012. He was shot and killed by Houthi militiamen while fleeing heavy fighting in the capital between the Houthis and his own loyalists.
The two sides had maintained a tenuous alliance since 2014, when the Houthi rebel movement—which has its roots in the Zadi branch of Shia Islam to which Saleh himself belonged—swept down from the north and took control of Sana’a. Already in an advanced state of disintegration, that alliance broke down definitively over the past week, with armed clashes between the Houthis and Saleh’s loyalists that left over 125 dead.
On Saturday, Saleh made a televised speech renouncing his alliance with the Houthis and calling for the army and police to reject any orders coming from their regime. He also called for a dialogue with the Saudi-led “coalition,” which—with substantial logistical support and weapons provided by Washington—has been waging a near genocidal war against the Yemeni people for the past 33 months.
The Houthis charged Saleh with attempting a Saudi-backed coup. This assessment was substantiated in an analysis published by Al Jazeera based on interviews given by Yemeni officials on condition of anonymity.
These officials confirmed that Saleh’s break with the Houthis had been planned in Abu Dhabi earlier this year in consultation with top officials of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the oil-rich Gulf sheikdom that has played a major role in the assault on Yemen.
The plan, according to these officials, called for switching Saudi backing from Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi—Saleh’s former vice president who was installed following the mass upheavals of 2011-2012 and subsequently forced out by the Houthi rebels—to a regime led by Saleh or one of his sons.
Hadi, who lives in exile and under apparent house arrest in Saudi Arabia, had already lost the support of the UAE, which shifted its backing to the southern secessionist movement led by Aydarous al-Zubaidi, leading to armed clashes between UAE-backed forces and elements loyal to Hadi.
For decades, Saleh had served as both Washington’s and Riyadh’s man in Yemen. A former military officer, he first came to power in 1978 as the ruler of the US-backed North Yemen, at a time when a Soviet-backed People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen ruled in the south. When the country was unified in 1990, in the midst of the Stalinist dissolution of the USSR, Saleh assumed the presidency over all of Yemen.
With the Cold War over, Saleh maintained Washington’s backing, portraying himself as the sole figure capable of holding the fractious country together, balancing off opposing factions, including the Houthis in the north, separatists in the south and Sunni Salafist forces. Subsequently he secured massive US military support in the name of the global war on terror. In the process, he is believed to have a amassed a personal fortune in the tens of billions of dollars. The Obama administration supported Saleh until the bitter end as his troops opened fire on mass demonstrations, killing and wounding hundreds.
Following Saleh’s ouster in 2012, both Riyadh and Washington have upheld Hadi as the leader of the sole legitimate government of Yemen. In reality, he was brought to power as part of a “transition” deal concocted by the US and the Saudi monarchy to quell the mass popular uprising in Yemen, while granting Saleh immunity and maintaining the bulk of his regime intact. Hadi was subsequently installed as president through a one-candidate election in 2012. His two-year term expired over three years ago.
Both Washington and Riyadh are fighting to maintain a puppet government firmly under their control in Yemen, a country that shares a 1,100-mile border with Saudi Arabia to the north and a coastline on the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, This narrow waterway linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean is a key strategic channel for global oil and natural gas exports.
Both the US and its Saudi ally are also determined to prevent the consolidation of a regime that is aligned with Iran, which has given limited support to the Houthis. US support for the Saudi aggression against Yemen is bound up with preparations for war with Iran, which Washington sees as a principal obstacle to its assertion of hegemony over the energy-rich Middle East.
To that end, the Saudis, with the support of the Pentagon, are expected to inflict even greater bloodshed upon the population of Sana’a in the coming days. The Saudi military issued a warning to residents of the Yemeni capital on Monday. “We ask civilians to remain at least 500 metres (yards) away from Houthi military vehicles and gatherings,” it said. Outside of a complete evacuation of Sana’a, complying with such a directive is impossible. It merely sets the stage for a further mass slaughter in a war that has already killed at least 12,000 civilians.
The escalation of Saudi airstrikes combined with the street fighting provoked by Saleh, with the backing of the Saudis and the UAE, has further deepened what is universally recognized as the worst humanitarian crisis on the face of the planet.
The United Nations issued a statement Monday calling for a “humanitarian pause” in the fighting. “The escalating situation threatens to push the barely functioning basic services ... to a standstill,” it said. “These services have already been compromised with the latest shock of the impact of the blockade,” it added, referring to the Saudi regime’s blocking of Yemeni airports, sea ports and land borders and turning back food, medicine and other relief supplies.
“Ambulances and medical teams cannot access the injured, and people cannot go outside to buy food and other necessities,” the statement continued. “Aid workers are unable to travel and implement critical life-saving programs at a time when millions of Yemenis rely on assistance to survive.”
The Saudi monarchy, with US support, is now preparing to exact revenge for the failure of its plot to reinstall Saleh, including through measures that can lead to the deaths of millions of Yemenis from starvation and the further intensification of the worst cholera epidemic in modern history.