The Menacing Insect Omen

Robert Hunziker

The world is experiencing a massive loss of insects. In turn, this threatens ecosystems with utter total collapse, and, by way of direct association, loss of human civilization. Zap, it’s over! Insectageddon!

Insect populations around the world are under massive attack and dropping like… well… like flies. The negative implications run very deep, indeed, especially for the foundation of ecosystems, and thus for the survival of all life. Ironically, insect death equivalence becomes human extermination as ecosystems crumble. It’s already happening, and the evidence is compelling, in fact, overwhelming. What can be done has no ready answers, although begrudged solutions are out there, like stop pesticides and industrial-scale monoculture crop practices.

“Scientists cite many factors in the fall-off of the world’s insect populations, but chief among them are the ubiquitous use of pesticides, the spread of monoculture crops such as corn and soybeans, urbanization, and habitat destruction. A significant drop in insect populations could have far-reaching consequences for the natural world and for humans.” (Source: Christian Schwagerl, What’s Causing the Sharp Decline in Insects, and Why It Matters, Yale Environment360, July 6, 2016)

Many, many studies of insect loss are extant; nevertheless, the issue is seldom, if ever, mentioned by mainstream journals or press.
Therefore, in toto, society is at risk uninformed of inherent dangers behind anthropogenically driven biodiversity loss. It is unimaginable that this escapes far-flung public focus, as well as a strong universal mandate to fix the problem.

In contrast to and dissimilar to global warming COPs (Conference of Parties), which have already captured the world’s attention; there are no conferences of parties to fix this most immediate threat of insect loss and ecosystem collapse, which spells the death knell of society, as it stands. Something different along the lines of a dystopian society will likely replace it within decades, maybe sooner rather than later. But, realization will likely be sudden, when it is already too late. After all, the dramatic falloff ~45% in insect populations has already happened within decades. The ongoing collapse is not dilly-dallying.

“We live amid a global wave of… declines in local species abundance… 67% of monitored populations show 45% mean abundance decline. Such animal declines will cascade onto ecosystem functioning…. Defaunation is both a pervasive component of the planet’s sixth mass extinction and also a major driver of global ecological change.” (Source: Rodolfo Dirzo, et al, Defaunation in the Anthropocene, Science, Vol 345, Issue 6195, pp. 401-406, July 25, 2014.)

By way of an analogy, what if 50% of the population of America disappeared? Noticeable, yes! Scary, oh-yeah! But, the nearly 50% loss of insect population worldwide barely registers. In fact, it does not register at all because, aside from academic studies, there is little public mention of this imminent threat. Whereas, on a timeline basis, it is truly an imminent threat beyond any other known existential threat.

What is a world without insects? For starters, insect-eating creatures would starve, including frogs, birds, lizards, and spiders. Also, the natural recycling process would end, a process that reintroduces nutrients into soil, creating new topsoil to grow crops. And, the world would turn horribly foul from all the waste/trash without beetles and their larvae and other creepy crawly creatures naturally disposing of waste. Crop yields would plummet due to lack of pollination for 80% of plants. Just the honeybee alone is responsible for pollinating almonds, apples, avocados, blueberries, cantaloupe, cherries, cranberries, cucumbers, sunflowers, watermelon, and more. Significantly, almost all flying insects are pollinators. And, finally, insects fertilize the soil with nutrients from their own droppings.

“Biodiversity Loss and Its Impact on Humanity” is the title of a major paper based upon 1,000 ecological studies over the past 20 years; it’s the first study of such far-reaching scope, since the famous Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, twenty-five years ago, which at the time was unprecedented for a UN conference. That special conference in 1992 focused on (1) toxic compounds (2) alternative sources of energy to replace fossil fuels (3) more reliance on public transportation (4) water issues and included a Convention on Biological Diversity. Forlornly, regarding all categories addressed at the summit, each category has subsequently turned worse, only worse.

As of today: “Twenty-five years and a thousand studies later, what the world thought was true in Rio in 1992 has finally been proven: Biodiversity underpins our ability to achieve sustainable development.” (Source: Bradley J. Cardinale, et al, Biodiversity Loss and Its Impact on Humanity, Nature, Vol. 486, Number 7401, pp. 59-67 Nature, 2012)

Because people no longer connect with nature like years past, the general public takes little notice of how ecosystems change. After all, based upon today’s standards, insects are exterminated, not studied for clues about the viability of civilization. Other than scientists, who’s to know the ecosystem is threatened with total obliteration because of insect loss?

When the last Monarch butterfly flutters to the ground and the last bee inserts its stinger into the arm of a naïve youngster running and playing in a meadow, and the last cicada, an insect prominently mentioned in Homer’s Iliad, tips onto its side in lonesome isolation, and the last ant colony collapses onto itself, expending a little dust cloud, it will not be noticed, if only because, by then, ecosystems around the world will no longer fulfill all-important life support.

Those random causalities will be nothing more than outliers. By then, crop yields will be less than 20%, but mostly zero, and society will have splintered into warring factions of bloodthirsty nomads. Amusingly, and lastly, the NRA will finally be justified. On the other hand, the food chain will have already collapsed.

10 Good Things About a TERRIBLE Year

Medea Benjamin

Every year I do a list of ten good things about the year. This year, I was about to skip it. Let’s face it: It has been a particularly horrible year for anyone with a progressive agenda. When I recently asked a prominent activist how she was doing, she took my hands, looked me in the eyes and said, “Everything I’ve been working on for 50 years has gone down the toilet.”

With so many good people feeling depressed, let’s point to the positive things that happened, even in this really, really bad year.

1. #MeToo movement has empowered victims of sexual harassment and assault, and encouraged accountability. Those two small words defined a social media-based movement in which women, and some men, have come forward to publicly share their stories of sexual assault and harassment, and expose their abusers. The movement–and fallout–spread globally, with the hashtag trending in at least 85 countries. The bravery and solidarity of these victims of sexual abuse will help build a future in which impunity for sexual predators is no longer the norm.

2. The year has seen an explosion of grassroots organizing, protest, and activism. An active and uncompromising spirit of revolt has blossomed in the face of a frightening political climate during Donald Trump’s presidency. On January 21, two million people took to the streets in Women’s Marches across the world as a show of solidarity against Trump’s vile and misogynistic rhetoric. On January 29, thousands gathered in airports around the country to protest Trump’s xenophobic and unconstitutional Muslim ban. In April, 200,000 people joined the People’s Climate March to stand up to the administration’s reckless stance on climate. In July, disability rights activists staged countless actions on Capitol Hill in response to the GOP’s cruel and life-threatening healthcare bill. In November and December, “Dreamers” protected by Obama’s provision called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) stormed the Hill to demand a replacement for that program, which Trump ended in September. New groups like Indivisible have helped millions of Americans confront their members of Congress, roughly 24,000 people joined the Democratic Socialists of America, and organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have seen massive surges in donations.

3. We’re already seeing rebukes of Trump at the ballot box. A wave of Democratic electoral victories swept some unlikely regions of the country, showing popular rejection of Donald Trump and his party. Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie, who ran a shameless race-baiting campaign, lost by a wide margin to Democrat Ralph Northam in Virginia. In New Jersey, Phil Murphy handily defeated Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno, making that state the seventh in the nation with Democratic control over legislative and executive branches. In Alabama’s special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, Democrat Doug Jones took the lead over alleged sexual predator Roy Moore–an astonishing win in a deep red state, propelled largely by Black voters. Danica Roem in Virginia, who ran against a virulently anti-LGBTQ opponent, became the first openly transgender person elected as a US legislator. Her win ended 26 years of Republican rule in that district. And in Virginia’s 50th district, self-described democratic socialist Lee Carter defeated powerful Republican delegate Jackson Miller.

4. The first group of J20 protesters, people arrested in Washington DC on the day of Trump’s inauguration, were found not guilty. It was a scary year for the 194 protesters, journalists and medics facing multiple felony charges, including rioting and property destruction, that could have resulted in prison terms of up to 60 years. The state’s attempt to collectively punish almost 200 people for property destruction committed by a handful is an outrageous example of judicial overreach in an era in which First Amendment rights are under siege. On December 21, however, the jury returned 42 separate not-guilty verdicts for the first six defendants to stand trial. Their acquittal on all charges hopefully portendss more non-guilty verdicts for the remaining 188 defendants and gives a boost to our basic rights of free speech and assembly.

5. Chelsea Manning was released from prison after 7 years. Army Pvt. Manning was first detained in 2010 and ultimately convicted of violating the Espionage Act after she leaked troves of documents exposing abuses by the US military, including a video of American helicopters firing on unarmed civilians in Baghdad, Iraq. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison. She developed post-traumatic stress disorder in prison and was repeatedly denied medical treatment for her gender dysphoria. The Army finally granted her the treatment after she went on a hunger strike. On January 17, 2017, President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence, and she was released in May. We owe Chelsea Manning a debt of gratitude for her tenacious commitment to exposing the crimes of U.S. empire.

6. Cities and states have committed to positive climate initiatives, despite federal regression. Twenty states and 110 cities signed “America’s Pledge,” a commitment to stick to Obama-era climate goals even after Trump’s disastrous decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords. In December, a group of 36 cities signed the “Chicago Charter,” an agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions and monitor each others progress. These pacts demonstrate popular sentiment and political will, at the local, city and state level, to fight the corporate oligarchs who perpetuate climate chaos.

7. Trump’s presidency has deepened the critical national conversation about racism and white supremacy. The Black Lives Matter movement, which started under Obama’s administration, exposed this nation’s systemic racism. The victory of Donald Trump emboldened white supremacists, as evidenced in the violent Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally in August. But the year has also seen a wave of opposition to racism, Islamophobia and anti-semitism that includes the toppling of confederate flags and statues, confronting hate speech, demanding the removal of white supremacists Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka and Stephen Miller from the White House (two of the three are gone), and building strong interfaith alliances locally and nationally.

8. This was the year the world said no to nuclear weapons. While Donald Trump taunted North Korea’s Kim Jung Un (“Little Rocket Man”) and threatened to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, on July 7, 122 of the world’s nations showed their rejection of nuclear weapons by adopting an historic Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty. The treaty, opposed by all nine nuclear states, is now open for signatures and the ban will come into effect 90 days after being ratified by 50 states. The organization that promoted this ban is The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), an alliance of 450 nongovernmental organizations in about 100 countries. It was thrilling to learn that ICAN was awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. The treaty and the Peace Prize are indications that despite the intransigence of the nuclear-armed states, the global community is determined to ban nuclear weapons.

9. ISIS no longer has a caliphate. For peace activists, it’s hard to put forth military actions as victories, especially when these actions incur a large civilian toll. This is indeed the case with ISIS, where at least 9,000 civilians were killed in the battle to retake the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. But we do have to acknowledge that taking away ISIS’ territorial base has put a stop to some of the group’s horrific human rights abuses. It will also hopefully make it easier to find a settlement to the dreadful wars that have been raging in Syria and Iraq, and give our government one less excuse for dumping so much of our resources into the military.

10. The global community stood up to Trump’s stance on Jerusalem. In a stinging rebuke of President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, 128 countries, including some of the US’s most trusted and reliable allies, voted in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for a reversal of his position. Despite the threat from US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley that the US would be “taking names” of those who voted against it, only nine countries voted with the US and 25 abstained. The resolution isn’t binding, but it’s a stark illustration of just how isolated the United States is in its stance toward Israel.

As we head into the new year, let’s keep ourselves inspired by the hard work of folks at home and abroad who gave us something to cheer about for 2017. May we have a much longer list in 2018.

The Jerusalem Vote And The US-Israel Link

Chandra Muzaffar

One hopes that the overwhelming rejection of the Trump Administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on the 21st of December 2017 will compel Washington DC to rescind its decision. Given Trump’s track record so far —- on the Climate Change Accord and UNESCO —it is very unlikely. The most we can expect him to do is to delay a little the proposed transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For Trump what matters most is his Christian Right constituency in the US a substantial portion of which is made up of Christian Zionists.

Leaving aside Trump and his supporters, the Jerusalem vote is a clear affirmation of the world’s commitment to international law. Jerusalem was placed under that law in 1947 when historic Palestine was unfairly partitioned. Seizing or annexing any part of that city and then proclaiming it as the capital of one of the disputants is illegal.  Surely, the US which sees itself as the world’s “greatest democracy” understands this. So should Israel, West Asia’s “only democracy.”

The Jerusalem vote is also a victory of sorts for global justice. Global justice, like international law, has not always been at the top of the UN’s agenda. Nonetheless, on Palestine, there have been a couple of occasions when a modicum of justice was done. In November 1974, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was granted observer status by the UNGA. The UNGA also voted in favour of non-member status for Palestine on 29 November 2012. However, it was more vocal in its condemnation of apartheid in South Africa in 1962 and 1973, and of the genocide perpetrated upon the Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs in 1993. And, for decades, the UNGA has denounced the inhuman sanctions imposed upon the people of Cuba by the US government.

If the UNGA has not been able to emerge as the principled voice of global justice on a much more extensive scale it is partly because of various impediments. One of the most formidable of these is the US-Israel link.(Even on Cuba, it is US and Israel who have consistently opposed the global consensus on lifting sanctions) Within the context of West Asia and North Africa (WANA) it is this link between US hegemony and Zionism the pivot of which is Israel that is the principal cause of much of the turmoil and turbulence in the region that has resulted in the loss of millions of lives and brought about so much destruction and devastation.

The link serves three purposes at least — 1) control, and not just access, over oil in the world’s most important oil-exporting region. Control is achieved through servile regimes that are completely subservient to the US and Israel   2) control over vital waterways in the world’s most strategic region where three continents meet, and 3) maximum protection for Israel’s “security.”  This is one of the main reasons why the US’s biggest air-base in the region is in Qatar; its biggest navy in the region, the fifth fleet, is in Bahrain; and some of the biggest recipients of its military hardware are countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Add to all this, the NATO airbase in Konya, Turkey.

Since Israel’s notion of total security is not just hardware and infrastructure but also the elimination of any element within its vicinity that is independent and determined to preserve its dignity, it has sought systematically to crush every form of resistance to its dominant power.Crushing resistance is not just in relation to Palestinian freedom-fighters and liberation movements. It also involves Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya even Sudan and Yemen. Beyond the Arab world, Israel’s ultimate target is of course Iran.

Has Israel achieved its targets? In spite of multiple assassinations and periodic slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the Palestinians continue their legitimate struggle for an independent state. Indeed, through the peaceful Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, their struggle has expanded and gained more support especially from Western Europe. At the same time, attempts to bring Lebanon under Israeli grip — one of the most vicious and brutal of which was the Sabra-Shatila massacre of 1982 — have failed miserably. In 2006, the Hezbollah provided heroic resistance to the Israeli military campaign and thus defended Lebanese territorial sovereignty. Though Israel using Anglo-American fire power ousted Saddam Hussein, an implacable opponent of Israeli dominance, it has not been able to control current Iraqi politics. If anything, in post-Saddam, Shia centred Iraq, the ruling elite appears to be more inclined towards Tehran. This is not something that neither Israel nor the US bargained for. Their determined drive to overthrow Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad, in the midst of the Arab uprisings, has also come to nought. Though tens of thousands of people were killed in the six year war, Bashar, aided by the Hezbollah, Iran and Russia refused to yield to terror groups armed by outfits linked to the US and funded by its regional allies. And Iran not only continues to protect its sovereignty but has also succeeded in expanding its influence within WANA in the face of US-Israeli machinations and concerted attempts by the ruling class in Saudi Arabia to isolate her.

What all this shows is that the US-Israel link has not been able to achieve one of its primary goals, namely, enhancing the “security” of Israel. The defeat of this diabolical link in the UN General Assembly on the 21st of December merely underlines this fact. It should embolden all of us to accelerate our struggle for a just world.

The Politics of Manus Island: Refugees, Responsibilities And Contracts

Binoy Kampmark

In what has been a nightmare at Christmas, the plight of refugees relocated to other sites on Manus Island after the closure of the facility at Lombrum Naval Base has worsened.  The latest scenes at East Lorengau Transit Centre, where 300 men have been since December 19, have been ugly and pitiable.  In the broader scheme of things, they have been far from surprising, expected with the dread that has become all too natural.

Local landowners have been none too pleased at the political machinations of the Papua New Guinea government and officials in Canberra.  They were the ones frozen out of negotiations about how best to solve the refugee problem.  They were the ones side-stepped in another arrangement that sees Australia ignore those responsibilities outlined in the Refugee Convention.

From November 29, they have been engaged in a campaign of protest against staff management and the refugees, notably JDA Wokman, the contractor charged with resettlement services.  They, so goes the argument, want compensation for not getting the necessary contract for running the new detention facilities.  The company in question there is Peren Investments.  Keep it brutal, but keep it local.

The scenes on that day in November worsened.  Access to the East Lorengau Refugee Transit Centre was blocked.  The police were called in.  As Manus Province police commander, David Yapu, explained, “Because the situation was tense and level of threats was high, Police intervened and acted as a middle person to negotiate with PNG Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority, Peren Investments and JDA to come to some mutual understanding and clear the road block and allow the services to flow into the centre.”  There was one group conspicuously absent: the refugees themselves.

As Kurdish-Iranian refugee Behrouz Boochani has observed with characteristic grimness, “Some powerful [people] in island are competing & using us as tools for their aims.  Nobody here to guarantee our safety.  Anything bad happens to us, those who took us here by force are responsible.  We resisted because situation outside predictable.”

Boochani’s observation has relevance beyond the plight of his fellow refugees on the tropical island itself. It speaks to the vulgarity of the refugee debate in Australia, the refusal by the major parties to consider the human element, preferring electoral gains, political mileage.

Locally, the situation is perpetually volatile.  Various members of the local populace are starting to show that their bite is every bit as effective as their irate bark.  According to Sri Lankan refugee Thanus Selvarasa, “These local people attack us, the camp (and) we are hostage people now.”  Boochani’s sentiment is similar: “We are now hostages of landowners.  There is no food and medicine here and if they continue it will be a critical situation.”

For Selvarasa, there are scenes of war, combat, the language of conflict and struggle.  “We have some rice only but today it’s mostly finished,” he claimed on December 20.  The contractor has attempted to deliver food by stealth, but was halted on being stopped by protestors.

Meetings duly took place between the various groups – landowners, immigration officials and members of JDA Wokman.  Accordingly, some breathing space was given, with the blockade being lifted.  “Money and political interests,” lamented a depressed Boochani, “are their priority, not people’s life.”  Such arrangements are only temporary.

The Australian angle on this has been painfully familiar. Despite the contract regarding the new camps being an Australian one; despite being fuelled on the money of Australian tax payers, responsibility is being ignored.  “This is a matter for the Government of PNG,” came the dismissive remark from the Department of Home Affairs.

Not so, came the comment from Cecile Pouilly at a UNHCR briefing in distant Geneva prior to Christmas Eve.  “In light of the continued perilous situation on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island for refugees and asylum seekers abandoned by Australia, UNCHR has called again this week on the Australian government to live up to its responsibility and urgently find humane and appropriate solutions.”

It is exactly the sort of thing Australian politicians do not want.  Before them stand such figures as Boochani, who inhabit a world where borders are asserted to restrict rather than permit.  Boundaries are drawn, fictional doodles that are treated as reality.  It was the destiny of Kurdistan to be parcelled after the First World War, and since then, Kurds have inhabited a world without borders, or least of their own.  There is, for Boochani, only one recourse in the face of this absurdity: a form of stateless humanism.  Even in deracination, roots can be put down.

For the bloodless managers, the populist number crunchers, the procedural, paper-driven fanatics, the refugee is a removable contrivance. The borderless concept suits the apparatchiks in Canberra, those who insist that refugees are creatures of the vanishing, disposable refuse in the game of higher politics.

Trump and Jerusalem: Long Term Implications

KP Fabian

On 7 December, US President Donald Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital; ordered the US Department of State to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and unleashed a diplomatic storm with the potential for disaster, not exactly unforeseeable. The US' diplomatic isolation is almost complete.

Trump’s action was shocking, but not surprising. The decision fits in with his CEO style of functioning and was taken despite opposition from the US' Department of State and Department of Defense. Trump knew well that there would be strong opposition, even condemnation, from the Muslim world and that Europe will not stand by him. However, Trump is not a somnambulist. He might have anticipated the storm and decided to face it and carry out his promise as candidate. But, it is too early to say when the embassy will be physically relocated to Jerusalem.

Trump's most resolute defender so far, is US Permanent Representative to UN, Nikki Haley, and not US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Speaking at the emergency session of the UN Security Council where the US and Israel were ‘isolated’, Haley asserted that the decision was meant to advance the cause of peace; that the US has credibility with both the Israelis and the Palestinians; and that any peace agreement "would be signed on the White House lawns." It is difficult to find any good reason to believe that any peace agreement would be delivered with Trump acting as the chief obstetrician and his son-in-law Jared Kushner as his assistant. Trump, with his decision, has aborted the pregnancy if there ever was one. 

Saudi Arabia, the first country Trump visited as president, characterised his decision as “unjustified and irresponsible;” warned of the “dangerous consequences;” and asked him to reverse his decision. The Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have called for an uprising. Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas saw it as “the greatest crime.” The Arab League declared that Trump’s decision was a “dangerous violation of international law” that had “no legal impact” and was “void.” The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) met in Istanbul and has called for the declaration of East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. 

Declarations and statements do not do much harm. But, protests, peaceful or violent, can have a larger impact than words. The US Embassy in Amman advised parents not to send children to school and embassies in the West Asia and North Africa (WANA) region and elsewhere have issued security warnings to their nationals. 

The US' isolation is near total. The US had to veto Egypt's draft resolution as the rest of the UN Security Council (UNSC) voted for it despite explicit threats from Haley. The threats did not work at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) either. The UNGA adopted a resolution by 128 to 9 with 35 abstentions and 21 absences a resolution expressing “deep regret” over recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem and stressing  that the Holy City's "final status issue is  to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant UN resolutions.” India rightly voted for the UNGA resolution, correctly ignoring Haley's threats. The US might sulk for a while, but it cannot 'punish' 128 countries.

The key question is whether there will be large scale violence tantamount to a war. Israel might provoke a war for its own reasons, or its retaliation to rockets from Lebanon or Gaza might start a war. Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has threatened that after winding down operations in Syria, it would take on Israel. In 2006, they sent a few rockets to Israel, which retaliated, causing the deaths of 1200 Lebanese and 120 Israeli soldiers. 

 

Israeli intelligence has claimed that the Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets including some long-range ones made in Iran. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has adopted a doctrine of periodically fighting the Hezbollah — ‘mowing the lawn when the grass has grown too tall’. Israel is seriously worried that Iran might get a land bridge to send weapons to the Hezbollah through Iraq and Syria. Therefore, one cannot rule out hostilities on the Israel/Lebanon front. Similarly, to force Trump’s hands to transfer the embassy, Netanyahu might start a war on the Hamas.

President Mahmoud Abbas has stated that the US no longer can be an impartial mediator. The assumption is that till Trump took this decision, US was one. This is a widespread but fallacious assumption. A mediator should be willing and able to mediate. Even if one assumes that the US is willing, the US is not able. The US is Israel's protector, diplomatically and militarily. International Relations theory teaches that generally, the protector has much influence over the protected. As ably argued out by John J. Mearsheimer in his work, The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy, it is Israel that virtually controls US policy towards the rather volatile region. Israel does not want a Palestinian state. It will give nothing more than municipal autonomy. If the Palestinians begin an Intifada, or the Hezbollah or the Hamas begin sending rockets to Israel, the IDF will retaliate with disproportionate force and the rest of the world might do nothing to stop the carnage. 

It is customary to blame the Arabs in general and the Palestinians specifically for their sad plight. But, that is a wrong conclusion. The Palestinians are more sinned against than sinning. President Trump has unwittingly made it easier for the Islamic State to find new recruits. It is painfully clear that one now lives in a world with decreasing respect and increasing contempt for international law. 

African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) for African Postgraduate Students & Academics 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 29th January 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries under this program

About the Award: The scheme is modelled on Europe’s well-established and successful Erasmus-Mundus programme. As part of the Roadmap 2014-2017 of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, the Intra-Africa Mobility Scheme underlines the contribution of higher education towards economic and social development and the potential of academic mobility to improve the quality of higher education.

ABEM will build human and institutional capacity in Africa for needs-­based health technology research and development. The project will train postgraduate students with skills and specialisations not offered at their home institutions. Furthermore, it will support the development of biomedical engineering programmes that are being established, or have recently been established, at partner institutions and contribute toward harmonising biomedical engineering curricula across the continent. This will be achieved through the provision of scholarships to cover the full cost of mobility between African higher education institutions.

Overall, the project will enhance employment opportunities for graduates, enhance staff research profiles and teaching competencies, enhance institutional research profiles and inter-­university cooperation, and support the development of solutions for health challenges from an African perspective.

Type: Masters, PhD, Training.

Eligibility: 

Student mobility – eligibility criteria

To be eligible for a scholarship, master’s and doctoral students must comply with the following criteria:

1. Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries covered by the Programme (see Section 2.1)
2. At the time of the application for a scholarship, be registered/admitted in their final year or have obtained their most recent degree (or equivalent) from:
   1. one of the higher education institutions included in the partnership (Target Group 1); or
   2. a higher education institution not included in the partnership but established in an eligible country (Target Group 2)
3. Have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction in the host institution.
4. Meet the specific requirements of the host institution.

Students can only benefit from one scholarship under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.

Students having benefited from scholarship(s) under the previous Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme cannot receive scholarships under the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme.

Academic and administrative staff mobility

Staff may undertake mobility visits for 1-6 months, at any of the African partner institutions.

• Areas of activity
  Staff mobility should contribute to strengthening the academic, management and co-operation capacity of partner institutions, through participation in research projects, teaching, production of new teaching material, development of teaching methods, harmonisation of curricula, development of joint curricula, development of administrative tools and sharing of management approaches. The mobility is also expected to be an integral part of the institutional staff development plan and recognised as such upon return of the staff member.
• Eligibility criteriaIn order to be eligible for a scholarship, staff must comply with ALL the following criteria:
  • Be a national and resident in any of the eligible countries (see Section 2.1)
  • Work in or be associated with a partner higher education institution.

Number of Awards: Up to 32

Value of Award: The scholarship will cover:

• roundtrip flight ticket and visa costs;
• participation costs such as tuition fees, registration fees and service fees where applicable
• insurance (health, accident, travel);
• a settling-in allowance;
• a monthly subsistence allowance;
• a contribution towards the research costs associated with student mobility of 10 months or longer.

Duration of Program: Scholarship awards for students are to be taken up between August 2018 and March 2019

Master’s and doctoral students may undertake:

• Credit-seeking mobility of 6 to 12 months at a partner institution, leading to academic recognition of the study period towards a degree programme at the home institution,

• Degree-seeking mobility to complete a full degree at a partner institution.The project aims for 50% of students and at least 30% of staff who participate in mobility visits to be women.

How to Apply: Interested applicants should go through the Application requirements on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

 Click here to Apply

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The African Biomedical Engineering Mobility (ABEM) project is funded by the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Commission.

The Petro-Yuan Bombshell

Pepe Escobar

The new 55-page “America First” National Security Strategy

(NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as “revisionist” powers, “rivals”, and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States.

The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an “attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries”. Still, Beijing qualified it as “reckless” and “irrational.” The Kremlin noted its “imperialist character” and “disregard for a multipolar world”. Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as “the world’s most significant state sponsor of terrorism.”

Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing geopolitical and geoeconomic process of Eurasia integration.

The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on “the BRIC countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies”, and stressed the need to “overcome the excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies”.

That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and strategic raw materials.

And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China “threat” to the US dollar.

The CIPS/SWIFT face-off

The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will also be in place in the near future.

Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone, bypassing the US dollar.

The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private, Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global transaction must transit.

What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas as well as Tehran’s potential to export oil. In the event Washington might decide to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading mechanism.

Last March, Russia’s central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching its first $1 billion yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a long term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade, moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.

Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS are bound to focus on
trading physical gold.

Markets such as COMEX actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold. Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.

The ultimate politically charged dossier

Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as top reserve currency have been discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.

The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year what used to be a key, “secret” informal deal between the US and the House of Saud is firmly in the public domain.

Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries. Through this mechanism Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt – and counting.

Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened when Iraq’s Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to issue a pan-African gold dinar.

But now it’s China who’s entering the fray, following on plans set up way back in 2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.

The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were supposed to start at the end of 2017; but even if they start sometime in early 2018 the fundamentals are clear; this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The era of the petro-yuan is at hand.

Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark to Brent and WTI, or whether China’s capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.

What’s certain is that the BRICS supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times. Venezuela is also on board. It’s crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world’s Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China’s economy, they may soon be joined by other producers.

Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point, remarking how “this contract has the potential to greatly help China’s push for yuan internationalization.”

The hidden riches of “belt” and “road”

An extensive report by DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan with the expansion of BRI.

In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway, the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.

HSBC estimates that BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of new trade a year.

It’s important to keep in mind that the “belt” in BRI should be seen as a series of corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle East, while the “roads” soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with – what else – un-mined gold.

A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia’s lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.

Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.

Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.

A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share; “They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade.”

What’s clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top customers; it’s Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for Chinese participation in Aramco’s IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.

An independent European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card; “an authorization to issue treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia”; the creation of a Saudi investment fund; and the acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.

Nations under US sanctions such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela will be among the first to embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling oil/gas to China in yuan.

And if you don’t export oil but is part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently evaluating.

A key feature of the geoconomic heart of the world moving from the West to Asia is that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.

The NSS for its part promises to preserve “peace through strength”. As Washington currently deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than 149 nations in 2017 alone, it’s hard to argue the US is at “peace” – especially when the NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.

“Revisionist” Russia-China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition for the Global South. Their “threat” – under the framework of the BRICS as well as the SCO, which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.

It ain’t over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS counterpunch.

2018, America’s New Corporate Tax Cuts And Future Of The World

Jerome Irwin

It doesn’t take a mystic to look into a crystal ball to realize that America’s new draconian corporate tax cut scam now is not only the greatest financial heist and political con to be committed in recent modern history, that will make the 2008 so-called “bail-out’ of the banks, Wall Street and theft of the US Treasury look like paltry child’s play by comparison. One doesn’t also have to be a clairvoyant either to see how this scam will begin to shape the way humans of the future look, think and feel about themselves, one another and the kind of career paths they will ultimately choose for themselves, their wives, husbands and families.

As all the corks of the champagne bottles continue to pop for the prospects of what the new year holds for the ultra-rich .01% and the rest of us, what no doubt now will follow will be a rush amongst the world’s corporate/financial structure to either implement similar corporate tax cuts within their own countries or inspire a new “offshore rush” of the world’s corporate infrastructure to re-locate within the borders of the United States to stick their heads in the pig trough along with all the other greedy ones to partake in the financial feeding frenzy that will ensue.

The upshot of it all is that the democratic political process in the world will continue to be degraded to the point of being all but destroyed as enhanced austerity programmes for the masses continue to erode further still America and the rest of the world’s social safety nets and humanitarian standards. Yet the ultimate political con is that this all, somehow, is going to ultimately benefit the masses as one corporate giant after another passes on to its workers what amounts to a mere pittance of the obscenely-massive profits they now are about to realize. Boy, if the reader is inclined to believe this latest scam that declares the fat cats now are magically going to invest in the future well-being of the 99% anymore than they did in 2008, has this writer got another sure-fire ‘Bitcoin’ deal for you!

In the end, the world will see yet a further resurgence of scenarios spring off the pages of the 1920’s “Roaring Twenties”, 1930’s Fascism, 1940’s World War and cold, hard-hearted 1950’s “Organizational Man” that still dominates world politics and finances.

On a lighter more humerous note, the world may even see a resurgence of world leader’s like President Trump and their administration’s taking a page out of a 1971 Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) news report about Australia’s one-time “Finishing School for Executives’ Wives”. To take a peek at the kind of mindless brainwashing that world political leaders once proposed for the ideal wives of the ideal male executives of the future, that may yet be suggestive of how humans of the future will be duly programmed, go to:

www.newslocker.com/en-au/news/news-videos/finishing-school-for-executives-wives-1971/view/

For an additional view go to the archives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission:

Only 2018 and The Shadow really knows what the crystal ball’s vision of humankind’s future has yet to reveal.

Rohingyas Trapped In Cob-Web Of Dirty Politics

Badrul Islam

The Rohingya crisis reflects intention of the Myanmar government to forcibly oust the Muslims from Rakhine State. The brutal attack on unarmed civilians and placing of landmines along its border by Military in coordination with Border Guard Police and armed Rakhine Buddhists is the proof. Coastal area in Rakhine state is clearly of strategic importance to both China (0ne Belt 0ne Road Policy) and India (Look East Policy).Myanmar government has vested interest in clearing land for development projects that brings oil and gas revenues, transit fees, employment for its citizen- that boost economic growth. In such situations human costs are terribly high.

Myanmar Military and its elected, State Counsellor denies the mayhem but Amnesty International Director says “Given their ongoing denials Myanmar authorities may have thought they would literally get away with murder on massive scale. But modern technology coupled with rigorous human rights research have tipped the scale against them”. BBC’s South East Asia correspondent on a government organised media trip says “on September 7,2017, at Alel Than Kyaw, we heard automatic weapons fire at in distant and saw four large columns of of smoke indicating villages burned. Rohingya village at Gaw Du Thar Ya,was being set alight by Rakhine Buddhist men in front of armed police.” Both these statements confirms that “huge iceberg of misinformation” come from Myanmar itself.

Myanmar has a military dominated government, wherein, only the Bamar Buddhist group, forms the government, the police and army. In the Parliament the Military has 25% reserved seats. None from the 135 recognised ethnic groups are represented in any of these positions. The present elected representatives, including Aung San Suu Kyi, role is to play second fiddle to the Military regime.

The Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar(2008),The Land Acquisition Act(1894),The Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Act(2012), Economic Zone Law(2011), Farm Act(2012 and The Foreign Investment(2012) gives the government the full authority to (A) adopt “Burmanisation”,( implemented since military junta came to power in 1962) and (B) to protect, control and utilize the country’s natural resources. Thus “Burmanisation” and inability to find a formula for sharing the country’s natural resources between Bamar Buddhists majority and 135 Ethnic groups became the main reason for conflict between them. However, as they are not Muslims, they are not affected by the Citizen Law of 1982. They retain their Citizenship, but since the assassination of late Gen Aung San voided the Panglong agreement (1947), conflicts with government continued to bedevil the country.

Rohingyas, not part of 135 Ethnic group, but as they are Muslims, are eyed with suspicion, and since Gen Ne Win’s junta rule(1962) it became a part of the national policy, to plan their living in squalid ghettos and apartheid conditions with severe restrictions on movement, family life, employment, healthcare and education for their children .Discriminated and persecuted, they also became victim of religious hatred led by Ashin Wirathu, branded by Time Magazine as “Face of Buddhist Terror”, is leader of 969 Movement and Ma Ba Tha. Wikepedia reports, in 2012 Ashin led a rally of monks to promote President Thein Sein’s controversial plan to send Rohingya Muslims to third countries. His 969 movement is related to boycott of Muslim owned business. Additionally he has been vocal in citing examples of neighboring countries(Indonesia and Philippines)that Muslims will overtake,dominate and get rid of Buddhists- though there is no such concrete proof specially when demography confirms that Muslims are 4% while Bamar Buddhists are over 89%.To “add salt to their wound,” the Citizen Law of 1982, robs them of their Citizenship and right to vote.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and United Nations Satellite Application Program have captured the images and shared it with international Media(print and electronics),international organizations and international community that prompted action by United Nations Secretary General, UN Security Council, Heads of different UN Agencies and its Special Rapporteurs, European Union, US State Department officials, and 27 eminent personalities that includes 12 Nobel Laureates. Their coordinated efforts brought the following positive results:(A)quick supply from different countries of food, essential medicines and vaccinations, emergency shelter, blankets, other essentials, to immediately rehabilitate the Rohingya Refugees;(B) the pledging by Donor countries of US$434 million for continued relief programmes for Rohingyas and support to host communities in Bangladesh; (C) condemnation of Myanmar Military’s excessive force and urging them to stop further violence; (D) urging Myanmar government to take steps to implement the Kofi Annan Commission Report so than an environment is created to rehabilitate the repatriated Rohingyas from Bangladesh under UN Supervision; (E) to allow a UN Fact Finding Team to visit Rakhine state.

The Honourable Prime Minister of Bangladesh has received accolades from,United Nations and leaders of the world for accommodating the victimised Rohingyas, and in her speech, at the 72nd UN General Assembly, she said “0ur humanity compels us to stand by them”. She placed her proposals for solutions to the crisis ,the most significant being, implementation of Kofi Anan Commission Report and creating a “Safe Zone” in Rakhine State.

However,”Safe Zone”, similar to one made at Srebrenica (Bosnia’s eastern border with Serbia) by UN and defended by UN Peacekeeping Force, or the recently signed agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh for repatriation, will not solve the crisis or confirm repatriation, because Military and Bamar Buddhists still vehemently hate the Muslims; and this attitude must change. The First priority of Military Junta and the State Counsellor, is to take lessons from Singapore, which is predominantly ethnic Chinese.The new president elect is from minority Malay. After being sworn in, Ms Halima Yacob in her speech said “Although this is a reserved election, I am not a reserved president. I am a president for everyone regardless of race, language, religion or creed. I represent everyone”. Myanmar must have this spirit.

Secondly, U KO NI, constitutional expert and legal adviser of State Counselor, had initiated a dialogue with the Military for some amendments to the constitution that would clip some powers of the Tatmadaw and help Rohingya to get citizenship. Unfortunately he was shot and killed at the Yangon airport. But the government can still discuss with the authorities of USA, UK, Germany ,Canada, Australia and Sweden as to how their constitution have accommodated, both, democracy and immigrants in their country. Suu Kyi had studied in UK and lived long enough to see how immigrants have merged with British citizen, have a secured life and contributes towards national development.
Now Aung San Suu Kyi, should be to reminded of some lines from her Noble Lecture, that she delivered in 2012 “For me receiving the Noble Peace Prize means personally extending my concern for democracy and human rights…..War is not the only arena where peace is done to death. Wherever sufferings are ignored there will be seeds of conflict, for suffering degrades and embitters and enrages.”

There are 646,000(and more are still fleeing) Rohingya Muslims, who fled from Myanmar because of atrocities by your military, and they are terribly suffering in different refugee camps in Bangladesh. What can you as Noble Laureate do to alleviate their sufferings? Will the Myanmar government act positively to solve this humanitarian crisis? The world is waiting to see.

Sanctions Fever: The Trump Administration And Human Rights

Binoy Kampmark

It’s the season to be jolly, and the Trump administration has been busy doling out gifts.  Sanctions seem to be top of the pile, derived from that trove of options outlined in the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.  The law, initially introduced in 2012, targets the bank assets of those unfortunate enough to make it to the US Treasurer’s list.

“Today,” went the US Treasury press release, “the Trump administration launched a new sanctions regime targeting human rights abusers and corrupt actors around the world.”  As is the nature of Trumpist language, every executive order to expand existing legislation resembles a grand proclamation, an event of momentous significance.  At the very least, the president insists that he is coping with a “national emergency”, a good cover for mere flatulence.

Secretary of Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin was trying to get comfortable on his high horse.  “Today, the United States is taking a strong stand against human rights abuse and corruption globally by shutting these bad actors out of the US financial system.” Assets were being frozen; names were being shamed for “the egregious acts they’ve committed”.

Thirteen individuals were singled out in the Annex to the December 21 Executive Order. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sprigged the order with an additional 39 associated individuals and entities to the sanctions list.

Many of the names are hard to defend as subjects of human kindness.  There is Yahya Jammed, former President of Gambia, the man behind an assassination squad known as the Junglers.  There is Maung Maung Soe, formerly chief of the Burmese Army’s Western command, instrumental in cleansing Rakhine State of its Rohingya population.  But then come more problematic characters, largely on the basis that they resemble, in its most direct way, the American way of life: loot, extend, expand.

There is Slobodan Tesic, notorious dealer of arms and munitions in the Balkans known for his power to persuade. (A large bank balance helps with clients actual and potential.)  There is the ruthless Dan Gertler, who made a bundle in oil and mining deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Most of all, such an approach, combining sanctions with supposedly moral rectitude, seems mismatched.  This is a point that has riled Beijing in particular.  Gao Yan, director of the Beijing Public Security Bureau Chaoyang Branch, is singled out for his mistreatment of human rights activist Cao Shunli.  Cao’s tragic demise from organ failure whilst being detained at the bureau is grim, but hardly presents a case for US authorities to gloat.  The US record on its own prisoners is, by whatever standard, fairly atrocious.

The Chinese approach to the matter of human rights resembles a dodderer in search of a cane, a case of pure gradualism.  We will eventually make to the venue, but we will take time.  “We urge the United States,” came the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Hua Chunying, “to impartially and objectively look upon China’s human-rights development and to stop acting as a so-called human-rights judge.”  Do not, she suggested, use domestic jurisprudence to determine how best to sanction foreign nationals.

The Chinese record on human rights is bloodied and spotty, but the US has afforded ample ammunition to those keen on shifting the focus from Beijing to the ailing nature of the American Republic.

China’s State Council has been particularly florid on this score.  “With the gunshots lingering in people’s ears behind the Statue of Liberty, worsening racial discrimination and the election farce dominated by money politics, the self-proclaimed human rights defender has exposed its human rights ‘myth’ with its own deeds.”

A Trump White House is essentially the last thing compatible with a human rights agenda.  Its enthusiastic brown nosing with members of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, notably in terms of its own foreign policy forays, would make the most reserved of activists redden with fury.

Then come the domestic abuses that have become routine.  Be it Muslims, Mexicans or migrants in general, Trump has made such subjects the capital of political gain.  Denigration sits poorly with human rights protections, but the transactional nature of Trump’s policy will always evaluate such rights in the context of gain rather than actual value.

The one thing that gives cold comfort here is the transparency of such exercises. Trump has overturned a longstanding US hypocrisy on the subject of human rights, a form of weaponized hypocrisy that ignores its own failings.  “The United States,” went the council report, “repeatedly trampled on human rights in other countries and wilfully slaughtered innocent victims.” That’s what having a drone fleet is bound to do.

The true harm being done in such skirmishes is to human rights itself.  These actions, faux recriminations and fabricated moments of fury, testify to the essential irrelevance of human rights in the international system.  Power remains the currency that makes the relevant sounds, and this tailors well with President Trump’s real estate brutishness.

Then there is the necessity of appearance.  Slapping sanctions on the notorious and criminal gives the impression of progress, indignation via executive order.  Reports condemning the record of abuses of a country seek to stimulate domestic interest and satisfy the rights lobbies. In truth, Beijing and Washington have little appetite for moralising in substance.  There are deals to be done, and competition to be engaged in.

Let Yemenis Live

Kathy Kelly

On May 2, 2017, before becoming Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, as Minister of Defense, spoke about the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen, a war he orchestrated since March of 2015. “A long war is in our interest,” he said, explaining that the Houthi rebels would eventually run out of cash, lack external supplies and break apart. Conversely, the Saudis could count on a steady flow of cash and weapons. “Time is on our side,” he concluded.

Powerful people in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Senegal and Jordan have colluded with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince to prolong the war against Yemen. The Saudis have employed Sudanese fighters from the terrifying Janjaweed militias to fight in small cities along Yemen’s coast line. The seeming objective is to gain ground control leading to the vital Port of Hodeidah. UAE military are reported to operate a network of secret prisons where Yemenis disappear and are tortured, deterring people from speaking up about human rights violations lest they land in one of these dreaded prisons.

Among the most powerful warlords participating in the war are the U.S. and the UK.

Despite the recent publicity for stern words from Donald Trump and Theresa May, urging Saudi Arabia to lift its blockade of Yemen, both countries continue to pocket billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. President Trump swiftly condemned the Houthi fighters for firing several rockets at Saudi Arabia and the UAE. But the Houthis could claim to be using these weapons in self-defense after Saudi and UAE jets have dropped tons of bombs, purchased from the U.S. and the UK, on Yemeni cities and civilians. Observers say if the U.S. stopped its midair refueling of Saudi bomber planes, the war would end shortly thereafter. Yet, the U.S continues these military operations. The UK still supplies the Saudis with surveillance, and both countries work to maintain a comfortable relationship with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Just over 1,000 days of Saudi-led coalition war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen has been deadly and devastating for Yemeni civilians.

Mark Lowcock, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Yemen, says that 7 – 8 million Yemenis are one step away from starvation. The BBC reports that more than 80% of Yemenis lack food, fuel, water and access to health care.

The number of suspected cholera cases in Yemen has reached one million, according to the International Commission of the Red Cross.

1.8 million children in Yemen are acutely malnourished, including 400,000 under the age of five who suffer from severe acute malnutrition. Malnourished children are also at increased risk of dying from infectious diseases.

Like the children of Iraq who perished by the hundreds of thousands during U.S. led economic war against Iraq, these little ones in Yemen mean harm to no one. They’ve done nothing to deserve punishment. Yet, they will pay the price for abysmally failed policies. The food and clean water they hunger and thirst for could reach them, but not if powerful elites decide it’s acceptable to blockade Yemen’s ports, bomb roadways, destroy sewage and sanitation systems, attack fishermen and farmers, and even kill participants at a wedding celebration.

After dancing in Saudi Arabia with Mohammed bin Salman and other Saudi princes, President Trump set in motion a $110 billion-dollar weapons deal.

Boeing, Raytheon, and other military contractors already benefiting from this deal will likely agree with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman: a long war is in their best interests.

But, ordinary people who prefer not to be represented by vicious warlords and who face no risk of torture, disappearance or other frightening punishments (people like me for instance) have a responsibility to speak up visibly and clearly. Time is running out for the children of Yemen. The Crown Prince is mistaken. Any war, long or short, may seem to favor the perpetrators, but in the long run wars sow seeds of revenge, retaliation, hatred and death. Real courage requires control over our fears and mutual agreements to protect the most vulnerable among us. Especially the children.