27 Dec 2017

UK steps up provocations against Russia

Steve James & Chris Marsden

Christmas Day saw the frigate HMS St Albans shadow the Russian warship Admiral Gorshkov as it passed through the North Sea.
The BBC report dutifully cited the Royal Navy stating that the presence of the new guided-missile frigate, which is still undergoing sea trials, as being “activity in areas of national interest” and an example of a recent “upsurge in Russian units transiting UK waters.”
This was contradicted by the Royal Navy’s admission that the Admiral Gorshkov was in fact only “close to UK territorial waters” and the BBC’s own admission that Russian ships have used these international waters “regularly… in recent times to sail to and from the Mediterranean for deployment off Syria.”
This did not stop Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson striking a heroic pose, declaiming, “I will not hesitate in defending our waters or tolerate any form of aggression… Britain will never be intimidated when it comes to protecting our country, our people, and our national interests.”
The incident is only the latest example of the UK stepping up its propaganda campaign against Russia.
On the military front, this month saw leading figures in the British military, NATO, and their associated think tanks claiming, without evidence, that Russian naval forces are developing a capacity to sever undersea fibre optic cables.
Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshall Sir Stuart Peach, posed “a new risk to our way of life.”
“Can you imagine,” asked Peach, speaking to the Royal United Services Institute, “a scenario where those cables are cut or disrupted, which would immediately and potentially catastrophically affect both our economy and other ways of living?”
Conservative MP Rishi Sunak in a report, “Undersea Cables, Indispensable, Insecure,” from the Policy Exchange think tank banged the same drum.
A foreword by former NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, warned that the Atlantic Ocean was in transition “from being a theatre characterised by near complete NATO supremacy following the collapse of the Soviet Union to a space that Russia is actively contesting through a resurgent and revanchist naval doctrine.”
Sunak’s report underscores the modern world’s dependence on undersea fibre cables. Each cable consists of between 4 and 200 fibres protected by steel wire, insulation, armouring and plastic sheathing. Each fibre can carry up to 400GB of data per second. Ninety-seven percent of current global communications travel over 545,018 miles of cabling organised in 213 separate systems.
The main daily physical threat to the cabling network is the continual stress from the conditions in which they operate. Undersea landslides caused by the 2006 Hengchun earthquake, for example, knocked out six of seven undersea cables carrying phone and internet services between North America and much of South East Asia. Repairs took 11 ships nearly two months to complete, during which time the region's communications with North America travelled along the one remaining link. However, such is the nature of internet routing that should one route to a destination address be unavailable, others will be automatically sought and exploited. In 2012, for example, flooding in Manhattan data centres caused by Hurricane Sandy knocked out major network hubs, but the impact on global traffic was minimal.
Less dramatic outages happen all the time. Of all reported cable breaks between 1959 and 2006 as many as 44.4 percent have been attributed to fishing, while 21.3 percent are classed as unknown.
Even such cable breaks can have military consequences. In 2008, shipping in the Mediterranean accidentally cut three cables connecting Italy with Egypt, reducing 80 percent of bandwidth between Europe and the Middle East. The US military, which uses the commercial cable network for 95 percent of its strategic communications, was unable to operate many of the drones deployed against Iraq and Pakistan, so that flights were reduced from “hundreds of combat sorties per day” to “tens.”
Sunak nevertheless centred his attention on direct military risks, warning that cables can be cut under the sea, but cited no example of Russia doing so and only one undersea operation, involving the cutting of telegraph and telephone cables during the First World War—by the Royal Navy.
He naturally ignored the primary threat to the internet--the wholesale data harvesting operations mounted by US and British intelligence services as revealed by former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. As of 2014, British spy agencies could access data feeds from more than 18 submarine cables making landfall in Britain.
However, Sunak did refer to the US- and Israeli-devised Stuxnet worm which wrecked Iranian nuclear centrifuges, but only to suggest that similar software (by implication Russian) aimed at sabotaging control systems could undermine the network management of entire cable systems or regions. He neglected to draw the obvious inference: that the US is undoubtedly equipping itself with such capacities.
To reinforce his message, Sunak cited the limited revival of the Russian Navy, particularly its submarine fleet over the last decade and a half. The Putin government has, besides modernising its ballistic-missile-armed nuclear deterrent vessels, built a small number of relatively powerful attack submarines. It also has a spy vessel, the Yantar, which allegedly has been working to identify cable locations.
Even so, every single investigation of relative strengths places the US, with or without NATO assistance, as possessing numbers and capabilities well in advance of its cash-strapped Russian rival.
This did not prevent the holding of a tabletop exercise, “Forgotten Waters,” hosted by the Center for a New American Security think tank, which considered a war scenario in which American warships and troops were seeking to cross the Atlantic in large numbers to reinforce NATO forces in Europe in a major confrontation with Russia. The naval war gamers confronted, “Atlantic waters infested with Russian submarines, surface vessels, or aircraft that transited south” through the GIUK gap--the waters between Greenland, Iceland and the UK. They were also told that “an undersea cable between Iceland and Canada had been cut, creating a significant telecommunications disruption.”
The discovery of this new “Russian threat” should be seen alongside the hysterical and unsubstantiated accusations of Russian meddling in elections and plebiscites.
On December 22, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson visited Moscow for talks with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. The meeting saw a public clash over accusations made by Johnson and May of Russian political interference--including in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
May, in a November 17 foreign policy speech to the Lord Mayor’s banquet, accused the Putin regime of “deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photoshopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the west and undermine our institutions.”
Prior to departing for Moscow, Johnson described Russia as “closed, nasty, militaristic and anti-democratic,” and said it could not be “business as usual” in relations between the two countries.
Citing the alleged threat to undersea cables, Johnson added that the UK is “prepared and able” to launch retaliatory cyber-attacks, if hackers continued to target Western power stations and communication networks, subvert elections and spread fake news.
At a joint press conference with Johnson, Lavrov described relations between the UK and Russia as “at a low point,” before adding, “We hear some aggressive statements from London. Despite all that, we have never taken any aggressive measures to reciprocate.”
Lavrov publicly rejected accusations that Russia had interfered in Britain’s general election and Brexit referendum, to which Johnson replied, “Not successfully.”

Health care threatened for nine million low-income US children

Patrick Martin

State health officials throughout the United States are preparing for major cutbacks or outright shutdown of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The plans are going forward despite stopgap legislation enacted by Congress December 21 and signed into law by President Trump that supposedly averted an immediate collapse of CHIP, which provides health care coverage for nine million low-income children.
In Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia, state agencies sent out letters notifying families of children enrolled in CHIP that the program is likely to terminate January 31 without additional congressional action. The state of Alabama delayed its own shutdown—originally set to begin January 1—until the end of the month.
The legislation passed last week provides only a short-term patch to the program, funneling $2.85 billion into CHIP through March 31. This is entirely inadequate, since funding authorization expired September 30, at the end of the last fiscal year, and full annual funding would require $16 billion, or about $4 billion every three months. That means the $2.85 billion does not even cover spending for the October through December period, let alone the first three months of 2018.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which manages the allocation of CHIP funds to the states, has averted the program’s shutdown so far by shuffling funds from states with temporary surpluses to those which were imminently running out of cash. The imbalances between states are themselves a product of the patchwork character of CHIP, which is treated by some states as part of Medicaid, and by others as a free-standing program.
The redistribution of funds between states can only go so far, and ultimately has the effect of bringing forward a nationwide collapse of the entire program, since all states will now run out of funds more or less simultaneously. According to a report by Georgetown University released last week, 25 states will run out of funds during the month of January and six more during the month of February.
In those states where CHIP funding is exhausted, those children covered through Medicaid will remain covered, under a provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which requires that states maintain eligibility levels under Medicaid. But those children covered through CHIP as a separate program will be dropped.
According to the Georgetown study, the January cutoffs could affect nearly 2 million children, while another million children would be targeted in February. The largest statewide totals include 719,612 in Texas (February); and 424,976 in New York; 238,317 in Pennsylvania; 201,703 in Florida; 166,948 in Georgia; and 118,016 in California, all in January.
In some states, funding will dry up even before beneficiaries and providers can be properly notified, since IT systems that handle the payment of benefits have to be reprogrammed and web sites updated. Some states cannot meet the required 30 days of advance notice to families that their benefits are being terminated.
In some cases, states plan to dump families into the Obamacare exchanges, which, even if they can find an insurance plan, will cost much more. CHIP caps cost-sharing like deductibles and premiums at 5 percent of a family’s income, but there is no such ceiling on the cost of insurance on the exchanges.
The passage of a supposed temporary “fix” to the CHIP funding crisis that actually resolves nothing—and may bring forward the total collapse of the program—is an indictment of the congressional Democrats as well as the Republicans and the Trump White House.
The year-end continuing resolution required a 60-vote margin to pass the Senate, where the Republicans control only 52 votes, giving the Democratic caucus significant leverage in how to structure the legislation. On the two most salient issues—extension of CHIP and protection for immigrant children under DACA—the Democrats caved in and essentially did the bidding of the Republican majority.
Moreover, many of the state governments that are implementing the CHIP cuts, including three of the four states (Colorado, Connecticut and Virginia) that have recently sent off mass cutoff notifications, are under Democratic Party control. At the state level, both capitalist parties are pursuing austerity policies with a vengeance.
There are many additional cuts in health care coming in the New Year, some incorporated in the continuing resolution passed by the House and Senate to fund the federal government through January 19, others being enacted by state governments on their own authority, using the “flexibility” provided by executive order from the Trump administration.
* One provision takes $750 million out of the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for community health centers and other programs that would otherwise have been defunded, essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.
* Two measures that assist rural hospitals, the Medicare dependent hospital program and the low-volume adjustment program, also expired September 30 and were left out of the continuing resolution.
* The state of Arkansas is awaiting rubber-stamp approval by the federal Department of Health and Human Services of its request to reduce the qualifying income for Medicaid down to the official US poverty line. The effect would be to eliminate insurance coverage for about 60,000 people currently enrolled in the program in Arkansas, an action that Governor Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, said would “contain costs and eliminate waste.”
Meanwhile the growing need for health insurance coverage is reflected in the ongoing surge in enrollment into the Affordable Care Act health plans, including 9 million people so far during the federal open enrollment, despite it being shortened by several weeks in one of many Trump actions to sabotage Obamacare. Several million more are expected to sign up in state-run exchanges that have longer enrollment periods.
This increased enrollment—nearly matching last year’s total—does not express any popular enthusiasm for Obamacare, where premiums continue to rise and coverage networks shrink. Rather it reveals the growing desperation on the part of millions of people who have no other alternative, given the cutbacks in employer-based coverage and in other federal health insurance programs.

The US government and the Russian election

Andre Damon

Over the past year, the Democratic Party and leading American media outlets have been monomaniacally focused on unsubstantiated allegations that the 2016 US elections were undermined by Russian interference.
It is worth considering these claims as one assesses the response to the decision of Russian officials to block Alexei Navalny from participating in the upcoming presidential election. The move has been met with self-righteous denunciations in the American and international press. Newspapers have run articles lauding Navalny as an “anti-corruption crusader” and the “democratic” face of “popular opposition” to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Washington Post published an editorial condemning the move to bar Navalny. It declared that Navalny’s “real offenses were helping to lead opposition” to Putin’s “authoritarian” government and “bringing out tens of thousands of followers in cities across Russia this year to denounce the regime.”
The hypocrisy and cynicism here are breathtaking. While the alleged Russian “meddling” in the US elections consists of several tens of thousands of dollars in Facebook advertising, Navalny is almost entirely a creature of the US State Department.
A graduate of the Yale World Fellows Program, Navalny is listed on Yale’s website as a cofounder of the Democratic Alternative Movement, an organization shown in a leaked diplomatic cable to have received funding from the US government-backed National Endowment for Democracy, a fact it had concealed for “fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.”
The World Socialist Web Site gives no support to the Putin government’s crackdown on political opposition, but the posturing of the US press in defense of “human rights” and “democracy” is preposterous. The United States, the most unequal and undemocratic developed country in the world, the leading force for war and dictatorship worldwide, is in no position to lecture others about “democracy.”
There is no other country that intervenes in the political affairs of foreign states so directly, regularly and shamelessly as the United States. American foreign policy is one massive intervention in the politics of other countries, running the gamut from propaganda, destabilization, financing of opposition parties, electoral fraud and coups to military bombardment and occupation, all of which taken together have killed more people than any government since Nazi Germany.
Professor Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University has assembled a database documenting as many as 81 occasions between 1946 and 2000 when Washington interfered in elections in other countries. This number does not include military coups or regime-change operations following the election of candidates the US opposed, as in Iran, Congo, Guatemala, Chile and many other nations.
The intervention of the US government and President Bill Clinton personally to secure the reelection of Boris Yeltsin in the 1996 Russian election was so brazen that Time magazine featured on its July 15, 1996 cover a caricature of Yeltsin holding an American flag, accompanied by the headline “Yanks to the Rescue.”
For its part, the US electoral system—with the vast influence exerted by billionaires and corporations and the maze of antidemocratic rules that impose huge hurdles for third-party candidates—blocks the overwhelming majority of the US population from having their voices heard.
Reporting on his visit to the United States this month, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights declared, “There is no other developed country where so many voters are disenfranchised…and where ordinary voters ultimately have so little impact on political outcomes.”
Despite substantial evidence that the entire Navalny campaign represents an effort by the US intelligence agencies to intervene in Russian politics, the US press has found a way to tie Putin’s moves against Navalny to the claim that the Kremlin is subverting American democracy.
“Even as he outlaws political competition in Russia, Mr. Putin continues to oversee attempts to undermine and tilt elections in the West,” wrote the Washington Post in its editorial. “For him, democratic contests are a vulnerability, to be avoided at home and exploited abroad. In that sense, Western governments and Russia’s democrats have a common cause in countering Mr. Putin.”
According to the intelligence agencies for which the Post is a mouthpiece, the Russian government sought to intervene in the US election by promoting third-party candidates. Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced that it is investigating Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 presidential candidate, on the grounds that her campaign received coverage on RT, the Russian-based TV network. This can be seen as nothing other than an effort to intimidate third parties and their supporters.
Through an incredible sleight of hand, the Post denounces the suppression of a third-party candidate in Russia while legitimizing efforts to brand supporters of the Green Party in the United States as traitors.
There is another problem with the official presentation of Navalny as the voice of popular opposition to the Russian oligarchy—the fact that he is a right-wing extremist who enjoys only marginal support among the Russian electorate.
While masking his right-wing politics behind the catchall of opposition to corruption, Navalny has a long history of extreme nationalism, connections to neo-Nazi groups, and the promotion of racist conceptions. In one YouTube video, he compares minorities within Russia to “cockroaches,” adding that while cockroaches can be killed with a slipper, for humans he recommends a pistol. During the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, Navalny repeatedly called Georgians “rodents” and demanded the eviction of all Georgians from Russia.
Writing in Salon, Danielle Ryan noted that while the US-aligned press hails Navalny as a hero, “What is reported less often about Navalny are his nationalist leanings, ties to neo-Nazi groups, xenophobic comments and extreme anti-immigrant views. References to Navalny’s nationalism in the West are usually buried or brushed off, while the headlines sing his praises.”
The State Department’s money is indeed backed up by overwhelmingly uncritical support in the US and international press. The New York Times has published 387 articles referencing Navalny, the Washington Post has published 344 and the Financial Times has run 299.
Despite the international coverage his campaign receives, and broad popular hostility to social inequality, which is almost as high in Russia as it is in the United States, Navalny has the support of just two percent of the electorate, according to a recent independent poll.
The political conflict between Putin and Navalny ultimately represents a struggle within the Russian kleptocracy, into which the United States is forcefully intervening. It is up to the working class of Russia to sweep away Putin and the oligarchy for which he speaks, not the US State Department and intelligence agencies.

Election Year in Pakistan: Key Dynamics and Prospects

Rana Banerji


Despite several hiccups, on 19 December, the Senate of Pakistan passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2017 - resulting in the amendment to Article 51 (5) of the Pakistani constitution - which will enable elections to the National Assembly (NA) to be held on the basis of the 2017 provisional census results. 

Under the newly demarcated constituencies, of the 342 NA seats, Punjab will have 141 General seats and 33 Women seats (7 General and 2 Women seats fewer); Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will have 39 General and 9 Women seats (4 General and 1 Women seat added); Baluchistan will have 16 General and 4 Women seats (2 General and 1 Women seat added); and the Federal Capital Area will have 3 General seats (1 General seat added). The existing 61 General and 14 Women seats in Sindh and 12 General seats in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) remain unchanged. The term of the present parliament ends on 31 May 2018. After the Election Commission implements these changes, elections could be held, after Ramadan, sometime in mid-August 2018.

Coincidentally (?), Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Gen Bajwa addressed Senators a few hours earlier on the same day. This `in-camera’ briefing, leaked soon enough to media, laid to rest speculation about a government of technocrats prematurely replacing Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s team. It did not dispel persisting doubts about the Army’s interventionist clout, which re-emerged after photographs of the Director General (DG) Punjab Rangers, Maj Gen Azhar Naveed Hayat Khan, distributing cheques to Tehreek Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLYR) volunteers went viral on social media on 07 Dec 2017.

This could be tested afresh in January 2018 when Pakistan Awami Tehrik (PAT) leader, Tahir-ul-Qadri resumes street agitation, asking for the sacking of Punjab Law Minister, Rana Sanaullah, as a price for the heavy handed police action during the August 2014 demonstration in Model Town, Lahore. The Justice Baqar Najfi judicial enquiry findings, which were made public on 5 December 2017, places the already beleaguered Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML(N)) regime on a weak wicket in this regard. How it counters this agitation may impinge on the prospects of Shahbaz Sharif's prime ministerial candidacy.

Senate Elections
The next important landmark would be the Senate elections, scheduled for 2 March 2018. This poll would enhance the PML (N)'s strength, though not by enough to give it two-thirds majority. At present, the 104-member Upper House has 27 PML (N) Senators; 26 Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Senators; and 7 Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senators. After the election, PML (N) will have 37 seats, PPP, 16; and PTI, 13.

Caretaker Governments
As per the 20th constitutional amendment passed in February 2012, caretaker governments have to be formed to conduct free and fair elections at the national and provincial levels. These are to be chosen through a consultative process between legislators of the ruling party and the opposition under Article 224A of Pakistan's constitution. Though some wrangling on names can occur, fear of the Army’s `Damocles sword’ will possibly ensure that consensus is reached soon enough. This time, PTI Chief Imran Khan may try to get a toe-hold in, to get one or two `Caretakers’ of his choice in the interim set ups in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, also at the national level.

The elections may see a fragmentation of the right of centre vote bank, especially in Punjab, between the PML (N), PTI and the new mainstream contenders of the Islamic parties – Hafiz Saeed's Milli Muslim League (MML) and the Barelvi factions of the TLYR and Mumtaz Qadri adherents, some possibly in the garb of Independents. The PPP and Mohajirs may hold on, respectively, to their bastions in rural and urban Sindh, though the latter may be split into various contending factions. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa may see how Imran Khan’s party copes with the twin threats of anti- incumbency and a rival ganging up of right radical Islamists led by Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (F)'s (JUI-F) Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman. The FATA merger issue could be a thorn in several throats.

Presently, there is much speculation in the Pakistani media about possible `course corrections’ which a defensive Army leadership makes to cope with the mainstreaming of Islamists. A `divided’ judiciary is seen trying to ameliorate injured civil society sentiment about the biased handling of the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif and the lease of life given to Imran Khan. Though Nawaz Sharif’s charisma and `victim’ narrative remains the prime `vote-catcher’ for PML(N), Imran has not done anything too controversial since his `disqualification survival’ and currently, seems slightly ahead of Shahbaz Sharif in the prime ministerial race.

Role of the Army
Gen Bajwa seems well in control now of his collegiate leadership group. 2018 will see retirements of only five lieutenant generals in October. These vacancies may enable slotting of some aspirants as corps commanders. How the Army manages to balance or control emerging political equations will be of greater interest. Overall, it may be content to let political permutations evolve as long as a democratic facade is maintained and the new political leadership at the centre does not question its control of security, neighbourhood and nuclear policy.

Indo-Pak Relations
On relations with India, much will depend on the International Court of Justice’s verdict in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. Pakistan’s latest going back on assurances on how to treat his mother and wife does not provide any ground for optimism. Neither should one expect any change of heart on the Mumbai 26/11 terror accused trials or generally, in how the Army keeps cocooning favoured `non-State’ actors.

26 Dec 2017

“Xi the Dictator:” a Myth Born of Ignorance and Prejudice

THOMAS HON WING POLIN

The buzz from Western media had started years ago. It reached a crescendo recently with China’s 19th Communist Party Congress, which approved a second term for Xi Jinping as national leader.
The chatter has been fulsome about how Xi is now China’s most powerful leader since Mao and Deng, or even Mao outright. He had prevailed in the customary power struggles and grabbed authority from rivals, goes the narrative. The latest coinage is “Xiconomics,” suggesting he has taken over China’s economic helmsmanship as well. A persistent undertone has been innuendoes recalling the dangers of dictatorship, overconcentration and abuse of authority, repression, etc, etc.
That Western narrative is but another demonstration of the ignorance and prejudice its creators have long held towards China. To understand Xi Jinping’s position, it is necessary to take a closer look at what Chinese governance is today, and how it got there.
Today’s China is a genuine collective leadership, and a meritocracy. These two defining characteristics began to take shape during the Deng Xiaoping era. For Deng and his reformer comrades, the devastating excesses of the Mao period made it crystal-clear that unchecked power at the top was highly hazardous to the nation’s health. Deng forbade anything hinting at a personality cult around himself. In any case, the presence of other first-generation revolutionaries — like Chen Yun and Li Xiannian — meant Beijing no longer had one-man rule.
Early in the post-Deng era, China settled into a system whereby the Communist Party head shared authority with colleagues in the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC). They began to institutionalize today’s mature meritocracy, resurrecting the imperial-examinations ideal of ability as the ultimate measure of suitability for high office. In the 21st century, that has meant experience and achievements in governance. The result: a senior party and government leadership with far richer, more impressive track records than is possible among counterparts in any democracy.
With 85 million members, the Communist Party itself is larger than most nations on Earth. The “one-party dictatorship” of ignorant Western fantasy is actually a collection of many factions, with diverse interests, under a single roof. Differences among the factions are greater and notably more meaningful than those among, say, the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States. Intra-CPC debates on policy are frequent and vigorous. In the end, unresolved issues are settled by the PSC.
The best governance brains of the nation debate and decide the best governance policies for the nation. So it’s no accident that in recent decades, China has accomplished what is increasingly recognized as the greatest uplift in human welfare in all history.
It is this governing mechanism that decided, about a decade ago, that Xi Jinping was the best person to lead China into the next phase of its momentous comeback from a historical nadir. Contrary to Western mythology and obsession, Xi did not “struggle” for or “seize” power on his way to the top. It was the Chinese meritocracy, evolved over several generations, that decided to put him there, after he came through its screening systems with flying colors.
The meritocracy chose Xi to tackle an immensely difficult task. His brief is two-pronged: resolving the awesome problems accumulated from decades of rapid reform (rampant corruption, lax military discipline, intensifying hostility from the US Empire, etc), and taking China’s development to the next level. And to ensure he stood a chance, the collective leadership vested him with the most authority since Deng Xiaoping.
Next time you hear about Xi the dictator or Xi the power-grabber, keep all this in mind.

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. 

25 Dec 2017

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.
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.