UK Prime Minister May calls for fight to “defeat socialism”

Julie Hyland

Prime Minister Theresa May pledged a renewed fight to “defeat socialism” before an audience of ultra-wealthy donors last week at the Conservative Party’s annual fundraising dinner.

Those arriving in chauffeur-driven Rolls Royces, Bentleys and Jaguars at the Black and White Ball, held in the Natural History Museum in London, paid £15,000 to get through the door.

Once inside, the multi-millionaires and billionaires were wined and dined in luxury, while competing for prizes that included the personal attention of the prime minister and leading members of her cabinet.

A day with May secured a winning bid of £55,000 from one unnamed donor. Dinner with Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, in the Churchill War Rooms in Westminster fetched £30,000 and a home-cooked dinner with Environment Secretary Michael Gove and his wife, Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine, a distressingly low £12,500.

Smaller lots include a £1,000 gift voucher and private shopping experience at the prime minister’s favourite designer store Fluidity (although it admittedly will not buy much), and an original Labour isn’t Working 1979 campaign poster signed by Margaret Thatcher.

Bitter inner-party divisions that have seen May threatened with a leadership challenge were set aside for the evening. Leading advocates of a hard-Brexit lining up as possible replacements for May, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, rubbed shoulders with Chancellor Philip Hammond, whose suggestion that the British government should minimise trade disruption with the European Union (EU) on exit led to demands for his head.

May thanked the party’s super-rich financiers for not being “fair-weather friends” as she pledged “to protect and promote the interests of British businesses trading in Europe, and EU businesses trading here,” following Brexit.

“We will raise our horizons beyond our near neighbours across the Pacific and Atlantic oceans to nations far and wide to broaden and deepen our trade and security relationships across the world,” she said.

Her paean to post-Brexit Britain’s glowing future stood in stark contrast to her presentation of global capitalism in grave peril:

“Around the world, we see a rise of populism, nationalism and protectionism. We see the great positive forces of free trade, economic liberalism and the rules-based order which sustains them under threat.”

There was no reference to the leading source of this instability in the shattering of the “rules-based order”—US imperialism—nor to the “terror threat”, which for almost two decades has been presented as the gravest challenge to British and international security.

Instead, almost 40 years after Thatcher vowed to “roll back the tide of socialism,” and more than 25 years since the liquidation of the Soviet Union was given as definitive proof of the triumph of capitalism, May declared the task at hand was a “renewed mission … to defeat socialism today as we have defeated it before.”

What accounts for this extraordinary statement?

May’s remarks were framed in opposition to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who she attacked for “exploiting populist politics.” Asking rhetorically what Labour “offered” the UK, she replied, “Massive renationalisation. Capital flight. A run on the pound. That all leads to a bankrupt Britain.”

In truth it is the neo-liberal policies championed by Thatcher and deepened by her admirers in Tony Blair’s New Labour that have bankrupted Britain. After the criminal, anti-social activities of the financial speculators brought the economy to the brink of collapse in 2008, the resulting crisis was seized on by the powers-that-be to deepen their social counter-revolution against working people.

Welfare, health care, education and other vital provision have been gutted or privatised, so that millions can be left without jobs and any social support overnight. The last weeks alone have seen the collapse of Carillion, a major government contractor, jeopardising workers’ livelihoods and essential services. But worse is to follow. Every day the menace of a Third World War looms nearer.

In contrast, according to the Tory Spectator magazine, “Since the crash, the amount of wealth in Britain has risen by more than £4 trillion—almost half of which has accrued to the richest 10 percent of households. The prices of the assets typically owned by the ultra-rich has risen even faster. Vintage Ferraris have quadrupled in price, as have similar collectibles. This is the magic of quantitative easing: Bank of England figures suggest that it has increased the assets of the richest households by £125,000 while reducing the lot of the poorest by £300.”

The criminal consequence of this social plunder is horrifically displayed less than three miles away from the venue of the Tory Ball. Grenfell Tower, where at least 71 people died last June, lies in the same Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—Britain’s wealthiest—as the Natural History Museum. Yet the two locales may as well be worlds apart. The tower’s burned out husk stands as a terrible symbol of social inequality and the contempt and indifference of the ruling elite for working people whose lives count for nothing.

Last week, Vietnamese-born Anh Nhu Nguyen was imprisoned for 21 months for falsely claiming that his wife and son had died in the Tower and claiming £12,500 in aid. Nguyen has a history of mental illness and a string of convictions. Yet none of those responsible for the fact that the Tower was enveloped in highly combustible material as a means of saving money have even been questioned, let alone charged. Eight months on, many of those affected and made homeless by the fire remain in temporary accommodation.

The bourgeoisie is aware of the massive and growing anger over these conditions. May referenced Corbyn as a representative of this developing social explosion. But the Labour leader is only a symptom—and an especially insipid one at that—not the cause.

A report by the right-wing Tory think tank, the Legatum Institute, in September found that voters wanted the “government to take a more socialist approach to economic policy by renationalising railways and utilities, while creating a wage cap for top earners…”

Some 83 percent of British voters would prefer public ownership of water companies over privatisation, 77 percent wanted the renationalisation of the electricity and gas companies and 76 percent favoured the renationalisation of the railways, it reported. Such left-wing sentiments find only a pale reflection in Corbyn’s cautious call, in response to the massive crisis in public services, to create a “mixed economy” fit for “the 21st century.”

As the Spectator itself commented on the contrasting fortunes of the super-rich and working people, “The craziness explains why 1970s-style socialism is making a comeback. It is a perfectly logical form of protest against an economy that has indeed been rigged in favour of those at the top.”

What are the implications of this state of affairs? This year is the bicentenary of the birth of Karl Marx. As David North wrote in the statement marking the anniversary, “The modern capitalist ruling elites have themselves become an absolute impediment to the progressive development of human society. The growth of their personal wealth has acquired a grimly metastatic character, which provokes popular revolution and portends the downfall of the system.”

May’s anti-socialist message was aimed at quickening the pulses of her ultra-rich audience, but it is one that feels itself under siege. They know the tide is turning and fear above all else that hostility to capitalism and growing sympathy for socialism portends an “immense intensification of social tensions and an escalation of class conflict around the world,” and with it their downfall.

French President Macron calls for the draft and threatens strikes on Syria

Alex Lantier 

On Tuesday night, at a meeting of the French presidential press association, Emmanuel Macron called for a return of the draft and threatened possible air strikes in Syria, a former French colony. Coming only days after a US bombing killed dozens of Russian military contractors in Syria and Israel struck targets in Syria, this constitutes an unambiguous warning of the danger of world war.

It also exposes the character of the German-French axis that Macron is trying to assemble with a potential “Grand Coalition” government between conservatives and social democrats in Berlin. It aims to convert Europe into an aggressive militarist bloc, sending youth to kill or be killed in imperialist wars involving all the major world powers.

“I want obligatory service, open to women and to men, [that provides] an insight into military matters,” Macron declared, repeating a campaign pledge made last year to return to the draft. He added that the length of service could be “between three to six months, but that is not yet fixed.”

As he did when first calling for the draft during his 2017 presidential campaign, Macron cynically tried to downplay its significance, claiming that the draft could have a “civic” component. That is, conscripted youth might also end up patrolling cities in France, as soldiers did during the recent, two-year state of emergency. However, Macron himself admitted in his 2017 speech on the draft that it is also in preparation for major wars, saying: “We have entered an epoch in international relations where war is again a possible outcome of politics.”

On Tuesday night, Macron said he was ready to launch air strikes on Syria, as the media whipped up a campaign around unsubstantiated US allegations that the Syrian government used chlorine gas. A campaign had erupted in the French press accusing Macron of forgetting the “red line” he set in his UN speech last September, pledging to attack Syria if France or its allies declare that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the ongoing NATO war in the country.

“If [France] has reliable evidence that banned chemical weapons are being used against civilians, we will strike,” he said. “We will strike the places where these weapons are being used and where their use is organized. The red line will be respected.”

Macron added that he was in close contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to send warnings and threats to the Syrian regime. “I repeated this to President Putin, asking him to be very clear with the Syrian regime, which has reaffirmed that it is not using chemical weapons. … But we are watching it,” Macron said, adding: “As soon as the proof is established, I will do what I said.”

Should Macron launch these strikes, this would be an unprovoked act of war by France against its former colony, abetted by the other NATO powers, threatening to provoke war with Russia. The attempt to justify it based on unverified US allegations of poison gas use stinks of a provocation. Previous such claims, including poison gas attacks in Ghouta in 2013 and Khan Shaykhun in 2017, proved to be provocations, where NATO-backed Islamist militias staged gas attacks that they blamed on the regime in order to provide a pretext for NATO attacks on Syria.

This follows German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen’s trip to Iraq last weekend to announce an escalation of the German military presence there, and the publication last week of the program of a proposed “Grand Coalition” government in Berlin.

A key plank of the program is collaboration with France on trade, military and Middle East policy. Von der Leyen and her French counterpart, Florence Parly, are set to jointly open the Munich Security Conference this weekend, in a show of Franco-German military unity.

Macron’s discussion of an attack on Syria underscores that the Berlin-Paris axis is preparing a vast expansion of European military aggression, with explosive global consequences. Over the 25 years since the Stalinist regime dissolved the USSR, removing the main military counterweight to imperialist war, US imperialism has consistently sought to counterbalance its growing economic weakness by resorting to war and the use of its military advantages.

This culminated in the unveiling last month of a US National Defense Strategy that brands Russia and China, both major nuclear-armed powers, as Washington’s principal enemies.

Over the same period, Paris has pursued an ever more bellicose foreign policy. Besides fighting wars in its former African colonial empire, it repeatedly joined US-led wars--in 1991 against Iraq, in 2001 in Afghanistan, and the 2011 wars in Libya and then Syria--despite clashing with Washington over its 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Macron, it is stepping up this offensive, while handing over billions of euros in tax cuts to the rich and financing these reactionary policies with deep social cuts aimed at the working class.

What is emerging is an explosive political collapse of the world capitalist system that threatens workers across Europe and the world with catastrophic consequences. It involves not only NATO conflicts with Russia and China, but the eruption of barely concealed differences between the NATO powers, which fought world wars between rival alliances twice in the 20th century.

Macron’s remarks Tuesday night pointed in particular to significant differences emerging between Washington and the Berlin-Paris axis over Russia and the Middle East.

Firstly, despite his bellicose threats against Syria, Macron ruled out an immediate strike and indicated his distrust of US allegations of Syrian poison gas use. “But today we do not have proof, established by our intelligence services, that chemical weapons banned by treaty have been used against civilian populations,” he said.

This begs the question of why Macron reacted to these unverified allegations, which he himself apparently does not trust, by threatening to bomb Syria.

Secondly, according to the business daily Les Echos, Macron called for dealing with the Syrian war by developing closer ties with Russia and opening “a dialog with the three member states of the ‘Astana process,’ that is, Iran, Turkey, and Russia.” This seems to place Macron on a very different course than the US National Defense Strategy and the US bombing of Russian contractors in Syria. It followed Macron’s cordial February 9 phone call with Putin, in which he also called for stepped-up trade and political collaboration with the Kremlin.

According to an Elysée palace communiqué, during this phone call, Macron congratulated Putin on “the dynamic of our bilateral relations since the Versailles meeting on May 29,” and noted that, “Our political exchanges are regular and ongoing.” It also hailed the ongoing development of relations between French and Russian “economic and cultural forces, thinkers and youth.”

Finally, Macron hailed the “permanent dialog” now ongoing between France and Turkey, who Macron said earlier this month had “reassured” him about its invasion of Syria to attack Kurdish forces. By contrast, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrived yesterday for crisis talks in Turkey, whose Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu warned that its alliance with Washington could “break completely” over US support for Kurdish forces in Syria

These European-American differences again erupted into the open around yesterday’s NATO defense ministers’ summit in Brussels. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that it would be “absolutely without any meaning if NATO and the EU start to compete.”

US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison warned of a potential break-up of military relations between the United States and Europe over plans led by Berlin and Paris for European military cooperation. She said, “Certainly we do not want this to be a protectionist vehicle for the EU and we’re going to watch carefully because if that becomes the case then it could splinter the strong security alliance that we have. We want the Europeans to have capabilities and strength but not to fence off American products or Norwegian products or potentially UK products.”

Thousands to be sacked at GM factory in South Korea

Ben McGrath 

General Motors announced Tuesday that it would shut down one of its four auto factories in South Korea by the end of May. More than 2,000 workers are set to be laid off from the plant in Gunsan, North Jeolla Province and the closure would have a devastating impact on jobs throughout the city. The company’s move marks an intensification of the assault, not only on autoworkers in South Korea, but internationally.

GM, which employees 15,663 South Korean workers through its affiliate GM Korea, is using the plant closure and the threat of a complete exit from the country to win financial concessions from the South Korean government and drive down wages. The company pointed to high labor costs, along with falling sales, as the reasons for its decision. GM CEO Mary Barra foreshadowed the closure last week when she said GM Korea had to be “viable.”

The company is now in talks with the government and the Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU), which represents autoworkers at companies like GM Korea, Hyundai and Kia. GM president Dan Ammann issued a veiled warning to workers to accept the auto producer’s demands, saying: “Time is short and everyone must move with urgency.” The company expects acquiescence before the end of February, when product allocation decisions are made.

While the company’s specific demands have not been made public, GM is calling for additional financial support from the state-run Korean Development Bank, which owns 17 percent of GM Korea. GM, headquartered in Detroit, owns 77 percent, while the remaining 6 percent is owned by the Shanghai-based SAIC Motor Corporation.

Seoul is questioning GM’s rationale and is considering looking into GM Korea’s business practices. GM may have pocketed as much as three trillion won ($2.78 billion) from its Korean affiliate through underhanded means since acquiring the company in 2002. This includes 462 billion won ($431 million) in interest on loans from 2013 to 2016, with the company charging rates higher than the commercial average. Some of the funds supposedly went to research and development.

Lee Hang-koo, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade, refuted GM’s explanation, saying: “The R&D costs were too high given the number of new cars released here. Based on strategic bookkeeping, GM took all the money from GM Korea and now is asking for money from the Korean government.”

The supposedly “militant” Korean Metal Workers Union is stepping in to ensure workers’ anger is directed into safe channels for the government and company. The union denounced GM’s decision as “unilateral.” Senior KMWU official Dang Sung-geun said: “We can’t accept this. The company informed us about the closure plan, not asking for our opinion. It was already the end of the discussions.”

In other words, the KMWU is upset that it was not directly involved in the slashing of wages and factory conditions so that it could sell the decision to its membership more easily.

Adding insult to injury, GM’s decision was announced a few days before the Lunar New Year, a major holiday in Korea, in an attempt to forestall industrial action.

The Gunsan branch of the KMWU held a protest at the factory after the closure was announced. But aside from empty posturing, the union bureaucrats will do nothing to defend workers’ jobs. Kim Jae-hong, who leads the branch, said at the protest: “Let’s protect our right to live on our own.” This indicates that the protest would not be expanded outside the plant.

In fact, the KMWU has been involved with the job cuts at Gunsan from the beginning. In early 2014, when GM Korea announced it would lay off an entire shift comprising 1,100 workers, a union official told the media: “Job cuts are inevitable because of reduced production. We will settle the situation through negotiations.” The following year, the KMWU sanctioned the shift’s elimination, promising workers would be relocated. Instead, hundreds were sacked.

The KMWU’s refusal to defend Gunsan workers and oppose the company’s demands has paved the way for this latest round of firings. There has been no attempt to unite workers at the soon-to-be-shuttered factory with GM workers at the other three GM plants in South Korea, let alone with workers at other companies like Hyundai or the broader international working class.

At best, the KMWU will stage a few partial strikes and token protests to let off steam, while limiting the impact on the company. The union will then enforce speedups after the strikes are over to make up for lost production.

The closure will have a significant impact on the city of Gunsan. “Gunsan worked really hard to rescue GM, buying GM cars produced from the factory,” city council chairwoman Park Chung-hi told Reuters. “The whole town is now in panic.” She added that one in five city residents among a population of 280,000 were reliant in some way on GM Korea’s factory.

In the US, President Donald Trump claimed, during a trade-related meeting, that GM was bringing jobs back to the United States. He also attacked the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. Trump called for retaliatory taxes on goods such as steel, which would have a negative impact on South Korea, declaring: “Countries are taking advantage of us.” He lashed out at South Korea and Japan specifically, accusing them of not paying enough to host the US military, a further sign of the growing tensions with nominal allies.

As militarism and economic instability on the Korean Peninsula and the region grows, workers and youth in the United States, South Korea and throughout Asia are increasingly coming into conflict with multinational corporations and governments. Unions like the KMWU or the United Auto Workers in the United States are striving to subordinate their members to the demands of big business. What is required is a unified struggle of workers in South Korea and internationally on socialist principles to defend jobs and living standards. This will require a political break from all the defenders of capitalism, including the trade unions.

South China Sea: Unmanned Vessels and Future Operations

Vijay Sakhuja

Two recent developments in the domain of disruptive technologies have invited the attention of naval planners and the strategic community. These relate to US and Chinese investments in unmanned vessels that can shape future naval operations as also impact security dynamics in the South China Sea (SCS).

First, the US Navy inducted an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) designated as Sea Hunter-I. Developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the vessel is designed to conduct "missions spanning thousands of kilometers of range and months of endurance under a sparse remote supervisory control model" and also be compliant with "maritime laws and conventions for safe navigation, autonomous system management for operational reliability, and autonomous interactions with an intelligent adversary."

Although the potential roles for the Sea Hunter-I have not been made public, its multi-payload capability has been tested during trials. In 2016, it towed a parakite "packed with communications equipment from a parachute connected to a vessel" called Towed  Airborne Lift of Naval Systems (TALONS), and in 2017 it was put to mine-countermeasure trials. The US Navy has now placed an order with DARPA for Sea Hunter-II, and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has begun to explore new uses for the platform.

Second, China has begun work on the world’s biggest test facility for unmanned vessels in waters around Zhuhai, which is a gateway to SCS. The test site designated as Wanshan Marine Test Field, covering an area of 771.6 sq km, will be developed in phases - however, in the first phase, only 22 sq km will be available for trials. The announcement of this test facility comes close on the heels of successful trials in January 2018 of the Huster-68, a 6.8-metre unmanned vessel developed by Shenzhen Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

Similarly, in December 2017, Beijing Sifang Automation (Sifang), a research and manufacturing company, announced that it was ready to commence production of its SeaFly unmanned surface vessel (USV). The 4.5-tonne SeaFly-01 can carry a payload of 1.5 ton comprising a variety of electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) imagers and other electronic support measure (ESM) sensors. Interestingly, it can also be "equipped with a retractable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) launch and recovery system, which enables the SeaFly to function as a ‘mothership’ for small vertical take-off and landing UAVs." Another interesting feature of the SeaFly is its line of sight control for up to 50 km using a "shore-based mobile or fixed command-and-control (C2) centre, while beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) control is supported by the indigenous BeiDou satellite navigation system as well as satellite communication (SATCOM) equipment."

Meanwhile, during the All China Maritime Conference and Exhibition in Shanghai in December 2017, a Chinese developer of unmanned vessels unveiled a 7.5 ton unmanned vessel - Tianxing-1 - and claimed it to be the fastest unmanned vessel with a speed of 50 knots. Further, the vessel can be put to operations for maritime law enforcement and support naval operations.

These developments clearly demonstrate that unmanned platforms offer new capabilities for operations at sea, and in the case of the US’ Sea Hunter, it offers enormous payload flexibility for a variety of potential missions including anti-submarine warfare and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) duties, thus expanding the range, flexibility and effectiveness of the US Navy's operational capability. According to DARPA, “ACTUV represents a new vision of naval surface warfare that trades small numbers of very capable, high-value assets for large numbers of commoditized, simpler platforms that are more capable in the aggregate.”

The Chinese high speed Huster-68 can be an effective platform for maritime law enforcement duties without putting personnel at risk and can also be creatively put to use for ISR duties. Although the SeaFly unmanned surface vessel (USV) boasts of a number of unique features such as launch and recovery of UAVs, it remains to be seen how it performs at sea, where the operating environment is much more severe. Further, its small size precludes sustained operations and it has to remain close to the ‘mother ship’ for  recovery, unlike the US’ Sea Hunter-I which is a prototype for "an entirely new class of ocean-going vessel—one able to traverse thousands of kilometers over the open seas for months at a time, without a single crew member aboard."

It is fair to argue that these technology demonstrations signal, at three levels, the unfolding of a new naval competition between the US and China. First, at the technological level, China is pitted against the US’ technological superiority and is attempting a ‘catch up’ given that at present it cannot neutralise the US' scientific advantage despite its unprecedented investments in building disruptive technologies.

Second, the US has chosen to develop large size unmanned vessels that can stay at sea for longer durations whereas the Chinese prefer smaller USVs, clearly suggesting their intention to use these in swarm configurations.  

Finally, at the level of freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in SCS, it is plausible that the US may prefer to deploy unmanned naval platforms both as an alternative or as complementary to the guided-missile destroyers and shallow draft trimaran Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) deployed for countering China’s excessive and expansive maritime claims. This scenario poses new challenge for both the US Navy and the PLA Navy to operate and respond to unmanned naval operations by either side.

Queen’s Young Leaders Mentoring Programme 2018

Application Deadline: 18th February 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Commonwealth countries

About the Award: As a mentor on the mentors Queen’s Young Leaders Mentoring Programme, you will be connected to a unique global network of experts in enterprise, investment, education, development and more. Mentors also get a free coaching course provided by the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Continuing Education.
This voluntary role is an opportunity to give a helping hand to the next generation of young leaders from across the Commonwealth.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

• Commitment to Commonwealth values – equality, diversity, sustainability, democracy, community, universalism
• Significant relevant experience
• The ability to complete mentor orientation and an end-of-programme review
• Regular reporting to the University of Cambridge following interaction with your mentee – while respecting confidentiality.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme:  Successful candidates will be connected to a unique network of Commonwealth-based mentors with significant expertise.
Personal mentors are offered free training on specified University of Cambridge online coaching courses and receive a letter of recognition from the Queen’s Young Leaders partners – the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, Comic Relief, the Royal Commonwealth Society and the University of Cambridge.

Duration of Programme: Mentoring takes place between June and December each year.

How to Apply:Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Cambridge

Fulbright African Research Scholar Program (ARSP) for African Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 1st June, 2018

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Two categories of grants are offered in the ARSP:  research grants and program and curriculum development grants.

Research Grants: Awards of 3 to 9 months are offered for selected university faculty professionals to conduct research in any academic discipline at a U.S. academic or research institution.  Preference will be given to individuals with a doctorate degree, at least three years of university teaching experience, a productive scholarly record, and whose projects relate directly to their ongoing teaching and/or research responsibilities.

Program and Curriculum Development Grants: Awards of 3 to 5 months are offered for qualified university faculty to conduct research in any academic discipline at a U.S. academic or research institution.  Proposals should be linked to professional duties and demonstrate how the scholar will use the knowledge gained to develop new courses, curricula, or programs at the home institution.

HIV/AIDS: includes a special set of grants for scholars with proposals in HIV/AIDS-related research. Scholars in all academic disciplines are invited to formulate proposals with an HIV/AIDS focus.  Candidates may apply either as research scholars or as program and curriculum development scholars.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

1. An intended applicant must be a citizen of Nigeria or a permanent resident, and should hold a valid passport issued from the country in which the application is made.
2. In addition, applicants must have at least three (3) years of post-doctoral degree training or teaching experience at the time of application.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grants: Fully-funded
Grants are not for the principal purpose of:

• Attending conferences
• Completing doctoral dissertations
• Travel and consultation at multiple institutions, or
• Clinical medical research involving patient contact

How to Apply: The application is accessible here.
Application instructions are available here. 

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Fulbright Commission.

Segal Family Foundation African Visionary Fellowship for African Changemakers 2018

Application Deadline: 20th February 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: Beginning in 2017 with an inaugural cohort of 24 fellows from across eight countries, our African Visionary Fellowship offers capacity building designed for and by local visionaries themselves. Fellows receive mentorship, exposure, and the support of a community of like-minded changemakers.
AVF is a two-year fellowship program that brings together some of the most promising African leaders in the social sector in East Africa.
Being a Fellow also means making a commitment to fully participate and contribute to our AVF community. Upon acceptance into the Fellowship program, you agree to:
• Attend all three in-person AVF Summits in your first year of the Fellowship and two out of three of the Summits in your second year. In 2018, the Fellowship Summits are tentatively scheduled for early May, late July, and early October (leading up to SFF’s Annual Meeting)
• Regular communication and feedback to the SFF team to help improve the program
• Remain open and willing to collaborate, learn and support other Fellows
• Ensure that the learning and capacity-building support provided through the Fellowship is applied within your organization and team
• Commit to help mentor first-year Fellows when you become a second-year Fellow

Type: Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility: This year we will select 15 Fellows to join the 2018 Cohort of AVF. This decision will be based on each
individual’s application and alignment with the following criteria:
• You are an African national.
• You are the top leader and primary decision-maker of your organization.
• You care deeply about the community you work in and are passionate about the issues your work addresses. Your work is a vocation, not just a job.
• You have deep contextual knowledge of the location and community within which you work.
• You can demonstrate that your work has potential to lead to improvement in the lives of the communities and individuals they serve, especially youth.
• You think big and address old problems in new ways, demonstrating innovation in your approach.

ORGANIZATION CRITERIA
• SFF PARTNER: This program is only open to SFF partners who are currently receiving funding from Segal Family Foundation and have completed at least one full grant cycle with SFF.
• LOCAL: Carries out its work locally. Is led by people of that community, or people who live and work in that community and are deeply rooted to the issues on which the organization is working. We do not support local offices or affiliates of national and international organizations.
• COMMUNITY-DRIVEN: Serves the community directly and gets meaningful involvement, input, and support from the community in its work. The organization’s strategies should engage communities in their own development rather than as passive beneficiaries.
• EARLY-STAGE: Should be a small organization that is early in its development, and has not received support from many domestic and international funders. The organization’s budget should not be more than $1 million.
• BOLD: Has ambition to grow its impact by going deeper in its communities or generating models and methods that can be adapted to similar challenges in other communities.
• CLEAR VISION: Has an informed understanding of the challenge(s) it seeks to address in its community that goes beyond the symptoms (the why) and how to go about addressing it.
• LEGAL STATUS: Preference will be given to organizations that do not have a 501(c)3 or other charity status outside their country of operations.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Being a Fellow gives you access to the following:
• Two years of capacity-building support opportunities, such as coaching, mentorship, and specific technical assistance catered to your organization’s needs
• Promotion amongst SFF’s network of funder friends
• Stipends and access to international conferences and funder spaces (when possible)
• Access to a community of passionate, supportive, like-minded African leaders

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply:

•  If you believe you are a fit based on the above criteria, please fill out the application form no later than February 20th, 2018.
• At  the end of the application form, you will be asked to upload one recommendation letter from within your organization or board.
• Any questions about the Fellowship or the application process should be directed to beatrice@segalfamilyfoundation.org.
• The 2018 Cohort of Fellows will be announced in early March

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Segal Family Foundation

A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

Conn Hallinan

The Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy is being touted as a sea change in U.S. foreign policy, a shift from the “war on terrorism” to “great power competition,” a line that would not be out of place in the years leading up to World War I. But is the shift really a major course change, or a re-statement of policies followed by the last four administrations?

The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.

It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a “revanchist” Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.

It was President George W. Bush who designated China a “strategic competitor,” and who tried to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market— it was barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT—helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms race with Pakistan in South Asia.

And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose “Asia pivot” has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing.

So is jettisoning “terrorism” as the enemy in favor of  “great powers” just old wine, new bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to it.

In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned, “If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day,” a remark aimed directly at Russia. NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that “our generation has become use to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War,” but “we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia,” adding “The parallels with 1914 are stark.”

Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as “aggressive,” “revisionist,” and “expansionist.” In a recent attack on China, US Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China’s trade with Latin America as “imperial.”

But in 1914 there were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the case today.

While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia, or, for that matter, the Soviet Union.

The U.S. and its allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments–$840 billion to $69 billion—and that figure vastly underestimates Washington’s actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as “military,” including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion.

The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. outspends China almost three to one. Include Washington’s allies, Japan, Australia and South Korea, and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.

This is not to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant.

Russia’s intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy’s, and its “aggression” is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow’s doorstep.

China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm’s length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called “area denial.” It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the US: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.8 percent.

Beijing has been rather heavy-handed in establishing “area denial,” aliening many of its neighbors—Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan—by claiming most of the South China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.

But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.

China is, however, the US’s major competitor and the second largest economy in the world. It has replaced the US as Latin America’s largest trading partner and successfully outflanked Washington’s attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key allies to boycott China’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of Japan, they ignored Washington.

However, commercial success is hardly “imperial.”

Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn’t about “Communist subversion,” but trade.

There are other players behind this shift.

For one, the big arms manufacturers—Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics—have lots of cash to hand out come election time. “Great power competition” will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.

This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a stake in keeping—and expanding—those high paying jobs.

Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. Higher defense spending—coupled with the recent tax cut bill—will rule out funding many of the programs the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a major side benefit: cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services, Social Security and Medicare in order to service the deficit.

And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the Party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss to Moscow’s manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program.

There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush administration’s neo-conservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even though inflating Iran to the level of a “great power” is laughable. Iran’s military budget is $12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia, which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and the US and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be a little more than 66 to 1.

However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.

The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops on its southern border?

Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia’s largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Timesthat adding more sanctions against Russia “would be like declaring war.”

The problem with designating “great powers” as your adversaries is that they might just take your word for it and respond accordingly.

Ramo Reminded South Koreans of the Brutality of Imperial Japan

Joseph Essertier

It is sad that even now, at this hopeful juncture in the history of Korea, when the end of the Korean War could be just around the corner, that we are confronted with the false claim that South Koreans cannot take pride in the democratic and modern country they have built. A country that is now generously hosting the Olympic games. A country whose president, Moon Jae-in, is bringing hope to millions in East Asia and the world. A hope that is being kept alive by his spirit of independence, his message to not only South Koreans but to the whole world, that a peaceful solution to the US-North Korea crisis can be found as long as the baying hounds of war in Washington can be kept at bay.

The recent firing of NBC’s Asia correspondent Joshua Cooper Ramo for his “insensitive” remarks while commenting on the Olympics serve to remind us not only of the general lack of understanding in the US concerning the current US-North Korea crisis but also highlight the racism and arrogance underlying US attempts to derail the peace process and how the peace process threatens their demonization of North Korea, a demonization essential to the “bloody nose” they so desperately want to inflict.

Ramo portrayed all Koreans―South Koreans, North Koreans, and the diaspora—as lackeys of the Empire of Japan and postwar Japan. He hinted that they were thankful for being colonized and exploited by the Empire of Japan for 35 years, saying that Japan is “a country which occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945. But every Korean will tell you that Japan is a cultural and technological and economic example that has been so important to their own transformation.” Anyone who knows anything about Northeast Asia would squirm in their seat sitting next to Ramo as he touched on the sensitive nerve of international politics in the region and made an outrageous claim.

In fact, Koreans are not thankful for those 35 years of violence, for the suffering that he so blithely erases. The government of the Empire of Japan “engaged in substitutions after 1910: exchanging a Japanese ruling elite for aristocratic Korean scholar-officials, most of whom were either co-opted or dismissed; instituting a strong central state in place of the old government administration; exchanging Japanese modern education for the classics; eventually they even replaced the Korean language with Japanese. Koreans never thanked the Japanesefor these substitutions, did not credit Japan with creations, and instead saw Japan as snatching away their ancien régime, Korea’s sovereignty and independence, its indigenous if incipient modernization, and above all its national dignity.” (Author’s italics)

The above passage appears on the second page of Cumings’ introduction to The Korean War: A History, one of the most popular and respected histories of Korea. Since Ramo speaks Mandarin and lived in China, a country where government-sponsored TV programs zealously cover the history of Japanese atrocities in China, he certainly must have some basic awareness of the history of Japanese violence in East Asia and how the people colonized by the Empire of Japan feel about it. As the former Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, the consulting firm of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; the former senior editor of Time Magazine; the former China analyst for NBC Sports during the Beijing Olympic Games; and now NBC’s Asia correspondent,  this is surely not the first time that he has confronted anger about the Japanese and American erasure of that history of Japanese violence, not to mention American violence.

Ramo has certainly reminded millions of Koreans of the incredible pain and trauma of the violence of the Empire of Japan. Bravo! His words have reminded Koreans of American racism and cold indifference toward them, too. As Koreans on the Peninsula move forward toward peace, his words make it difficult for Koreans to forget the heartless lack of sympathy and concern among Americans for their human rights, and his words will encourage them to not rely on Washington any more than they rely on Tokyo.

Japan colonized Korea, then the US occupied part of it. The horrors of the Japanese colonization are well known, far better than US atrocities in Korea. Cumings is one of the few established Korea historians to have written about some of the American ones, e.g., the horrors committed on Cheju Island, in Taejon, assistance with Syngman Rhee’s torture of South Koreans, the bombing of dams, and the genocidal firebombing of civilians with napalm. His book The Korean War also tells us about the second failed attempt, i.e., that of the US, after the Empire of Japan tried to bring Koreans to their knees. The Korean resistance to foreign domination and authoritarianism never lets up.

Especially now, in 2018, one cannot expect Koreans to feel thankful to Japan when Prime Minister Abe continues to block peace with North Korea by constantly screaming “maximum pressure” against Koreans in the North by tightening the belligerent and genocidal sanctions; by denying past crimes; and by not letting the issue of the abduction of Japanese by North Korea rest, even as he never mentions Japanese abductions of Koreans before 1945. Abe’s lack of sincerity should be contrasted with that of the North Korean government, who have recognized the abductions, apologized, atoned for that injustice in significant ways, and returned many of the abductees. Kim Jong-il apologized on the spot for the abductions of Japanese when Prime Minister Koizumi visited in 2002.

Prime Minister Abe is a known denialist of Japanese atrocities. Japanese kidnapping went way beyond North Korean kidnapping. Abe has yet to apologize for the Empire of Japan’s snatching hundreds of thousands of people from Korea and enslaving them in Japan; for brutal forced labor in Japan; for the enslavement of tens of thousands of Korean women assaulted in military “comfort women stations” (i.e., military gang rape centers); or for helping Japanese companies to steal Korea’s resources.

How could Ramo claim that “every Korean” has such and such a view when 25 million of them are in North Korea, a country where it is known that they are effectively muzzled. They can barely speak to us due to their country’s isolation―a problem caused not only by the North Korean government but also by the US government and the UN Security Council through brutal sanctions during the last year, in the midst of a drought and famine.

Ramo’s comments would probably not invite censure in conversations with his friends and servants of the elite American business class, such as John L. Thornton, who advised Goldman Sachs, or with his uncle Simon Ramo whose family name became the “R” in TRW, but when speaking on TV, he seems to have neglected to tone down the racist rhetoric. For some in East Asia, his comment had the ring of, “In spite of the down side of German government policies during the years 1933 to 1945 in Germany, Jews, gypsies, and gays will always be grateful to Hitler for his economic and technological improvements.”

It is no surprise that Ramo’s defenders are now beginning to sing the praises of Park Chung-hee, the South Korean dictator of the 1960s and 1970s. In Manchuria, Park had been a student of the class-A war criminal and Japan’s current prime minister’s grandfather Kishi Nobusuke. He followed the “Manchurian model of military-backed forced-pace industrialization” in the words of Cumings. Park’s career benefited from relationships with the Japanese right wing, including Kishi and Sasakawa Ryoichi, another suspected war criminal.

What Koreans need, and what the world needs, right now is for the mass media to stop hiring servants of imperial power and enemies of peace like Ramo, especially when this fragile seed of peace is only beginning to sprout. Shame on NBC.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ( SIDS ) Is A Phenomenon That Is Worldwide And Heart-Breaking

Marianne de Nazareth

“ We do not put new-born babies to sleep on their tummies,” said the lady in the day care centre we had visited in the US. “We rule out the possibility of obstruction of the upper airways and suffocation due to a roll up of the sheet in the crib. Plus today it’s a mandatory rule enforced by the government.”

We were putting the baby down to sleep on his tummy at home, and therefore decided to  read up and do some research on the phenomenon. It is terrifying and as the research says, it is the preferred choice over life and death. Avoid putting an infant down to sleep on it’s tummy, period.

If you’re a parent in the 21st century, then you’ve no doubt heard the recommendations about safe sleeping for babies, given by paediatricians. Every new parent understands that the safest way for a baby to sleep is on her back, and not on her stomach. Why? Because back sleeping reduces the risk of SIDS (presumably because it reduces the risk of the infant re-inhaling its expelled carbon dioxide and therefore not getting enough oxygen). However, the mechanisms by which putting an infant down to sleep on it’s tummy  might lead to SIDS are not entirely known.

This recommendation was the cornerstone of the 1992 Back to Sleep campaign, and at that time, it was fairly earth-shattering. Up until 1992, parents were urged to place their babies on their tummies to sleep, since it reduced the risk that baby would spit up and then choke during the night. The Back to Sleep campaign, was an initiative backed by the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the US National Institutes of Health to encourage parents to have their infants sleep on their backs (supine position) to reduce the risk of SID.

And, research on Back Sleeping and SIDS off the net says that the single most effective action that parents and caregivers can take to lower a baby’s risk of SIDS is to place the baby to sleep on his or her back for naps and at night.

Compared with back sleeping, stomach sleeping carries between 1.7 and 12.9 times the risk of SIDS says the American Academy of Paediatrics. The mechanisms by which stomach sleeping might lead to SIDS are not entirely known. Studies suggest that stomach sleeping may increase SIDS risk through a variety of mechanisms, including:

• Increasing the probability that the baby re-breathes his or her own exhaled breath, leading to carbon dioxide buildup and low oxygen levels
• Causing upper airway obstruction
• Interfering with body heat dissipation, leading to overheating says a researcher named Carroll.

Hard numbers and evidence from numerous countries—including New Zealand, Sweden, and the United States have come up with numbers that suggests that when placing babies on their backs to sleep there was a substantial decline in the SIDS rate compared to placing babies on their stomachs to sleep. Researchers have established the link between stomach sleeping and SIDS by showing that babies who died from SIDS were more likely to be put to sleep on their stomachs compared to babies who slept on their backs.

Public health campaigns were launched by those governments, to promote back sleep position and reduce the use of the stomach sleep position. There were dramatic decreases in SIDS rates occurred in all countries with these public health campaigns as the information was  successful in reducing the preference of the stomach sleep position among infants, by parents. Countries like Hong Kong, where stomach sleeping is rare, SIDS rates historically have been very low, which further strengthens the research deductions.

Compared with infants who sleep on their backs, infants who sleep on their stomachs:

• Are less reactive to noise.
• Experience sudden decreases in blood pressure and heart rate control.
• Experience less movement, higher arousal thresholds, and longer periods of deep sleep said researchers Sahni and Khan.

These characteristics might put an infant at higher risk of SIDS. The simple act of placing infants on their backs to sleep, significantly lowers the risk of SIDS, a fact backed with research.

As stomach sleeping has declined in response to back-sleeping campaigns worldwide, statistics show that the contribution of side sleeping to SIDS risk has increased. Research shows that side sleeping is just as risky as stomach sleep position and, therefore, should not be used as well.

Placing babies on their backs to sleep is not associated with risks for other problems. For example, there is no increase in aspiration or complaints of vomiting when babies are placed on their backs to sleep. That was the main reason that young mothers cited for placing their babies on their stomachs to sleep. Just incase the infant had not burped before being put down, the risk of choking was their reason for preferring the face down method.

Moreover, babies may benefit in other ways from sleeping on their backs. A 2003 study found that infants who slept on their backs were less likely than infants who slept on their stomachs to develop ear infections, stuffy noses, or fevers.

Other studies found that back sleepers have delayed early motor skill milestones, although one recent Israeli study found no difference in gross motor developmental skills at 6 months among supine and prone sleepers say researchers Majnemer and Cameli. Some studies have noted that even though supine sleepers experience these early delays, there is no significant age difference in terms of when the infants learn to walk, again from research done by Davis.

Multiple studies have found a positive correlation between the amount of time supine sleepers spend prone during their awake hours and motor skills development, research conducted by Salis and Majnemer.  This finding reinforces the need to educate parents about the importance of Tummy Time, or placing a mat on the floor and putting the infant face – down to strengthen their neck and back muscles.

But a paradox which happens as babies are not programmed machines — some babies seem to prefer sleeping on their stomachs. And typically, once a baby can roll onto his stomach, he’ll roll mid-nap, or in the middle of the night, and end up sleeping on his stomach.

So one wonders, what should you do when your baby is able to roll from her back to her stomach during sleep? Should you leave her on her stomach, or should you roll her back the other way? Doctors  advise that parents should try to get the baby used to lying on his back. While many babies seem to prefer to sleep on their stomachs, a baby can get used to lying on his back, and will eventually grow more comfortable sleeping that way. So try this as a first step: have your baby spend time on his back, during his awake time, and try to start off each nap and bedtime with your baby on his back.

If your baby is still being irritable and not sleeping, then doctors advise swaddling your baby in a blanket. Many babies dislike sleeping on their backs,  because they can’t curl up tightly into snug fetal positions, the way they can when they’re on their stomachs. But if you swaddle your baby snugly, you can create that warm, womb-like feel while still placing your child on her back.

And by about 3-4 months of age, many babies are learning to roll, and while rolling is an important milestone that paves the way for even greater mobility in the coming months, it concerns many parents when they check in on their babies and find them sleeping on their stomachs.

So what’s a parent to do? Do you leave your baby on her stomach, or do you roll your baby over again onto her back, and risk waking her up? It is recommended that you start each sleep time by putting your baby down on her back, but then, if she rolls onto her stomach, you can leave her to sleep that way. There are a few safe sleeping recommendations that need to be followed strictly:
Your baby should sleep on a firm surface that’s covered by a tight-fitting sheet. There should be no loose bedding, soft pillows, or stuffed toys in the baby’s sleeping area. It’s safest if your baby is sleeping near your bed (so that you can keep an eye on her), but not sleeping in your bed, which carries risks of suffocation. And a lot of research has shown that overheating is linked to SIDS, so a baby  needs to be in light layers for sleep, and the bedroom temperature should be on the cool side.

Al-Baghdadi Incapacitated In Russian Airstrike

Nauman Sadiq

In June last year, the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that according to information, the leader of the Islamic State Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi had reportedly been killed as a result of airstrikes conducted by the Russian aircrafts on a southern suburb of Raqqa on May 28.

Similarly, Rami Abdul Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) told Reuters in July last year the Observatory had “confirmed information” from activists working in the eastern countryside of Deir al-Zor that Al-Baghdadi had been killed.

The so-called Observatory’s reports are generally taken at face value by the mainstream media, but in this particular case, the report was somehow overlooked, despite its “wide network of on-the-ground reporters in Syria and a high degree of credibility” (no pun intended).

According to Russian claims, the airstrikes targeted a meeting of high-ranking Islamic State leaders where al- Baghdadi was reportedly present. The meeting was gathered to plan exit routes for militants from Raqqa through the so-called “southern corridor.” Apart from Al-Baghdadi, 30 field commanders and up to 300 militants were also killed in the airstrike.

On Monday, Nick Paton Walsh reported for the CNN “The Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was wounded in an airstrike in May last year and had to relinquish control of the terror group for up to five months because of his injuries, according to several US officials who spoke exclusively to CNN.”

Now, even the mainstream media is admitting the possibility the Russian airstrike might have incapacitated Al-Baghdadi. As the CNN report further states: “It’s believed the airstrike occurred close to the date offered by the Russian military in June when they claimed to have killed or injured the Islamic State leader.”

According to another report on Monday by Al-Jazeera, “Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is alive and being treated at a medical facility in northeastern Syria after being severely wounded in an air raid, a senior Iraqi official said.”

“The head of Islamic State sustained serious wounds to his legs during air raids,” Abu Ali al-Basri, Iraq’s intelligence and counterterrorism department chief, was quoted on Monday by the Iraqi government-run al-Sabah daily as saying. “Al-Baghdadi suffers from injuries, diabetes and fractures to the body and legs that prevent him from walking without assistance,” said al-Basri.

Although al-Baghdadi has not publicly appointed a successor, two of the closest aides who have emerged as his likely successors over the years are Iyad al-Obeidi, his defense minister, and Ayad al-Jumaili, the in charge of security. The latter had already reportedly been killed in an airstrike in April last year in al-Qaim region on Iraq’s border with Syria.

Therefore, the most likely successor to al-Baghdadi would be al-Obaidi. Both al-Jumaili and al-Obeidi had previously served as security officers in Iraq’s Baathist army under Saddam Hussein, and al-Obeidi is known to be the de facto deputy of al-Baghdadi.

Excluding al-Baghdadi and some of his hardline Islamist aides, the rest of Islamic State’s top leadership is comprised of Saddam era military and intelligence officials. Hundreds of ex-Baathists reportedly constitute the top and mid-tier command structure of the Islamic State who plan all the operations and direct its military strategy.

Thus, apart from training and arms that have been provided to militants in the training camps located in the Turkish and Jordanian border regions adjacent to Syria by the CIA in collaboration with Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intelligence agencies, the only other factor which has contributed to the astounding success of the Islamic State from early 2013 to August 2014 is that its top cadres are comprised of professional military and intelligence officers from the Saddam era.

Moreover, according to a recent AFP report by Maya Gebeily, hundreds of Islamic State’s jihadists have joined the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ in Idlib in their battle against the advancing Syrian government troops backed by Russian airstrikes. The Islamic State already had a foothold in neighbouring Hama province and its infiltration in Idlib seems to be an extension of its outreach. On January 12, the Islamic State officially declared Idlib one of its ‘Islamic emirates.’ It has reportedly captured several villages and claims to have killed two dozen Syrian soldiers and taken 20 hostages.

In all likelihood, some of the Islamic State’s jihadists who have joined the battle in Idlib were part of the same contingent of militants that fled Raqqa in October last year under a deal brokered by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). In fact, one of the main objectives of the deal was to let the jihadists fight the Syrian government troops and to free up the Kurdish-led SDF in a scramble to capture oil and gas fields in Deir al-Zor and the border posts along Syria’s border with Iraq.

Islamic State’s foray into Idlib, which has firmly been under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by al-Nusra Front since 2015, isn’t the only instance of its kind. Remember when the Syrian government was on the verge of winning a resounding victory against the militants holed up in east Aleppo, Islamic State came to the rescue of so-called ‘moderate rebels’ by opening up a new front in Palmyra in December 2016.

Consequently, the Syrian government had to send reinforcements from Aleppo to Palmyra in order to defend the city. Although the Syrian government troops still managed to evict the militants holed up in the eastern enclave of Aleppo and they also retook Palmyra from Islamic State in March last year, the basic purpose of this tactical move by the Islamic State was to divert the attention and resources of the Syrian government away from Aleppo to Palmyra.

Fact of the matter is that the distinction between Islamic jihadists and purported ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria is more illusory than real. Before it turned rogue and overran Mosul in Iraq in June 2014, Islamic State used to be an integral part of the Syrian opposition and it still enjoys close ideological and operational ties with other militant groups in Syria.

It’s worth noting that although turf wars are common not just between the Islamic State and other militant groups operating in Syria but also among rebel groups themselves, the ultimate objective of the Islamic State and the rest of Sunni militant outfits operating in Syria is the same: to overthrow the Shi’a-led and Baathist-dominated government of Bashar al-Assad.

Regarding the Syrian opposition, a small fraction of it is comprised of defected Syrian soldiers who go by the name of Free Syria Army, but the vast majority has been comprised of Sunni Arab jihadists and armed tribesmen who have been generously funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized by their regional and global patrons.

Islamic State is nothing more than one of numerous Syrian militant outfits, others being: al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, al-Tawhid Brigade, Jaysh al Islam etc. All the Sunni Arab militant groups that are operating in Syria are just as fanatical and brutal as the Islamic State. The only feature that differentiates the Islamic State from the rest is that it is more ideological and independent-minded.

The reason why the US has turned against the Islamic State is that all other Syrian militant outfits only have local ambitions that are limited to fighting the Syrian government, while the Islamic State has established a global network of transnational terrorists that includes hundreds of Western citizens who have become a national security risk to the Western countries.