The Regression of Nuclear Policy

Vijay Shankar


Contemporary trends positing the reversibility of a nuclear exchange presupposes that the antagonists are able to understand mutual aims, objectives and have unimpeachable knowledge of boundaries within which the conflict is to be played out. In turn, these settings demand unambiguous appreciation of and total knowledge of decisions that will be taken by leadership on all sides. The act of trust that such a relationship rests upon is predicated upon crisis-proofed rapport. At any rate, in such a velvet-lined relationship the question that begs to be asked is: why on earth did one of the parties take recourse to nuclear weapons in the first instance? Awkwardly, this aberrant trend is gaining currency amongst states in possession of nuclear weapons.

A state inducting tactical nuclear weapons into its arsenal will in fact have aligned its nuclear doctrine for first use, incentivised proliferation, and blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear weapons. This in turn lowers the threshold of a nuclear response whose yield, magnitude and targets remain a choice made by the adversary. Delegation of authority to tactical commanders (which must follow) for release of low-yield nuclear weapons by nature of the tactical environment runs the peril of being governed for deployment by principles more appropriate for conventional warfare. The posture indulges in the preposterous illusion that the adversary will discern between tactical and strategic yields and suitably moderate his response in the midst of a nuclear exchange, while desisting from escalating and retaliating in a manner of choosing. The irrationality of it all is that some states in possession of nuclear weapons have displayed a ready acceptance of nuclear war-fighting, rather than reconsider their nuclear doctrines, postures, and capabilities towards strategic deterrence. The latter ought to be the hallmark of an evolved nuclear system with seven decades of maturity in approach to its superintendence and of styling policy.

Today, the US counter to a Russian “escalate-to-de-escalate” policy remains “to conduct nuclear strike operations below the strategic level.” All such doctrines have ever done is to push adversaries into a perilous corner of uncertainty where alternatives to the nuclear trigger rapidly fade away. The French nuclear force de frappe and the British deterrent, both ‘declaredly’ independent, have neither abnegated first use nor have they made any bones of targeting enemy value or population centres without ever disturbing themselves of the conditions of use, suggesting a certain heedlessness of policy.

As early as 1946, Bernard Brodie argued that “nuclear weapons were too powerful to use. Vastly more lethal than all previous arms, the grotesque scale of nuclear destruction overwhelmed any conceivable policy goal.” The other school of thought, made up largely of the military and policy-makers, argued that nuclear weapons could be used like any weapon that was a product of technology. The latter school either deliberately, or for motivated reasons, chose not to reveal the scale and absoluteness of destruction that potentially could eclipse populations (both friend and foe) through blast, radiation, firestorms, fallout, and the slower, yet assured death, of a nuclear winter. So, if nuclear weapons fail as instruments that win political objectives, then why is it that the logic that remains elusive to the mind of nuclear decision-makers is that a nuclear exchange cannot be the accepted normal?

The Cuban Missile Crisis drew the two superpowers to the nuclear brink and the hapless rest-of-the-world closer to mass calamity. Inexorably, through a train of uncontrolled political and military actions - beginning with the induction into Cuba of over 40,000 Soviet troops armed with pre-delegated tactical nuclear weapons in addition to surface-to-air-missiles and nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles; US naval blockade; downing of a US U2 reconnaissance aircraft; action against Soviet submarines poised to release nuclear weapons to the ready amphibious force threatening invasion of Cuba - each event brought nuclear conflict closer. Today, analysts and records of participants suggest that the chance of a nuclear conflagration was extremely high as blunders followed miscalculations. That a nuclear exchange did not occur is what remains remarkable. The improbable factor that drove strategic decision-making was the nature of leadership image being projected to alliance partners and loss of face, rather than hard political considerations and their baneful consequences. Kennedy's perceived timidity was contrasted with Khrushchev’s boldness in the backdrop of the Berlin stand-off and the incentive the latter saw in Cuba to not just redress the strategic balance of power, but also to tighten Soviet hold on the country. Significantly, throughout the crisis, the inability to either control or recognise the impact and hazards of escalation was pivotal to precipitating the crisis. As the then Secretary for Defence McNamara put it rather obscurely 30 years later, “No one should believe that a US force could have been attacked by tactical nuclear warheads without responding with nuclear warheads. And where would it have ended? In utter disaster.”

Pakistan and North Korea are two states that have adopted a policy that challenges common sense; both possess strategic nuclear weapons with a doctrine that blurs the lines between the nuclear and the conventional and advocates nuclear war fighting, neither have abjured first use nor have they made any moves to proscribe tactical nuclear weapons. From a policy point of view, such a protocol strikes a discordant note at a time when efforts to avert a nuclear exchange or at least make an exchange improbable ought to be the norm.

The eighth decade of the evolution of strategic nuclear systems is witness to the perspective that a first step to preventing a nuclear exchange is necessarily a universal declaration of 'no use' (an NFU doctrine such as China and India’s, unfortunately, remains a halfway house). None of the states in possession of nuclear weapons have enunciated a strategic doctrine that is both mutually credible and acceptable, making such policy catastrophic if implemented. Experience today confirms that the danger of mass nuclear destruction does not rest even partly on proliferation to non-state and rogue actors, but squarely on the shoulders of leadership whose doctrines of use represent an enduring danger to humanity.

Women in Engineering (WomEng) Fellowship for Female Students (Fully-funded to South Africa) 2018

Application Deadline:  12th May 2018, 23h59 SAST.

To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa

About the Award: Fellowship is the flagship annual entrepreneurship-focused, technical innovation challenge and employability programme for the best and brightest female engineering, technology and built environment students to find solutions to global challenges and develop and prepare for the industry.
Through Fellowship, WomEng is raising the profile of the engineering sector. WomEng Fellows are equipped with highly desirable scarce employability skills and the knowledge and skills to start-up their own business. WomEng is creating diversity in the engineering industry.
The theme of the Fellowship Technovation Challenge is “Engineering Technology to Meet the Sustainable Development Goals”. In 2015, the United Nations signed into order the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), more commonly known as “The Global Goals” – 17 Goals to be achieved by 2030. In 2017, we are challenging WomEng Fellows to come up with new business ideas and innovations that will contribute to the realization of one or more of the Global Goals.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: 

1. Applications are open to female engineering, technology, and built environment students currently studying full-time at a South African University or University of Technology.
2. Applicants must be in their penultimate to final year (e.g 4th year at university) of undergraduate or full-time postgraduate studies.
3. Applicants must commit to attending the full programme from 03 – 06 July 2018.
4. Ex-fellows are not eligible to apply.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: WomEng covers all costs related to participation in the programme including travel to Johannesburg, accommodation, food, and facilitation. You will be requested to pay a fee of R725 to avoid “no-shows”.

1. Develop a business idea that can be scaled through incubation.
2. Develop leadership and employability skills.
3. Grow your professional network
4. Access to mentorship opportunities

Duration of Programme: 3-6 July 2018

How to Apply: APPLY NOW

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: WomEng

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Internship Programme 2018

Application Deadline: 6th May 2018 (23:59 Central European Time)

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Geneva, Switzerland

About the Award: The internship will include preparing final publications for a research project on the Politics of Domestic Resource Mobilization for Social Development; assistance with organizing the upcoming UNRISD Call for Papers Conference, Overcoming Inequalities in a Fractured World: Between Elite Power and Social Mobilization; and research and outreach activities related to a forthcoming research project on the same subject.
While at UNRISD, the intern will be asked to:

• assist with copyediting and formatting publications, in particular for the PDRM project;
• provide research assistance for ongoing work in the programme, and conduct library and Internet searches, in particular for the Overcoming Inequalities project;
• contribute to ongoing tasks related to project management, fundraising, external relations, and event organization;
• produce a short paper, literature review, article or similar output, on a subject related to the Social Policy and Development programme.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: At the time of application, applicants must meet one of the following requirements (as per UN Secretariat rules regarding interns);

• be enrolled in a graduate school programme (second university degree or equivalent, or higher);
• be enrolled in the final academic year of a first university degree programme (minimum Bachelor’s level or equivalent) or;
• have graduated with a university degree (as defined in (i) and (ii) above) and, if selected, commence the internship within a one-year period of graduation;

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Interns are not financially remunerated;
• UNRISD is not responsible for interns’ travel expenses to and from Geneva, or for mandatory medical insurance during the period of the internship.

Duration of Programme: 3 months. A start date in June 2018 to be mutually agreed upon. The usual duration of the internship is three months, with the possibility of extension.

How to Apply: APPLY

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UNRISD

Young Water Fellowship for Young Leaders from Developing Countries (Funded to CEWAS, Switzerland) 2018

Application Deadline: 16th May 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All low and middle-income countries

To be taken at (country): Training provided in cooperation with Cewas Switzerland with in-country project implementation

About the Award: The Young Water Fellowship Program aims to empower young leaders from low and middle income countries to implement projects to tackle water, sanitation & hygiene (WASH), water pollution and water scarcity issues, by offering them an intensive training program, seed funding grants for their projects, and mentoring support by senior level experts during one year.
Each year, this program brings about 10 young community leaders capable of successfully designing and implementing sustainable and inclusive water initiatives that significantly improve living conditions in their communities, while contributing to the achievement of SDG #6 (water and sanitation for all).
The YWF 2018 will focus on social entrepreneurship. Young people with social businesses ideas (or projects that can be turned into social businesses) that address water-related issues are welcome to apply.

Type: Entrepreneurship, Training, Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility:

• Be 18 to 30 years old at the time of the application
• Be the founder or co-founder of an initiative that contributes to the solution of a well-defined water problem in your country. The initiative should be in its initial stages and have the ability to be turned into a social enterprise (i.e have a long-term sustainability component or business model).
• Be a resident from the list of low and middle-income countries.
• Have a valid passport and be available to attend a workshop in Europe from August 13^th to September 14^th 2018 (note that these dates might be subject to change),
• Be able to communicate in English (intermediate level at least).

Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award:

• Training: Fellows will attend a one-week workshop in Brussels and will be trained by experts in: IWRM | Project management | Monitoring and evaluation tools | Leadership | Water and gender | Social entrepreneurship | SDG 6
• Mentorship: Fellows will be assigned a mentor according to their needs, who will provide technical support throughout the whole life-cycle of the project.
• Project Implementation: Fellows will be provided with opportunities for seed funding up to €5000 to implement their projects.

Duration of Scholarship: 1 year

How to Apply: Apply HERE
Interested applicants may go through the terms and conditions before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Young Water Solutions

Japanese Government (MEXT) College of Technology Scholarships for International Students 2019

Application Deadline: April – July 2018 (Deadline is determined by individual Japanese diplomatic missions)

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Japan

About the Award: DEFINITION OF “COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS”: Those who are enrolled in a course of study or in an advanced course at a college of technology, or who are receiving preparatory education in the Japanese language and other subjects prior to placement at the college of technology.
MEXT Scholarship will be granted those who are willing to contribute to mutual understanding between Japan and their home country by participating in activities at schools and communities during their study in Japan while contributing to the internationalization of Japan.
They shall also make efforts to promote relations between the home country and Japan by maintaining close relations with the university attended after graduation, cooperating with the conducting of surveys and questionnaires, and cooperating with relevant projects and events conducted by Japanese diplomatic missions after they return to their home countries.

Fields of Study: Those who apply for a college of technology student must choose a field of study in accordance with the following procedure and fill in “Preferred field of study and majors elements” on the application form.

1. Choose preferred field(s) of study from among (A) to (H) below.  Applicants may enter a first, second and third choice.
   (A) Mechanical Engineering (B) Electrical and Electronic Engineering (C) Information, Communication and Network Engineering (D) Materials Engineering (E) Architecture (F) Civil Engineering (G) Maritime Engineering (H) Other Fields
2. Choose preferred majors element(s) from the “Name of Majors Elements” listed in the chosen field(s) of study on the Annex “Majors and Related Key Terms for Fields of Study”.
   (Note 1) Applicants who apply for “(D) Materials Engineering” may not choose it in combination with other fields of study. Applicants wishing to choose more than one Majors Elements, should select their first, second and third choice of the Elements from ones under “(D) Materials Engineering.”
   (Note 2) An Applicant who applies for “(G) Maritime Engineering” must have vision of 0.5 or more in either eye with or without glasses, and no color-blindness.
   (Note 3) Applicants who choose “(H) Other Fields” (International Communication or Management Information
   Engineering) may have difficulties in finding colleges of technology capable of accepting them.

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: 

• Nationality: Applicants must have the nationality of a country that has diplomatic relations with Japan. An applicant who has Japanese nationality at the time of application is not eligible. However, persons with dual nationality who hold Japanese nationality and whose place of residence at the time of application is outside of Japan are eligible to apply as long as they choose the nationality of the other country and renounce their Japanese nationality by the date of their arrival in Japan.
• Age: Applicants, in principle, must be born between April 2, 1994 and April 1, 2002. Exceptions are limited to cases in which MEXT deems that the applicant cloud not apply within the eligible age limit due to the situation or circumstances of the applicant’s country (military service obligation, loss of educational opportunities due to disturbances of war, etc.)
• Academic Background: Applicants must satisfy any one of the following conditions.
  1. Applicants who have completed 11 years of schooling in countries other than Japan. (Applicants who will
     meet the above qualifications by March 2019 are eligible.)
  2. Applicants who have completed studies at a school equivalent to a Japanese upper secondary school in
     countries other than Japan. (Applicants who will meet the above qualifications by March 2019 are eligible.)
  3. Other than the above ① and ② conditions, applicants who are eligible for transfer admission to a thirdyear
     course at a college of technology at the time of application.
• Japanese Language: Applicants must be willing to learn Japanese. Applicants must be interested in Japan and be willing to deepen their understanding of Japan before and after arriving in Japan. In addition, in principle,
  applicants must be willing to receive college of technology education in Japanese.
• Health: Applicants must submit a health certificate in the prescribed format signed by a physician attesting that the applicant has no physical or mental conditions hindering the applicant’s study in Japan.
• Arrival in Japan: In principle, the selected applicants must be able to arrive in Japan between the 1st and 7th of April 2019. Departure from the home residence should be on or after 1 April. If the applicant arrives in Japan before the specified period above for personal reasons, travel expenses to Japan will not be paid.
• Visa Requirement: An applicant shall, in principle, obtain a “Student” visa at the Japanese diplomatic mission
  located in the applicant’s country of nationality, and enter Japan with the residence status of “Student.”

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• Allowance: 117,000 yen per month. A supplemental regional allowance of 2,000 or 3,000 yen per month will be added to the monthly scholarship amount for the grantees studying or conducting research in specially designated regions. .
• Education Fees: Fees for the entrance examination, matriculation, and tuition at colleges of technology and a
  preparatory educational institution will be paid by MEXT.
• Traveling Expenses.

Duration of Programme:  The scholarship period will last for four years from April 2019 to March 2023, including one-year preparatory education in the Japanese language and other subjects due to be provided upon arrival in Japan. For
scholarship grantees majoring in maritime engineering, the scholarship period will be four and a half years, lasting up to September 2023.

How to Apply: All applicants are required to submit the relevant documents (including Application Form, Majors and Related Key Terms for Fields of Study, Recommendation Letter and Certificate of health,) to the Japanese diplomatic mission in the applicant’s country by the designated deadline. The submitted documents will not be returned.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Japanese Government

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Fellowship for Journalists in Southern Africa and India 2018

Application Deadline: 16th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, South Africa and India

To Be Taken At (Country): Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, South Africa and India

About the Award: Doctors Without Borders / Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international, independent, medical humanitarian organisation that delivers emergency aid to people affected by armed conflict, epidemics, natural and man-made disasters and exclusion from healthcare in more than 65 countries.
For the first time, MSF Southern Africa and MSF India are inviting applications for the “MSF Media Fellowship”. The fellowship will fully fund reporting assignments for one South African and one Indian journalist who can demonstrate the potential for incisive and original reporting.
The MSF Media Fellowship aims at building or strengthening rapport with the media stakeholders in South Africa and to promote a greater practical understanding of issues surrounding access to essential medicines related to ongoing reforms in intellectual property legislation.  It also provides journalists access to MSF field projects locally and internationally as well as research and civil society partners for a deeper understanding of the issues.

Type: Fellowship (Professional)

Eligibility: 

• Professional journalists, including freelancers, working in print, television or online media in South Africa.
• Applicants must demonstrate a minimum of three to four years of professional experience of covering health, business, the pharmaceutical industry, intellectual property related issues, public policy and/or related issues.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship programme will cover international and local travel costs, accommodation, interpreters, daily support expenses as well as production costs. The funds will either be disbursed in weekly instalments or once off. It is mandatory to produce and submit actual bills and invoices for all the expenditure incurred.

Duration of Programme: 4 weeks

How to Apply: Interested journalists should send the following the documents with their application

• 2-page Curriculum Vitae along with a cover letter
• Copies of the previous reporting on health or IP issues
• Crucially, applicants have to deliver a strong proposal demonstrating some initial research and story angles outlining their possible focus area while in India and how it is linked to the in South Africa (700-word proposal)
• Letter of recommendation from the professional referee (other than the editor) detailing the applicant’s journalistic abilities and aptitude for the fellowship.
• Applicants must provide a ‘letter of support’ from the editor of their current employer/editor assuring Fellows time/leave for 4 weeks and agreeing to publish the articles written by the Fellows in their publication. Freelancers must also provide a supporting letter from the editor of a publication agreeing to use the articles
• Applicants must have at least a national diploma or degree in Journalism, media or communications
• Applicants should have a valid passport

Please submit your cover note, proposals and scan the documents to the attention of Angela Makamure

Email: DL-JNB-Joburg-Press@joburg.msf.org not later than 16 May 2018

Visit the Programme Webpages for Details. Click here or here.

Award Providers: Doctors Without Borders (MSF)

USIP Youth Leaders’ Exchange with His Holiness the Dalai Lama (Fully-funded) 2018

Application Deadline: 20th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Central African Republic, Colombia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria (or of Syrian origin living and working in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan), Tunisia or Venezuela.

About the Award: The program will bring a group of 28 youth peacebuilders to Dharamsala for two days of conversation with the Dalai Lama to discuss ways in which youth can partner with international leaders to build peace. Selected youth will come from some of the world’s most conflict-ridden areas.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Must reside and work in Afghanistan, Burma, Central African Republic, Colombia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria (or of Syrian origin living and working in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan), Tunisia or Venezuela.
• Must be 18-28 years old.
• Must be able to read, write and speak English.
• Must hold a leadership role in an organization that does peacebuilding work.
• Must have a passport that is valid through April 2019.

Number of Awards: 28

Duration of Program: October 19-27, 2018


How to Apply: Please submit the following: 
   • A completed application form via Survey Monkey
• An updated CV e-mailed to GenChange@usip.org
• A scanned copy of a valid passport e-mailed to GenChange@usip.org
Please submit the application using Survey Monkey. Please e-mail all attachments in one e-mail to GenChange@usip.org. The e-mail subject line should read: SURNAME, HHDL application. Submissions that are incomplete or late will not be considered.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: The U.S. Institute of Peace

Important Notes: Selected participants will be notified by email by June 10, 2018.  If you are not notified by this time, you have not been selected. 

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Sponsorship Internship for International Students 2018

Application Deadline: 18th May 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): ICC international headquarters – Paris, France

About the Award: This wide and varied role includes: creation of marketing materials, client relations, administrative support and event logistical support. The successful candidate will work closely with the Sponsorship Project Manager and Sponsorship Assistant to explore and commercialize ICC content, events, products and services, and business networks.
Required profile:

• Exceptional presentation, written and oral communication skills in English
• Proven skills in writing, client relations, communications and project management
• Ability to manage simultaneous projects in fast-paced working international environment with challenging deadlines
• Organized, detail-oriented and ready to take initiative
• Works well independently
• Pro-active team player
• Sales experience in an international organization a plus

Specific tasks include:

•  Assisting in drafting pitches & preparing materials for email marketing campaigns
• Maintaining contact list and files and overseeing electronic mail distribution lists
• Creation of materials for projects/events
• Logistical support for events
• Client follow up
• Creation of promotional materials, edition of logos

Type: Internship

Qualifications and skills:

• The candidate must speak, read and write English fluently. Knowledge of other languages would be an asset, particularly French
• All programs from Microsoft Office, basic knowledge of Photoshop/GIMP
• Proficient user of internet tools with good understanding of web marketing
• Master degree or B.A in marketing preferred

Eligibility: 

• The applicant must be currently enrolled in a third or fourth year of under- graduate (BA/BSc.) or in a graduate (Masters) programme, and will continue to be enrolled during the period of the internship.
• Nationals from outside the European Union or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Andorra, Monaco, or Switzerland should get an appropriate visa from the French consulate.
• The internship is gratified according to French law
• The successful candidate will work on a full-time basis. The average working week is 35 hours.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Duration of Program: 6 months (End June 2018- End December , 2018)

How to Apply: Should you be interested in this opportunity, please send your CV and cover letter to Ms. Sandra Sanchez Nery, ssy@iccwbo.org and Ms. Victoria Krapivina, victoria.krapivina@iccwbo.org before May 18, 2018.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: International Chamber of Commerce

De-escalation With North Korea, Escalation With Iran

Patrick Cockburn 

As a journalist, I have always dreaded reporting on meetings between world leaders billed as “historic” or “momentous” or just plain “significant”. Such pretensions are usually phoney or, even if something of interest really does happen, its importance is exaggerated or oversimplified.

But plus ca change is not always a safe slogan for the cautious reporter, because real change does occasionally take place and professional cynics are caught on the hop.

Watching the “historic” meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea at the Panmunjom border crossing this weekend – and listening to reporters bubbling over with excitement – it was difficult not to be captured by the enthusiastic mood.

But I recall similar meetings that were once billed as transforming the world for the better and are now largely forgotten. How many people remember the Reykjavik summit between Reagan and Gorbachev in 1986, which once seemed so important? Then there was the famous handshake on the lawn of the White House between Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat confirming a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians in 1993 that, whatever else happened, did not produce peace.

Rabin was assassinated two years later by a religious fanatic and Arafat died with his hopes for Palestinian self-determination in ruins. Sceptics who had argued that disparity in political and military strength between Israel and the Palestinians was too great for a real accord turned out to be right.

The meeting in Panmunjom feels as if it has got more substance, primarily because the balance of power between the two sides is more even: Kim has nuclear weapons and claims to have a ballistic missile which could reach the US. Their range and reliability may be exaggerated but nobody wants to find out the hard way. It is these intercontinental ballistic missiles which make Washington and the rest of the world take North Korea seriously as a state, though otherwise it is an insignificant, economically primitive, family dictatorship. Despite Kim’s pledge that he is seeking a denuclearised Korean peninsula, this is the last thing that is going to happen because he would be foolish to give up his only serious negotiating card. North Korea has a long track record of dangling nuclear concessions in front of its enemies only to snatch them back later.

This does not mean that serious things are not happening. Relations between North and South Korea are being normalised symbolically and, to a degree yet to be seen, in practice. There is to be a formal end to the Korean War replacing the 1953 armistice, an end to “hostile activities” between the two states, family reunification, road and rail links and joint sporting activities. Ritualistic propaganda broadcasts across the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) are to cease, though it would be interesting to know if they are also going to remove the minefields in the DMZ.

President Trump is claiming that it was his bellicose tweeting and harsh sanctions that forced Kim to negotiate. Maybe they had some impact, but there are limits to what sanctions can achieve against a dictator firmly in power (witness UN sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq between 1990 and 2003). Trump’s threats of “fire and fury” may or may not frighten the North Korean leader, but they certainly make US allies nervous and less willing to let their fate be unilaterally determined by an unpredictable and dysfunctional administration in Washington.

Compare the de-escalating crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapons with the escalating one over the 2015 Iran nuclear deal from which Trump is likely to withdraw the US on 12 May. This brings us to the second international meeting this week, this time between Trump and French president Emmanuel Macron in Washington, which had plenty of artificial-sounding bonhomie, but not much else.

It was the worst type of state visit in which governments and the media are complicit in pretending that there is real amity and agreement. Kisses and handshakes were exchanged, and pictures of Trump removing a speck of dandruff from Macron’s jacket were beamed across the planet, as if they signified anything. Once commentators would use the sugary phrase “personal chemistry” to describe a non-existent warmth between leaders, though this is being replaced by “personal rapport” which is a little less offensive.

Strong emotional bonds between Trump and other human beings seem unlikely to me, given his manic self-obsession. He resembles an eighteenth century monarch presiding over a court in which there is an ever-changing array of courtiers, who are powerful one day only to be abruptly dismissed the next.

Some US commentators have found reasons why the two men should get along. I particularly like a tweet by “The Discourse Lover”, who writes sarcastically: “I actually bet Trump and Macron get along great – Trump is the exact type of vulgar, acquisitive simpleton that French people assume all Americans are, Macron is the exact type of preening, arrogant creep that Americans assume all French people are.”

Macron did not have any illusions that his “personal rapport” was getting him anywhere when it came to Iran. He confirmed that Trump will most likely kill the Iran nuclear deal “for domestic reasons” and will impose “very tough sanctions” on Iran. Angela Merkel is in Washington today and will see Trump, but is equally unlikely to change his position on Iran or anything else.

The Iran crisis is truly dangerous in a way that was never quite true of the North Korea crisis. In Korea, we are talking of a peace agreement that would replace the Panmunjom Armistice of 1953, but there has been no war going on there for 65 years, though there have been a few sporadic clashes. Compare this with the position of Iran which is a rival for influence with the US in a ferocious war in Syria and one that in Iraq that is currently receding, but could easily blaze up again.

The crisis in relations between the US and Iran has been going on so long – essentially since the fall of the Shah in 1979 – that people may be self-immunised against reacting to its latest and most dangerous phase. Trump will be withdrawing from an agreement with which all signatories – US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China – agree that Iran is in compliance. The US will reimpose sanctions, which will be damaging to Iran, but not be as painful as those imposed before the 2015 deal, because this time round they will have much less international support.

Iran will inevitably resume all or part of the nuclear programme halted by the 2015 agreement since it will no longer receive any benefit from it. Trump may want a tougher deal but his own arbitrary actions have reduced the US diplomatic and economic leverage which he would need to obtain one. The Iranian leadership may respond cautiously to Trump’s demarche in order to isolate the US and draw out a crisis that weakens the Americans more than it does the Iranians.

Short of diplomatic options, the White House might view military action against Iran as an increasingly attractive approach. The Iran and North Korea crises are very different but in both cases Trump is behaving as if the US is turning into a stronger power when, thanks to his leadership, it is becoming a weaker one.

The spillover of Taliban-Hazara conflict in Pakistan

Nauman Sadiq

The Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region is essentially a political conflict between the Gulf Arab autocrats and Iran for regional dominance which is being presented to lay Muslims in the veneer of religiosity.

Saudi Arabia, which has been vying for power as the leader of Sunni bloc against the Shi’a-led Iran in the regional geopolitics, was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration in 2003.

The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein constituted a Sunni Arab bulwark against Iran’s meddling in the Arab world. But after Saddam was ousted from power in 2003 and subsequently when elections were held in Iraq which were swept by Shi’a-dominated parties, Iraq has now been led by a Shi’a-majority government that has become a steadfast regional ally of Iran. Consequently, Iran’s sphere of influence now extends all the way from territorially-contiguous Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.

Moreover, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration took advantage of the ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq and used the Kurds and Shi’as against the Sunni-led Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. And during the occupation years from 2003 to 2011, the once dominant Sunni minority was politically marginalized which further exacerbated the ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq.

The Saudi royal family was resentful of Iran’s encroachment on the traditional Arab heartland. Therefore, when protests broke out against the Shi’a-led Syrian government in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the Gulf states along with their regional Sunni allies, Turkey and Jordan, and the Western patrons gradually militarized the protests to dismantle the Iranian resistance axis.

Reportedly, Syria’s pro-Assad militias are comprised of local militiamen as well as Shi’a foreign fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and even the Hazara Shi’as from as far away as Afghanistan and Pakistan. And similarly, Sunni jihadists from all over the region have also been flocking to the Syrian battlefield for the last seven years.

A full-scale Sunni-Shi’a war has been going on in Syria, Iraq and Yemen which will obviously have its repercussions all over the Islamic world where Sunni and Shi’a Muslims have coexisted in relative peace for centuries.

Notwithstanding, in order to create a semblance of objectivity and fairness, the American policymakers and analysts are always willing to accept the blame for the mistakes of the distant past that have no bearing on their present policy, however, any fact that impinges on their present policy is conveniently brushed aside.

In the case of the creation of the Islamic State, for instance, the US policy analysts are willing to concede that invading Iraq back in 2003 was a mistake that radicalized the Iraqi society, exacerbated sectarian divisions and gave birth to an unrelenting Sunni insurgency against the heavy-handed and discriminatory policies of the Shi’a-led Iraqi government.

Similarly, the war on terror era political commentators also “generously” accept the fact that the Cold War-era policy of nurturing al-Qaeda and myriads of Afghan so-called “freedom fighters” against the erstwhile Soviet Union was a mistake, because all those fait accompli have no bearing on their present policy.

The mainstream media’s spin-doctors conveniently forget, however, that the creation of the Islamic State and myriads of other Sunni Arab jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq has as much to do with the unilateral invasion of Iraq back in 2003 under the Republican Bush administration as it has been the legacy of the Democratic Obama administration that funded, armed, trained and internationally legitimized the Sunni militants against the Shi’a-led Syrian government since 2011-onward in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa region.

In fact, the proximate cause behind the rise of the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam and numerous other Sunni Arab jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq has been the Obama administration’s policy of intervention through proxies in Syria.

The border between Syria and Iraq is highly porous and poorly guarded. The Obama administration’s policy of nurturing militants against the Syrian government was bound to have its blowback in Iraq sooner or later. Therefore, as soon as the Islamic State consolidated its gains in Syria, it overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in early 2014 from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

Apart from Syria and Iraq, two other flashpoints of Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region are Bahrain and Yemen. When peaceful protests broke out against the Sunni monarchy in Bahrain by the Shi’a majority population in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, Saudi Arabia sent thousands of troops across the border to quell the uprising.

Similarly, when the Iran-backed Houthis, which is also an offshoot of Shi’a Islam, overran Sana’a in September 2014, Saudi Arabia and UAE mounted another ill-conceived Sunni-led offensive against the Houthi militia in Yemen in March 2015.

The nature of the conflict in Yemen is sectarian to an extent that recently the Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda’s leader Qasim al-Raymi claimed that al-Qaeda has been fighting hand in hand with the Saudi-led alliance against the Iran-backed rebels for the last three years.

The revelation does not come as a surprise, however, because after all al-Qaeda’s official franchise in Syria, al-Nusra Front, has also been fighting hand in glove with the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition against the Syrian government for the last seven years of the Syrian proxy war.

Furthermore, according to Pakistan’s National Commission for Human Rights, 509 Shi’a Muslims belonging to the Hazara ethnic group have been killed in Pakistan’s western city of Quetta since 2013. Although a South Punjab-based sectarian militant outfit Lashkar-e-Jhangvi frequently claims responsibility for the massacre of Hazaras in Quetta, such claims are often misleading.

The hub of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi’s power mostly lies in Punjab while the Balochistan province’s provincial metropolis Quetta, which is almost three-hour drive from the Af-Pak border at Chaman, is regarded as the center of Taliban’s activities.

After the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 with the help of the Northern Alliance, the top leadership of the Taliban has mostly settled in Quetta and its adjoining rural areas and Afghan refugee camps, hence it is called the Quetta Shura Taliban.

In order to understand the casus belli of the Taliban-Hazara conflict, it’s worth noting that the leadership of the Hazara ethnic group has always taken the side of the Tajik and Uzbek-led Northern Alliance against the Pashtun-led Taliban.

The Taliban has committed several massacres of the Hazara people in Afghanistan, particularly following the 1997 massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners by the Uzbek warlord Abdul Malik Pahlawan in Mazar-i-Sharif, thousands of Hazaras were massacred by the Taliban in the same city in August 1998 for betraying the Taliban.

The Hazara people are an ethnically Uzbek, Dari (Afghan Persian)-speaking ethnic group native to the Hazarajat region in central Afghanistan but roughly 600,000 Hazaras also live in Quetta, Pakistan. Although the conflict between the Taliban and Hazaras might appear religious and sectarian, as I have already described the real reasons of the conflict are political in nature.

Now, when the fire of inter-sectarian strife is burning on several different fronts in the Middle East and the Sunni and Shi’a communities are witnessing a merciless slaughter of their brethren in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain and the Af-Pak region, then it would be unfair to look for the causes of the conflict in theology and medieval history. If the Sunni and Shi’a Muslims were so thirsty for each other’s blood since the founding of Islam, then how come they managed to survive as distinct sectarian groups for 1400 years?

Fact of the matter is that in modern times, the phenomena of Islamic radicalism, jihadism and consequent Sunni-Shi’a conflict are only as old as the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the 1980s when the Western powers with the help of their regional allies trained and armed Afghan jihadists to battle the Soviet troops in Afghanistan

More significantly, however, the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988 between the Sunni and Baathist-led Iraq and the Shi’a-led Iran after the 1979 Khomeini revolution engendered acrimony and hostility between the Sunni and Shi’a communities of the region for the first time in modern history.

And finally, the conflict has been further exacerbated in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 when the Western powers and their regional client states once again took advantage of the opportunity and nurtured militants against the Arab nationalist Gaddafi government in Libya and the Baathist-led Assad administration in Syria.

Pakistan: Government unveils pro-business, anti-worker federal budget

Ali Mohsin

As its term of office nears completion, Pakistan’s scandal-ridden government, led by the Pakistan Muslim League (N), unveiled a pro-business budget last Friday in which the needs and concerns of the country’s working class and rural poor find no expression.  Among the most striking features of Rs5.9 trillion ($51 billion) federal budget for 2018-2019 are the cuts to development programs and the massive increase in defense spending. The government has also been criticized for failing to explain how it will raise the necessary revenues to fund its expenditures and make up for the tax cuts included in the budget.  

Defense spending and debt serving account for nearly two-thirds of the anti-worker budget, leaving little for Pakistan’s chronically underfunded education and healthcare systems.  The government allocated a whopping Rs1.1 trillion ($9.6 billion) for defense spending, an 18 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. This figure does not include expenditures on the country’s nuclear and missile programs or on major planned military hardware acquisitions. The Rs260 billion allocated for the pensions of military personnel and the Rs45 billion reserved for security enhancement are also not included in the defense budget.  

During its tenure, the PML-N has clashed with the military-intelligence apparatus over the latter’s hardline stance on India and its support for the Afghan Taliban.  The military, which jealously guards its control over Pakistan’s foreign policy, has sought to punish the PML-N for its assertiveness. The judiciary’s selective targeting of the PML-N leadership with corruption cases is certainly encouraged by the military, so as to weaken and neuter the civilian government. The massive increase in defense spending could therefore be an attempt by the ruling party to ease tensions with the army.

In addition to the enormous increase in defense spending, the PML-N’s proposed budget also includes significant giveaways to big business.  For example, it includes a plan to reduce the corporate tax rate by 1 percent each year until 2023, eventually bringing it down to 25 percent. Similarly, the government plans to gradually reduce the super tax, currently at 3 percent for non-banking companies and 4 percent for banks, by 1 percent each year until it is eventually phased out. In order to boost the Pakistan Stock Exchange, the government has also withdrawn the tax on bonus shares and rationalized broker taxes in its proposed budget.  

Pakistan’s corporate elite has been given much to celebrate. Unfortunately, the government’s generosity does not extend to working people.  Development spending has been reduced by 20 percent in the proposed budget, a massive decrease which the poor will feel most acutely. While the overall budget has been increased by nearly 15 percent from last year, the amount allocated for education and healthcare has only been raised by 7 percent and 8 percent respectively.  

The government also refused to increase the miserly minimum wage.  Earlier this month, thousands of workers protested outside the National Press Club in Islamabad to demand higher wages.  They demanded that the minimum wage be increased to Rs 30,000. The protest was organized by the All Pakistan Workers Confederation and was attended by employees of the Water and Power Development Authority, Pakistan Railways, Pakistan International Airlines, as well as textile workers and chemical workers.  The just demands of the workers were predictably ignored. The government did, however, include a 17 percent increase in the budget for the Prime Minister’s House and a 15 percent bump for the President’s House.

Blockchain Technology: From the Chaos of Capitalism a New(Revolutionary) World Order Emerges

Mary Metzger 

While there are many approaches to it, there is only one truth: that the world is One and thus that all is internally related.  The genius of Einstein is that he expressed and established this as the physical truth of the universe by negating Newton’s profound misconception of the world as separate and isolated units coexisting in an ether which had no effect upon them. He reformulated and unified time and space, into a continuous fabric which shaped and in turn, was shaped by various densities of matter in motion so that matter bent space and gravity slowed time.    No less, in his most famous formula he established the unity of energy and matter.  Nor was Einstein alone; it could be said that much of modern science has arrived at the same conclusion.  The big bang theory unifies reality by providing a common point of origin, the double slit experiment and the formulations of Heisenberg and Schrodinger established the unity of observer and observed to be such that subject and object could no longer be separated.  Evolution shows us nothing less than our internal relatedness to our physical past and our environment.  DNA tells us that we are all related to a single “Eve” from Africa. Recent research in genetics and epigenetics point to how the totality of our environment shapes our genetic structure in ways that lead diseases of body and mind.  Recent research takes it a step further by hinting at the possibility that we have a genetic memory such that the experiences of our ancestors are transferred to us generation after generation  The popularized version of chaos theory is that the flapping wings of a butterfly have repercussions on the weather patterns of Europe.

Of course the philosophy of internal relations is not derived from or based on modern scientific proofs, but rather is supported by them.  Way before Einstein, Hegel dedicated his life to logically elaborating the implications and subsets of the philosophy of internal relations, and Marx, following Hegel, turned it into a social and economic theory which led inexorably to communism. Thus the logical formulation of the philosophy of internal relations preceded any scientific proofs.

My purpose here is not to explain the philosophy of internal relations, but rather to focus on one logical implication of it and apply it to an understanding of the current state of the world.  According to the PIR, the result of internal relatedness is constant churning change.  This is the logical outcome of the unity of different bundles of relations.  The nature of this change is both evolutionary, slow and gradual change, and revolutionary, sudden and drastic phase transitions. Hegel would bind these two together by asserting that at a given point in time a change in quantity produces a change in quality.  I would like to tie this philosophical concept to the science by referencing chaos theory.  Chaos theory says the same thing with a slightly different twist.  It says that in the midst of chaos there exists a point of structured order which over time grows and grows until it flips the chaotic system into equilibrium.  Likewise and conversely, within that equilibrium there already exists the seed of chaos which grows and grows until the system undergoes a phase transition into pure chaos.

That the world now is in a state of nearly absolute capitalist and patriarchal chaos is reflected in a multitude of ways that can be measured:  war is ever expanding, the world is increasingly dividing into those few who have everything, and the vast majority, who have nothing, the brutal rape and slaughter of females even before they are born, has hit epidemic proportions in much of Asia, the pollution of the world has carried life forms to the brink of disaster, racism has been transformed in American into the nearly ritual daily killing of people of color, , and the “revolutionary” force of society is has taken the sad form of religious fanaticism.

Yet in the midst of it all, is the one small kernel of transformation that has begun to grow and expand in world’s absolute chaos, and that is technology.  Technology in general to be sure,  But in particular, one new form of technology which has the potential to dissolve the archaic social and economic structures of a putrid capitalist world. This is not to say that it will make the world perfect, for in fact, the “owners” of these new social forces are already capitalists-people such as PavelDurov.  However, they will redefine capitalism, move its social structures into a new phase transition, a phase transition which will, because it both it embodies and reinforces the internal relatedness of all,  take the world one step closer to communism.

This technological development is called blockchain technology (https://medium.com/animal-media/3-use-cases-of-how-blockchain-technology-is-already-unlocking-value-ec0b01129b03). It is the technology powering Bitcoin, the technology that threatens to bring banks as we know them to their knees. It has turned individuals into millionaires in a matter of months, and created a new class of entrepreneurs and investors.   The more idealistic blockchain advocates see it as  one of the most revolutionary and disruptive discoveries of our age, and argue that it will end global poverty, and revolutionize the ways in which politics and business are conduct.  It will, at the very least, make all transactions both absolutely secure and perhaps even ethical  Ostensibly, it will eliminate the ability of one human being to dupe another.  Beyond this it will redefine the nature of “value” itself.  According to its advocates, as the power and scope of blockchain technology grows the world will change for the better. This technology which will reflect the structure of the world by creating a technological “One” which is not based on knowledge but on human interactions will hopefully restructure the chaos and, of course, become the crucible for a new form of chaos.  But kid yourself not, it is the new, revolutionary force of society.

Global giant spearheads drive for further healthcare privatisation in Australia

Margaret Rees

Bupa, a UK-based international healthcare company that operates the largest private health insurance business in Australia, last month moved to limit one of its key insurance policy products to patients treated in a Bupa-contracted hospital or clinic.

Because Bupa’s insurance arm has four million customers in Australia, the change would accelerate the privatisation of health care in the country, where 45 percent of the population pays for private insurance to avoid long delays in the chronically-underfunded public hospital system.

From August 1, Bupa planned to restrict its “gap cover”—insurance against “out-of-pocket” fees that exceed Medicare benefits or insurance payments—to customers who undergo medical procedures in facilities under contract to the company.

This would be a major step toward “managed care,” in which insurance companies effectively dominate all aspects of medical care, and ration access by determining which kinds of treatment patients can obtain.

Out-of-pocket expenses are a huge problem in Australia, despite supposed near-universal healthcare coverage under the government’s Medicare public insurance scheme. OECD figures for 2015 showed that patients paid 20 percent of all health care expenditure out of their own pockets, compared with 10 percent in Britain, 13 percent in New Zealand and 14 percent in Canada.

Bupa also advised 720,000 “minimum benefits” policy holders that certain widely-needed services would be excluded altogether from their coverage from July, including hip and knee replacements, pregnancy, IVF, cataract procedures, kidney dialysis, obesity surgery and some plastic surgery.

The affected procedures had previously been listed as “restricted cover,” meaning there were large out-of-pocket fees to access them. The rise of such restrictions and exclusions is creating “junk” insurance policies, where patients risk having no cover at all if they need it.

Private health insurance companies operating in Australia are the beneficiaries of an annual federal government rebate—currently $6.4 billion—to lower insurance premiums. This outlay has grown rapidly each year while federal funding for public hospitals has been reduced from 48 percent to about 40 percent of their budgets.

Despite the rebate, insurance premiums have continued to increase each year at a rate higher than cost of living increases, rising 38 percent in the five years to 2016. The 3.95 percent average increase this April 1 followed a 4.84 percent average increase in 2017.

Bupa’s change to its Medical Gap Scheme caused an immediate outcry within the medical profession. Bupa denied that it was introducing managed care, but tactically retreated, if only temporarily. It said doctors and their patients opting to use the public hospital system would continue to qualify for the “gap cover” if the procedures were for pre-booked “elective” surgery.

Currently, doctors participating in the Medical Gap Scheme and their insured patients have choice of hospital. Under the new arrangements, this would be eliminated for private hospitals or day surgeries without a Bupa contract, and for all public hospitals, where many specialists have the right to private practice.

Australian Medical Association president Michael Gannon said: “That is US-style care and it will be resisted by our profession at every level. We can’t have a situation where an insurer decides what care patients can and can’t get. Bupa already owns dental facilities, and to have complete control they’d own hospitals and employ doctors.”

In reality, the privatisation inroads of the corporate health insurers are already extensive, especially in dental care, where the companies use financial inducements to control the system. Many dentists have signed contracts with a private insurer, only to find themselves competing against a “superclinic” run by the insurer itself.

There is little public coverage of dental treatment, except for children of families on Family Tax Benefits or Double Orphan payments, former and current military personnel and young people with cleft palates.

Bearing the full cost of treatment for uninsured patients, or large out of pocket costs for those privately insured, means that many patients are forced to delay or forgo dental treatment, with potentially serious and even life-threatening health consequences.

In South Australia, where its market share is at least 50 percent, Bupa introduced a three-tier system of paying differential rates to privately-insured dental patients. Those who visit an independent dentist receive a lower rebate than those who use a contracted provider, while the Bupa super clinic provides some treatment for nothing to gain a greater stranglehold over the market.

From March this year, former Labor Party health minister Nicola Roxon has been chairman of Bupa Australia and New Zealand, which is responsible for 49 percent of the profits of the giant British corporation, which has operations in 190 countries. Before that, she was a non-executive director of the company.

While health minister from 2007 to 2011 in the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, Roxon rejected calls for the abolition of the private health insurance rebate. Her latest appointment further exposes the fraud of the Labor Party’s pretences of opposing continually rising private insurance premiums.

The subsidy of private insurers grew rapidly under the Rudd and Gillard governments. Now the Turnbull Liberal-National Coalition government is taking it to a new level. It is introducing Gold, Silver, Bronze and Basic Bronze categories of private insurance from April 2019. Only the Gold category would have no restrictions on healthcare coverage. The other categories would have exclusions, and deductibles or co-payments, or both.

In the United States, deductibles for lower-priced “bronze” plans now average more than $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for families. Deductibles for “silver” plans, which make up 70 percent of the market, average more than $3,000 for individuals. That is, working class people must pay thousands of dollars before they begin to receive any insurance payments.

Advances in medical technology are making possible an enormous improvement in the health of the world’s population, but governments and corporations everywhere are increasingly rationing healthcare. The solution to this crisis lies in putting an end to the private ownership of health care services and establishing socialised medicine, based on providing free, first class services to meet the needs of all.