4 May 2018

NNPC/Chevron Art Competition for Secondary School Students in Nigeria 2018

Application Deadline: 30th July, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Students in JSS1 – SSS 3 classes in Secondary Schools in Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

Theme: The Nigerian Spirit

About the Award: The National Art Competition is an annual arts competition with each edition driven by pertinent themes in line with current social issues.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 
  • Participants are advised to adhere strictly to the theme and rules of the competition.
  • All works must be original and unaided.
  • All works submitted remains the property of Chevron Nigeria Limited for Internal and External use and do not attract any grant thereof after the competition
Specifications:
  • Format: Painting
  • Medium: Posters, water colour, oil colour or acrylic
  • Size: Not exceeding 60cm x 45cm
  • Colour: Free
Number of Awardees: Not stated

Value of Contest: Not stated

Award Provider: The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)/Chevron Joint Venture in partnership with the Federal Ministry of Education and the African Artists’ Foundation.

How to Apply: Please supply the following information at the back of each work:
  • Full Name
  • Age
  • Class
  • Full address, telephone numbers and email address of Student’s School
  • Phone number of Student, Art Teacher or Tutor, School Principal and Student’s Parents or responsible guardian.
Entries should be addressed and submitted to:

Abuja
Policy, Government & Public Affairs,
Chevron Nigeria Limited,
17, Hon. Justice Mohammed,
Bello Street,
Asokoro,
Abuja.


Mrs. M.O. Onyegbu
Federal Ministry of Education
Federal Secretary Phase III,
RM 812 (8th floor),
Abuja.

Lagos State

Policy, Government & Public Affairs,
Chevron Nigeria Limited,
2, Chevron Drive,
Lekki-Epe Expressway,
Lekki, Pennisula,
Lagos State.


Warri
Policy, Government & Public Affairs,
Chevron Nigeria Limited,
Km 4 Warri,
New Port Expressway,
P.M.B 1244, Warri,
Delta State.


Bayelsa
Chevron Liaison Office,
Major Oputa Street,
By Chief Amange Street,
GRA, Yenagoa,
Bayelsa State.


For more enquires please contact:Joy Oziomaaka
Phone: (01 – 2772222) Ext: 68210
Email: jozi@chevron.com

Peace and the Nuclear Paradox

Robert Koehler

Whenever the topic is nuclear weapons, I remain in a state of disbelief that we can talk about them “strategically” — that language allows us to maintain such a distance from the reality of what they do, we can casually debate their use.
Consider, in the context of the sudden rush of alarming news that Donald Trump may trash the Iran nuclear agreement on May 12, on the false grounds that Iran is in violation of it, this piece of news from several months ago:
The latest Nuclear Posture Review, released in early February, “calls for the development of new, more usable nuclear weapons, and expanding the number of scenarios when the first use of nuclear weapons would be considered, including in response to a non-nuclear attack,” according Global Zero, an international movement to eliminate nuclear weapons.
“The plan renews the calls for massive spending to replace all legs of the nuclear triad, including new strategic bombers, new ballistic missile submarines and new land-based ballistic missile systems. The proposed approach will make America poorer and less secure, and could greatly increase the risk of nuclear war.”
It’s as though humankind has evolved to its own endpoint and doesn’t know it. And those in charge of our future wear uniforms. Or have orange hair.
And these holders of the future declare the need for new, more usable nuclear weapons — tactical nukes, as they say — belying the trillion-dollar paradox at the foundation of international unity: “The most powerful weapons ever devised serve no other purpose but to prevent their use by others,” as Steve Weintz put it in The National Interest.
Maybe the human race is so spiritually complex in its makeup that it requires the suicidal — excuse me, omnicidal — threat of nuclear war, or mutually assured destruction, in order to live in a semblance of peace with itself. I don’t believe this is the case, but that remains the default setting of international politics. The only problem is that military thinking is utterly consumed in the mindset of victory vs. defeat and obsessed by the enemy of the moment. And small-minded militarists are the ones in control.
So the temptation is always present, among the players at the highest level of national and international politics, to skirt around the paradox of MAD and use nuclear weapons to achieve “victory” over some perceived threat.
American generals pushed to use nukes in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, for instance. They were contained then by the forces of (slightly) higher sanity, but that doesn’t mean at some point they won’t get their way. Say a bully with the intellectual acumen of a 12-year-old manages to become president . . .
I mention this in the context of the push by both the United States and Israel to scuttle the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the Iran nuclear deal — and resume U.S. sanctions against Iran.
As Medea Benjamin pointed out, if the sanctions resume and Iran gets no economic benefit out of the deal, “the hardliners in Iran will get the upper hand, pushing Iran to end the intrusive inspections and accelerate its nuclear program. That will provide justification for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, to press for a direct military attack or support for an Israeli attack on Iran.”
As many commentators have pointed out, the hypocrisy in all this is overwhelming. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program; it is in compliance with JCPOA. Israel, meanwhile, has at least 80 nuclear weapons and the United States has 6,800 of them, and ongoing plans to invest a trillion-plus dollars in the next generation of nukes and possibly the development, as I noted, of low-yield, usable nukes.
It’s all done in the name of deterrence. This is never seriously questioned, and the ever-expanding war budgets pass year after year after year. Meanwhile, the hardliners on all sides push one another’s buttons, playing with strategy and war, shrugging off the real-life consequences as collateral damage. When we talk about war, up to and including nuclear war, abstractly and politically, actual human life has no value. I find something profoundly wrong with this sort of conversation, which is all too common in the corridors of government and in the media.
The visionary reach of this conversation is miniscule. Even when the commentary is critical, there are often assumptions that keep the overarching reality of war in place. NBC News, for instance, in a report debunking Netanyahu’s recent public charges against Iran, quoted a number of security experts who pointed out the case he made — “that Iran once had an unauthorized nuclear program” — is old news.
OK, true enough. Iran halted its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. That’s evidence the multilateral agreement is working. But I choked on that phrase “unauthorized nuclear program.” Does it not imply, oh so unobtrusively, that some nuclear programs are “authorized”? And if so, by whom? The throwaway phrase assumes that there’s a legal — a moral — force at work protecting the security of Planet Earth. Only responsible, First World nations have been authorized to participate in the game of mutually assured destruction. Iran could never be trusted to play this game.
Then I think of the names of some of the players: Bolton, Pompeo, Trump . . .

Why Israel’s Bombing of Syria May Backfire

Patrick Cockburn

It is likely that Israel launched the missile attack in Syria that killed at least 26 pro-government fighters, many of them Iranians, late on Sunday night. The targets included a ground-to-ground missile depot that exploded with the seismic impact of a small earthquake.
Iranian news outlets first confirmed and then denied that Iranian facilities had been destroyed, suggesting that Tehran wants to deny that the incident took place because it does not intend to retaliate against Israel at this time.
Israel has not confirmed officially that it was responsible for the airstrikes, but the Israeli media is reporting them as if there was no doubt that Israel was behind them.
Iran may feel that retaliatory military action against Israel is not in its interests in the days leading up to Donald Trump’s likely withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal on 12 May.
The Iranian leadership will want to avoid providing Mr Trump with an excuse for his actions, thus enabling them to put as much blame as possible on the US for pulling out of the 2015 agreement.
Israel may calculate that it can expect to benefit from Iranian restraint in Syria for the next few weeks or even months, even if Israel escalates its airstrikes against Iran-related targets.
Play VideoIt is a risky strategy: much depends on the extent of Israeli ambitions in Syria. It can expect strong support from the US and the new, hawkish US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had just left Israel when the missile attacks took place.
But if the Israeli air war in Syria continues and begins to affect the balance of power in the seven-year civil war, then Iran will certainly retaliate. Iranian reaction to developments affecting its interests in the Middle East – such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – have tended in the past to be long delayed but effective.
Sustained Israeli military action in Syria could not single out Iranian targets. It would draw in Russia which does not want to see the military successes of it ally, Bashar al-Assad, reversed by Israel. Relations between Israel and Russia are deteriorating: previously Israel informed the Russians about impending Israeli attacks, but this liaison is reported to have lapsed.
Israeli strikes in Syria have increased this year, primarily focusing on facilities where Iranian fighters and equipped were alleged to be based. Serious incidents include an Israeli warplane shot down returning from a bombing raid in Syria on 9 February and an Israeli attack on the Syrian government’s T4 airbase between Homs and Palmyra on 9 April that killed seven Iranians.
Israel is certainly capable of inflicting losses on Iran in Syria, but would not be able to force them out of the country. Trying to do so might well provoke a wider war. US policy in Syria is contradictory, with Mr Trump demonising Iran as the source of all evil which must be opposed, but also saying that he wants to pull US forces out of the country.
An Israeli-Iranian confrontation in Syria, would add yet another battle front to the conflict there that already has multiple fronts.
If sustained, it could draw in Hezbollah in Lebanon which has been an important ally of Assad. The US may back a more aggressive Israeli posture in Syria, but the single-minded obsession of the Trump administration with Iran as the source of all instability in the Middle East is dangerously simple-minded and injects more instability into a region already deeply unstable.

Irresistible Urges: Surveilling Australia’s Citizens

Binoy Kampmark

The authoritarian misfits in the Turnbull government have again rumbled and uttered suspicions long held: Australian residents and citizens are not to be trusted, and the intelligence services should start getting busy in expanding their operations against the next Doomsday threat.
This became clear from leaked material on discussions that illustrate in no subtle way the security paranoia afflicting officials in the nation’s various capitals.  A merry bunch they are too, featuring the Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and his advisor and department secretary, Mike Pezzullo.  These latest discussions disclose not so much a change of approach as a continuation of a theme the Australian national security has taken since 2001: we are menaced constantly, and need the peering folk and peeping toms to pre-empt the next attack, fraud or swindle.
Central to the latest security round robin is a familiar, authoritarian theme: the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) should be given access to emails, bank records and text messages without the knowledge of citizens, tantamount to a data home invasion. A mutual role would thereby be cemented between defence and home affairs.
Minister Dutton has found it hard to contain his delight at the prospect of further influence, despite rejecting the notion that his moves would lead to carte blanche espionage on home soil. According to the ABC, which has attempted to make sense of the latest chatter, the ASD would be given a larger role on three levels.
The first would involve deploying shutting down or “cyber effects” powers against the usual gifts that keep giving alibis: organised criminals, child pornographers and terrorists.  “Penetration tests” on Australian companies to test the value of their cyber security against hacking would also be conducted.  The third arm of enlarged power would entail giving the ASD powers to coerce government agencies and companies to improve cyber security.
Over the weekend, the secretaries of Defence, Home Affairs and the ASD issued a joint statement claiming that the latter’s “cyber security function entails protecting Australians from cyber-enabled crime and cyber attacks, and not collecting intelligence on Australians.”
The secretaries insist on a scrupulousness that barely computes: “We would never provide advice to Government suggesting that ASD be allowed to have unchecked data collection on Australians – this can only ever occur within the law, and under very limited and controlled circumstances.”
The state of protections citizens have is hardly rosy as it is: ASIO is tasked with the issue of conducting espionage on Australian territory though it needs warrants signatured by the Attorney General.  The Australian Federal Police also require warrants.  The ASD, to date, been a helper rather than a controller, a two-bit player and data cruncher.
Not all ministers are on board with the plan, notably the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.  A palpable shift of power is taking place in the bureaucratic machinations of Canberra, and the suggestions that the ASD be given enhanced powers to produce intelligence on Australians suggests a further circumvention if not outright evisceration of the Attorney-General’s department.
Dutton and his cadres are also mounting an offensive on other surveillance fronts, something typified by the weasel language of the “central interoperability hub”. The Home Affairs department already shows sign of bloating self-importance, floating more ideas about how best to keep the large eye of the state attentive to security threats.  A facial recognition system, for instance, is on the table, and is likely to be given the blessing of parliament.
The Law Council of Australia has reason to worry as, for that matter, does everybody else. Giving government agencies the means to identify a face in a crowd can only have a broadening effect, resulting in prosecutions for minor misdemeanours.
On this score, the governments of the states and territories are with the Home Affairs department, having agreed in October last year to the sharing of identity and facial recognition data between all levels of government to target the usual bogeys that threaten Australia’s cobbled civilisation: organised crime, terrorism and identity fraud.
The surveillance sorcerers, it would seem, are rampant, a point made clear in the Identity-matching Services Bill 2018.  This potentially insidious bit of drafting “provides for the exchange of identity information between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments by enabling the Department of Home Affairs to collect, use and disclose identification information in order to operate the technical systems that will facilitate the identity-matching services envisaged by the IGA.” (Crypto-authoritarians tend to be rather verbose.)
The Bill’s wording also abhors the state of current image-based methods of identification, these being “slow, difficult to audit, and often involve manual tasking between requesting agencies and data holding agencies, sometimes taking several days or longer to process”. The travails of a liberal democracy, ever a nuisance to those protectors citing omnipresent threats.
The Council’s president, Morry Bailes, has already hammered out the words he intends to tell the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security: “Clearly, provision of such capability has been desirable to facilitate detection of would-be terrorists scoping a site for a potential terrorist attack.  But that very same identity-matching capability might also be used for a range of activities that Australian citizens regard as unacceptable.”
Even Bailes effuses pieties, thinking that clearly drawn lines on the use of such data will somehow save the sacred cow of civil liberties.  (That cow, it must be said, is in a poor state of health as it is.)  He insists on such canons as legitimate use and proportionality, two features managers of the national security state are inherently incapable of.
“That line should also be assured by law to be fully transparent, understood and consistently applied by all relevant governments and their agencies.”  But such a line might creep, advancing “towards broad social surveillance” finding its way “to a full social-credit style system of government surveillance of Australian citizens.”
The issue common to the latest pro-surveillance bingers is an innate desire to remove the judicial arm from the equation.  Having a warrant takes time and resources; leaving surveillance to the discretion of state officials is far more expedient and tidy.
As the Australian Human Rights Commission notes, the “very broad powers” granted to Dutton as Home Affairs minister “could lead to further very significant intrusions on privacy.”  There are no discernible “limits on what may be done with information shared through the services the bill would create”.
The latest ASD affair, with other surveillance agendas in the wing, suggests that a very unfitting eulogy for Australian civil liberties is being written.  Authoritarianism is being kept in check by ever weakening forces and fetters.  The insecurity of citizens is deemed a suitable price for the security of the state – just the way Dutton likes it.

ExxonMobil gas project a disaster for Papua New Guinea’s people

John Braddock 

The massive $US19 billion ExxonMobil-led liquid natural gas (LNG) project in the Hela region of Papua New Guinea (PNG) has failed to deliver a promised economic boom for the country, a non-government organisation report has found.
The Jubilee Australia report, titled “Double or Nothing; the Broken Economic Promises of PNG LNG,” says the project “has contributed to PNG going backwards on most economic indicators.” According to the author Paul Flanagan, a former Australian treasury official, the country’s impoverished population would have been better off “on almost every measure of economic welfare” without the project.
ExxonMobil, the lead operator, is supported by the Australian-PNG company OilSearch. Both have stakes of just under one third in PNG LNG. The PNG government also has a large stake, as does Australian gas company Santos. The project, expected to run for 30 years, ships liquefied gas to Japan, South Korea and China.
The operation was substantially financed by the US Export-Import Bank, backed by a $A500 million loan from the Australian government’s Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. ExxonMobil invested primarily in order to profit from low labour and start-up costs. The company began exporting LNG in 2014, amounting to 7.9 million tonnes per year, delivering an initial boost to the country’s output. In 2016, however, the global economic crisis saw a precipitous drop in LNG prices to $US6.45 per million British thermal units (Btu), from a peak of $19.70.
The facility remains vital to Washington’s geo-strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific. Speaking to a Congressional committee in 2011 following a visit to PNG, then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton declared: “We are in a competition with China … ExxonMobil is producing it [natural gas]. China is in there every day in every way trying to figure out how it’s going to come in behind us, come in under us.”
Donald Trump’s nomination of ExxonMobil’s former CEO and chairman Rex Tillerson as US secretary of state in 2016 was welcomed by PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill, who declared him to be a “very good and genuine friend” of the country.
PNG became nominally independent from Australian colonial rule in 1975. US and Australian-based banks and conglomerates, however, still dominate much of the country’s economic and social life. Almost 5,000 Australian companies do business there, with total investments worth $A5.8 billion. PNG’s military and police are funded through Australian grants and trained and advised by Australian forces.
Proponents of the LNG project boasted it would be a “transformational” initiative for the PNG economy, contributing to a doubling of gross domestic product (GDP). The Jubilee report, however, catalogues a litany of economic failures. These included a GDP gain of just 10 percent, all “focused on the largely foreign-owned resource sector.”
The decline in the social position of ordinary people has been stark. A “significant recession” hit the non-resource sector from 2015. By 2016, household incomes fell by 6 percent, employment by 27 percent and government services, including education, health and infrastructure, by 32 percent. Imports fell by 73 percent, and agricultural exports by 40 percent, due to exchange rate increases following the expansion of gas exports.
The report notes that the “extremely disappointing” government revenues from the project cannot be put down to low global gas prices or cost blowouts in construction. Revenue, predicted to be around 1.4 billion PNG Kina ($A567.8 million) per year in 2016, despite low gas prices, was less than K0.5 billion. Including the interest costs of buying the government’s equity share and direct payments to landowners, the project had a negative impact on the budget of at least K200 million in 2016 alone.
Several reasons are advanced for the project failing to deliver on its promises. There were serious flaws in the Exxon-commissioned modelling produced in 2008 by consultants Acil Tasman. The model failed to take into account, among other factors, generous tax concessions and the “aggressive tax avoidance methods” of ExxonMobil and OilSearch, including their use of subsidiaries, shell companies and tax havens.
Luke Fletcher, executive director of Jubilee, told the Guardian there was generally little or no transparency about the assumptions made by economic modellers hired by resource firms proposing large-scale projects.
The report claims the PNG economy performed worse than would have been expected without any new gas projects at all. “Poor policy decisions” were made by the PNG government in response to the gas boom. They included ramping up expenditure on what the Sydney-based Lowy Institute criticised as “prestige projects” as gas prices fell, contributed to the largest budget deficits in the country’s history.
The only beneficiary has been a corrupt layer of business leaders and politicians who operate in the interests of the US and Australian-based banks and corporations, looting the country’s extensive natural resources at the direct expense of working people. While O’Neill has been embroiled in corruption allegations, his government’s austerity measures have further impoverished the working class and rural poor.
With none of the promised benefits to improve living standards realised, the government has turned to police-state methods to suppress social tensions that have produced student protests, workers’ strikes and, in the remote Highlands region, armed unrest.
In April 2017, the government intensified a police and military operation, involving 300 personnel, to protect the ExxonMobil operations. Traditional landowners in Hela province carried out protests and blockades over the non-payment of promised royalties, development levies and dividends from the project, estimated at over K1 billion.
During 2017, ExxonMobil and OilSearch boasted sharp jumps in profits on the back of rebounding energy prices and cost-cutting. OilSearch reported a net profit rise of 405 percent to $US129.1 million, from $25.6 million, for the first half-year, mainly from its PNG operations. ExxonMobil’s quarterly global income spiked to $8.38 billion, up from $1.68 billion in the same quarter a year previously. The result included a $5.9 billion non-cash benefit from recent US tax cuts.
While the transnational energy corporations amass huge profits, PNG remains ranked at 154 out of 188 countries on the UN Human Development Index. Nearly 40 percent of the population live in grinding poverty, subsisting on less than $1.25 a day. PNG has one of the world’s highest rates of maternal deaths. Nearly half the people live in squatter settlements, and illiteracy is rampant. PNG has the highest percentage of its population in the world—60 percent—without access to safe water.

Inhuman conditions in Germany’s largest refugee detention centre

Elisabeth Zimmermann

Germany’s grand coalition of conservative parties and the Social Democratic Party is intent on stepping up the deportation of refugees and expanding the country’s system of deportation centres. At the beginning of April, the administration of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) also decided to tighten up its rules for deportations. A report in the current edition of Der Spiegel deals with the dire consequences of such policies for those incarcerated in the detention centre of Büren (NRW).
The prison in Büren, near Paderborn, is currently the largest detention centre in Germany, with about 140 detainees. This number is due to increase to 175 in the near future. So far, there are eight detention prisons in Germany, which can accommodate about 400 people. The number of such prisons is to be greatly expanded, with new detention centres being built in Dresden (Saxony) and Darmstadt (Hesse), and a new facility is planned for Glückstadt in Schleswig-Holstein.
“No one may be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This is laid down in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The conditions outlined in the article in Der Spiegel clearly contradict this principle.
The article begins with a description of the special secure rooms located in the basement of the detention centre. In these cells, there is just a mattress and a toilet in the floor. The walls are equipped with surveillance cameras. The prisoners usually wear just paper underpants, so that they cannot strangle themselves with their clothes.
This type of detention is supposed to be a means of last resort to deal with violent prisoners, but in Büren such incarceration takes place with increasing frequency. Der Spiegel quotes several passages from a report by security guards, which apparently seeks to justify the inhumane practice. The report declares at the start that the situation in Büren escalated due to “death threats, riots, and attempts to escape”.
In one case, a 28-year-old Egyptian prisoner asked for tea, but then threw the tea at the guard who brought it. The report continues: “Later the detainee destroyed a television and armed himself with its remains, repeatedly threatening to kill colleagues. After reinforcement was requested, the detainee was brought down to the detention room by means of a protective suit and shield and then transferred to the special secure room 1.”
In this description, one can only guess at the manic state of the young man: He was on the verge of deportation to Egypt, a country ruled by the dictator General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who, since taking power in 2013, has murdered thousands of opponents of his regime. Additional tens of thousands have been imprisoned and tortured for political reasons.
All those detained in Büren face deportation. Sufficient grounds for detention is “reasonable suspicion” that someone could evade his or her deportation, and it is enough for a police officer or immigration official to express such a suspicion. As a result, those concerned lose their basic right of freedom and are often locked away for months up to their deportation.
The Der Spiegel report states: “Those living in deportation detention are not be re-socialised. The prisoners have no work and have nothing to do except wait until they have to get on a plane against their will. “
Men between the ages of 18 and 40 are currently detained in Büren. They originate from Algeria, Morocco, Syria, India, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Mongolia and some other countries. They are to be deported as quickly as possible to the countries from which they have fled, because they sought security from political persecution, war or extreme hardship. In addition to Muslims, considered in the eyes of the authorities to be “Islamist threats”, the centre contains Chinese workers detained following a police raid on a restaurant.
The “Accommodation facilities for people leaving the country”, UfA for short, as the deportation prisons are euphemistically named in German, are centres of hopelessness and desperation. The Büren deportation prison is located about 10 kilometres outside the city, in the middle of a forest. The 6-metre-high wall enclosing the site is reminiscent of a high-security prison. The refugees live in single cells equipped with a sink, a cupboard, a bed and a TV. The windows are barred and the cells locked at night. Most of the security guards are provided by a private security service.
The length of stay in the detention centre can be from one month to half a year and even longer, depending on the time taken by the authorities to complete the necessary formalities. During this time, the refugees must wait in prison, largely isolated, to await their deportation. It is not surprising that some then resort to acts of desperation.
One of the reports available to Der Spiegel centres on a Guinean inmate: “He showed significant signs of depressive moods, so self-harm is not ruled out. ... On February 11, 2018, the housed person was found completely apathetic and crying on the floor of his room. He also hit his head twice on the floor.”
Four years ago, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that deportation detention centres must clearly differ from a normal prison, but the situation for detainees in Büren has clearly not improved since then.
In January 2018, the public became aware of Büren when the lawyer of the association named “Help for people in the Büren deportation centre” laid charges against the chief of the prison with the public prosecutor’s office in Paderborn. Based on statements by former security guards, the prison head was accused of assault and mistreatment. In particular, she is said to have mixed “liquefied” medicine in the food of detainees to keep them quiet.
The association also criticised the fact among those detained in Büren were people who should not be in prison: “As an association we have taken up a total of 237 cases since 2015 and courts have determined that 60 percent of these people were illegally detained,” Frank Gockel, spokesman for the initiative, told the press.
Based on the indictment and several other reports, four members of the National Bureau for the Prevention of Torture visited the Büren detention centre on January 24-25. This organisation investigates possible ill-treatment in prisons and psychiatric clinics. Their report has not yet been published, but on site the inspectors criticised the fact that prisoners in the special secure rooms had been filmed when going to the toilet. This form of surveillance is not even practiced in prisons. One member of the delegation complained that some inmates did not know why they were in Büren.
The local administration in Detmold, which is responsible for the prison in Büren, reacted dismissively to the Spiegel account of abuses and violence in the detention centre. The listed cases had taken place, officials admitted, but over a period from 2016 up until now. In the eyes of the Detmold administration, there were no “daily” incidents.
The state government, a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the neo-liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) led by premier Armin Laschet, has failed to respond to criticism of the conditions in Büren. Instead, it recently decided to tighten up its law on deportation to allow prison staff in future to punish “dangerous prisoners” even more harshly. Anyone who makes trouble is to be isolated for even longer periods, denied the use of a mobile phone and the Internet or even visits.
According to the state minister responsible for children, families, refugees and integration, Joachim Stamp (FDP), deportation centres could not be run by social workers. Stamp is the deputy premier of NRW.
This brutal treatment of refugees is supported by all political parties. The expansion of Büren into a pure detention centre originates with the former Interior Minister Ralf Jäger (SPD), who declared that “deportation detention in Germany should not fail due to a lack of places.”
In fact, there is a competition to deport among states, regardless of the political composition of their respective governments. NRW, governed by a coalition of the SPD and the Greens until May 2017, bragged at that time that it had deported more people than any other state. In 2016, 5,121 people were forcibly deported, and last year 6,308.
The systematic tightening of asylum and immigration policy in recent years has been taken even further by the current federal government. The grand coalition sitting in Berlin has effectively adopted the refugee policy of the racist Alternative for Germany.
In the coalition agreement, the SPD and Union parties decided to strictly limit the admission of refugees, drive ahead with deportations, drastically curtail family reunifications, and extend the list of supposed “safe countries of origin”. The government also wants to permanently intern refugees in central camps, so-called AnkER centres. According to Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU), AnkER stands for “arrival, decision, repatriation”—i.e., “staying” in Germany is apparently not an option.

Global military spending at record $1.7 trillion

Niles Niemuth

Global military spending hit a record of more than $1.7 trillion in 2017, the highest level since the Cold War, according to figures published Thursday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The report gives some idea of the scale of the squandering of resources for destructive ends. According to SIPRI, just 13 percent of annual world military spending would be enough to end world poverty and hunger; four percent would guarantee food security for the world’s population; five percent would meet health needs; 12 percent would provide everyone with an education; three percent would provide clean water and proper sanitation.
Feeding its vast military machine with more than $610 billion in 2017, the United States remains by far the world’s biggest military spender, dedicating a greater amount to military spending than the next seven countries combined. The 2018 defense budget recently signed by President Donald Trump will push this figure to $700 billion.
The US has been at war continuously for the past quarter-century, beginning with the 1991 invasion of Iraq, followed in the course of that decade by military interventions and strikes in Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq and the air war against Yugoslavia. The 2000s saw the launching of the global “war on terror,” beginning with the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. That was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the extension of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan with the launching of drone attacks in 2004, the war for regime-change in Libya in 2011 and the beginning that same year of the continuing CIA-fomented civil war in Syria, followed by a third war in Iraq.
The war in Syria, which began as a regime-change operation by US-armed and funded Islamist proxy forces fighting to overthrow the pro-Russian and pro-Iranian government of Bashar al-Assad, has evolved into a confrontation between US forces and those of Russia and Iran, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasting that the US has killed scores of Russians, the Israelis carrying out missile attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, and the US, Britain and France launching a joint missile strike against Syrian government facilities.
After the dissolution of the USSR by the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1991, the apologists for capitalism proclaimed the “end of history”—the final triumph of capitalism and defeat of socialism. They hailed the dawn of a new era of liberal democracy, peace and prosperity.
But more than a quarter-century later, capitalism has produced a nightmare world of feverish rearmament and war, millions of refugees confronting militarized borders and racist witch hunts, soaring inequality combined with brutal austerity, the growth of far-right and fascistic parties and a universal turn by governments to authoritarian rule.
Now the regional wars are metastasizing into a third world war to redivide the globe. Every major power is rearming, pushing international military spending up by nearly 10 percent since the global economic crisis of 2008.
The particularly sharp rise in military spending over the last decade in Central Europe (20 percent) and Eastern Europe (33 percent) reflects the preparations by the US and the NATO alliance for war with Russia. The 29 members of NATO now account for more than half of the world’s military spending.
Under Obama and now Trump, Washington has pressured its European allies to push their military spending even higher. Germany’s new grand coalition government has pledged to nearly double military spending to two percent of gross domestic product by 2024, while French President Emmanuel Macron plans to increase military spending by 35 percent and has called for a revival of the military draft. In all of these countries, rearmament has been accompanied by an onslaught on social programs and workers’ living standards.
Despite incessant US propaganda proclaiming Russia to be a military juggernaut menacing its neighbors, the country had one of the largest annual declines in military spending, falling 20 percent from 2016. The Kremlin spent $66.3 billion on its military in 2017, little more than one tenth what the US spends.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, a key ally of the US in the Middle East, took the number three position from Russia, spending $69.4 billion in 2017. The oil-rich kingdom on the Arabian Peninsula expends 10 percent of its annual economic output on its military, the second highest percentage in the world. Much of Saudi Arabia’s military equipment, purchased from the US, has been dedicated to its slaughter in neighboring Yemen, but that is only a prelude to war against its main target, Iran.
Asia and Oceania have seen military spending increase for an unparalleled 29 successive years. The region witnessed a major military buildup under Obama’s so-called “pivot to Asia,” which is being continued under Trump. The arms race in the region is guaranteed to accelerate with India, under the government of Narendra Modi, initiating plans to expand and modernize the country’s military forces to prepare for war with China and Pakistan.
The US sees its war preparations against Russia as the prelude to a military confrontation with China, deemed to be Washington’s most dangerous rival. The US is rapidly building up its naval forces in the region and setting up missile defense systems and other military installations in the region to encircle China, which is responding with its own military buildup.
Japan is well on the way to casting aside all post-World War II pretensions to pacifism and remilitarizing.
As US military spending has grown to historic heights, the Pentagon has established ever closer ties with the technology giants, creating a special unit, the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, based in Silicon Valley. Amazon has contracts with both the CIA and the Pentagon and Google has partnered with the Pentagon to expand the drone murder program.
Record levels of military spending have been accompanied by ever greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of billionaires, the integration of the corporations they control with the state apparatus, an assault on the living standards of the working class, and the erosion of democratic rights, including censorship of socialist and anti-war voices on the Internet.
The root cause of war, austerity and attacks on democratic rights is the decrepit and obsolete capitalist system, which subordinates every social need to the enrichment of the financial oligarchy that dominates society.
In 2016, the International Committee of the Fourth International spelled out the following principles for building an international movement of the working class and youth against imperialist war:
* The struggle against war must be based on the working class, the great revolutionary force in society, uniting behind it all progressive elements in the population.
* The new anti-war movement must be anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital and the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war.
* The new anti-war movement must therefore, of necessity, be completely and unequivocally independent of, and hostile to, all political parties and organizations of the capitalist class.
* The new anti-war movement must, above all, be international, mobilizing the vast power of the working class in a unified global struggle against imperialism. The permanent war of the bourgeoisie must be answered with the perspective of permanent revolution by the working class, the strategic goal of which is the abolition of the nation-state system and the establishment of a world socialist federation. This will make possible the rational, planned development of global resources and, on this basis, the eradication of poverty and the raising of human culture to new heights.

Food factories closing across Britain

Steve James

Large food factories in Scotland and England face closure over the next few months, threatening thousands with unemployment.
The 2 Sisters chicken processing plant in Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, a suburb of Glasgow, has been a major employer in the town for 55 years and currently employs 450 workers. The plant is set to close in August.
Pinney’s of Scotland’s salmon processing factory in the borders town of Annan, also employs around 450 workers and is due to close later this year. Annan’s entire population consists of only 10,000 people.
Grimsby’s Five Star Fish factory, also owned by 2 Sisters, is set to close. The fish processing factory, which received millions of investment only last year, is already in a 45-day “consultation” prior to closure. Grimsby, in the east central English region of Lincolnshire, despite a drastic collapse of its fishing industry, hosts one of the most concentrated food manufacturing locations in Europe, with over 500 food-related companies in operation, employing thousands of very low paid workers.
2 Sisters is seeking to restore its profits by closing operations deemed loss-making or marginal. The company has also announced the closure of two further plants in England’s West Midlands, at Smethwick and Wolverhampton, at a cost of 500 jobs. Some are likely to be taken on at another company plant, which is moving to more intensive seven-day working.
Most of the plants being closed are relatively modern. 
Workers’ lives are being turned upside down because of the insatiable global hunger of finance capital for profit, which is driving intense and destructive competition across the food industry.
The 2 Sisters plants’ current owner is Boparan Holdings, the business empire of “chicken king” Ranjit Singh Boparan. 2 Sisters employs 23,000 workers across 36 factories in the UK, the Netherlands, Ireland and Poland. Boparan Holdings also owns food producers such as Bernard Matthew, Fox Biscuits, and restaurant chains including the Harry Ramsden fish and chip shops. Boparan and his wife are on the Sunday Times rich list, having extracted £544 million of personal wealth from the labour of their workforce.
In Britain, the company supplies high street food retailers and supermarkets such as Iceland Frozen Foods, Tesco, Lidl and Marks and Spencer (M&S).
One of 2 Sisters’ major competitors is Young’s Seafood, also based in Grimsby. Young’s is being mooted as a potential replacement supplier to M&S for the products processed by Five Star. Young’s also own the Pinney’s plant facing closure in Annan. Young’s, which claims to have been founded in 1805 by a Greenwich fish monger, employs 1,700 workers in Grimsby and 2,000 in Annan, Fraserburgh, and Livingston in Scotland. Work from the company’s threatened Annan plant is also likely to move to Grimsby by the end of the year. Young’s claim the Pinney’s plant is not "financially viable."
Young’s has just been put up for sale in its entirety by the clutch of management funds that control it—Lion Capital, Bain Capital and HPS Investment Partners.
London-based Lion Capital, with £4.8 billion in assets worldwide but just 30 staff, specialises in buying and selling brand name food and clothing companies. Lion’s current portfolio includes American Apparel, Paige, Kettle, Weetabix, and Findus foods, among others.
Boston-based Bain Capital’s assets are worth as much as $75 billion. As well as controlling a range of venture capital, public and private equity, insurance, and debt-based funds, the company’s venture fund owns a wide range of disparate operations in healthcare, tech and consumer products. While Bain are considering selling Young’s Seafood, they also have a finger in bankrupt toy retailer ToysRUs, while its proposed $18 billion takeover of Japanese Toshiba Memory is being compromised by US President Donald Trump’s anti-Chinese protectionism.
HPS, formerly Highbridge Principal Strategies, has over the past eight years invested up to $13 billion in 175 companies. It also has a stake in ToysRUs among many other companies. Spun off last year from JP Morgan Asset Management, HPS claims $39 billion of assets under its control.
The bewildering global reach of both 2 Sisters and Young’s Seafoods ownership and organisation stands in stark contrast to the extraordinarily narrow focus of those claiming to be defending workers’ interests in the threatened factories.
Local and national politicians and trade union representatives in Cambuslang, Annan, Grimsby and Wolverhampton promised initiatives, campaigns, representations and bluster—all based on appeals to 2 Sisters, Young’s and other companies to marginally alter their plans based on retaining whichever site they claim to represent.
The Scottish National Party’s MSP (member of the Scottish parliament) Clare Haughey promised to write to one of 2 Sister’s local rivals in Cambuslang, Uddingston-based Dawnfresh, suggesting they take on 2 Sisters workers if Dawnfresh wins the M&S contract. The Labour Party’s James Kelly demanded that instead of a working group, a “full taskforce” be set up to help 2 Sisters workers. Kelly also complained M&S had “failed to step in and save workers serving on their production lines.”
In Annan, where the closure will be particularly devastating, Scottish Enterprise Minister Paul Wheelhouse insisted he would leave “no stone unturned” in efforts to retain jobs. Local Labour MSP Colin Smyth again invoked M&S, complaining that “M&S have walked away from any corporate responsibility.”
Labour’s recently elected leader in Scotland, Richard Leonard, proposed workers be offered the chance to organise their own exploitation. He called for legislation to allow redundant workers preferential terms to buy out their threatened factories, thereby pitting their small savings against the likes of Bain Capital.
The Unite trade union has members in all the threatened factories. Far from launching a struggle to save jobs, it is above all seeking to prevent any unified struggle emerging from the factory workers. Complementing the role of the politicians, the union’s representatives have worked closely with the local factory managements and dignitaries to defend “their” region as an investment base.
Grimsby’s Dave Monaghan, speaking for Unite, blandly admitted that the Five Star closure had been expected for two years and “comes as no surprise.” Indeed, Unite had two years warning and made no preparation. Scott Walker, the Unite convenor in Cambuslang, demanded nothing more from 2 Sisters management than an extension of the consultation period.
In Annan, faced with mass meetings of workers concerned for their and their town’s future, regional Unite organiser Andy MacFarlane presented his efforts as wholly framed by the company’s interests. “I don’t think anybody’s going to kid anybody on that there aren’t major challenges in terms of the business decisions that have been made by Young’s,” he said, sounding the part of a company spokesman. 
The closures expose the bankruptcy of all the mainstream parties and trade unions claiming to speak for the factory workers.
New rank-and-file workers’ organisations, independent of all the official parties and trade unions, are urgently required. They are posed the task of developing a struggle to subordinate the food industry to the needs of the working population, rather than the profit drive of the global investment corporations.

Germany: Grand coalition government discusses war budget

Johannes Stern

The new budget presented by the Social Democratic Finance Minister Olaf Scholz was discussed yesterday by the cabinet. It is characterized by two things: it maintains the notorious “black zero” (balanced budget) of his predecessor, Christian Democrat Wolfgang Schäuble, which has made Germany one of the most unequal European countries, and it massively increases defence spending to pave the way for an aggressive foreign and great power policy.
While there is supposedly no money for comprehensive social programmes, well-paid jobs, secure pensions and decent medical care, defence spending next year alone is set to rise from today's 38.93 to 42.25 billion euros. By the end of the 2021 legislative period, an increase of 5.5 billion euros is planned. This will continue the “turnaround in the financing of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces),” according to the Ministry of Finance.
The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD) signed the coalition agreement, which included raising defence spending to two percent of gross domestic product by 2024, however, this is not preceding quickly enough for sections of the ruling class. The Ministry of Defence said it was indeed a “significant increase”, but the estimated amount was “still insufficient” given the “huge catch-up and modernization needs” of the army.
According to a report by tabloid Bild am Sonntag, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) is calling for the defence budget to be increased by as much as 12 billion over the next legislative period. If there was not significantly more money next year, the minister sees the billion-euro arms projects in danger, which the grand coalition has already decided. For this reason, the Bundeswehr Association is calling for an increase of the defence budget by 15 billion euros by 2021.
No matter what sum emerges at the end of the negotiations, it will be the largest German rearmament campaign since that of Hitler's Wehrmacht in the 1930s. Only a few days ago, the Bild newspaper published the “defence minister's secret order list”, containing 18 major orders, each exceeding the 25 million euro hurdle. These include combat drones, helicopters, mobile command posts, rocket launchers and articulated vehicles for transporting weapon systems.
At the weekend’s Berlin ILA air show, von der Leyen announced more billion-euro arms projects. In cooperation with France, Germany wanted to “develop a new generation of fighter aircraft, set to launch in 2035”. At the same time, both countries wanted to “jointly develop the next generation of armoured land combat systems over the next fifteen years,” and a “joint maritime reconnaissance craft to monitor large sea areas”. Such “joint projects” were about “optimally using the respective strengths of the industries of both countries”.
In Germany, these are the same arms manufacturers responsible for re-arming the German military before the two devastating world wars in the 20th century. Business daily Handelsblatt appeared last Thursday with the front-page headline, “New billions for tanks: The era of military disarmament seems over. The armaments company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann expects large orders from all over Europe”.
In an accompanying interview, Kraus-Maffei's boss Frank Haun provides an insight into the massive projects being prepared behind the backs of the population. Asked what the Bundeswehr needed for “its operations”, he answers: “Just to fulfil its obligations in the Alliance, Germany needs a new fully equipped mechanized division by 2027 and two more by 2032. That's nine mechanized brigades”.
And in terms of the planned tank upgrade, he calculates, “Let's say: 5,000 new battle tanks are needed in the next 20 to 30 years ... 5,000 new tanks times 15 million euros, that's 75 billion. And if I talk about howitzers, that's nearly another 40 billion”.
Four years after the German government announced the end of foreign policy restraint at the 2014 Munich Security Conference, there can be no doubt that the ruling class is again turning to war in order to pursue its geo-strategic and economic interests worldwide.
At the joint press conference with President Donald Trump last Friday, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) emphasized, “We are growing out of a role in which for many years after the Second World War, Germany was happy if it did not get involved too much because we had done so much harm through the Nazi era. But this time of post-war order is over, the war is more than 70 years ago, and we also have to learn to be more responsible as Germans”.
Her government was “proud that Germany today is the second largest troop contributor in NATO”. We have “taken important steps, and we will have to continue with these steps. When conflicts occur on our doorstep, we cannot rely on others stepping in and that we will not have to contribute”. The German “contribution” would therefore have to grow in the next few years, “and that also has to do with military involvement”. Germany must “learn to play its role as a large and economically successful country”.

Trade talks in Beijing: China says it won’t back down to US

Nick Beams 

Talks begin in Beijing today between a high-level US economic delegation and Chinese authorities on trade, with little prospect of any significant movement by either side in the deepening conflict.
Ahead of the negotiations, which will last two days and involve China’s vice-premier, Liu He, state-owned media insisted that China would not back down in the face of US demands following the imposition of tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods and the possible addition of a further $100 billion worth of goods.
“Washington had better not expect that its trade-war stick will force Beijing to take whatever the US delegation offers. China won’t abandon its principles despite pressure,” the Global Times said in an editorial published on Wednesday.
The newspaper is often described as “hawkish,” but its views on this question reflect those within top government circles.
The South China Morning Post cited a government official “close to the trade talks” as saying that Washington could not set preconditions for the negotiations and China had the strength to fight a trade war to the end if it broke out.
“We will not offer concessions on anything we consider to be our core interest,” the official said.
The immediate demand of the US is for a reduction of $100 billion in the Chinese trade surplus with the US, which hit $375 billion last year and could go even higher this year.
But the conflict is over more than the trade numbers. The overriding concern of the US is China’s move under its “Made in China 2025” program to develop its high-tech capacities in communications and other areas. Washington regards the program as a threat to American economic and military supremacy.
“Whether it’s the 2025 plan or the $100 billion trade deficit … we will not bow to threats, nor will we accept any preconditions for negotiations,” the Chinese official said.
“There are too many issues that we may not be able to solve in one round,” he said. “Both sides can continue the discussions in Beijing or in Washington. If the talks break down and the US escalates their actions, we are also well prepared for it.”
The US delegation, which is being led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, includes the two leading anti-China hawks within the Trump administration, White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.
Speaking on the eve of his departure for Beijing, Lighthizer said, “Our list of things that are troubling [in China] is very long.”
According to a report in the Financial Times, Lighthizer told a US Chamber of Commerce meeting on Tuesday that China’s economic model of “state capitalism” was a direct challenge to the US economy. The “Made in China 2025” plan, in which it is seeking to become a world leader in ten industries, represented a threat to the future of the US economy and the employment prospects of “our children,” he said.
Lighthizer claimed it was not his objective to change the Chinese system, “but I have to be in a position where the United States can deal with it, where the United States isn’t the victim of it.”
Lighthizer was the leading force behind a declaration from his office earlier this year that the US had “erred” in its decision to back China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation in 2001.
The report from the Office of the US Trade Representative said that China’s 2025 strategy had the “final goal” of capturing “much larger world market shares” in the targeted areas.
Anti-China rhetoric was also a theme of President Trump’s address to a Michigan rally at the weekend. “[China] became a major power after joining the World Trade Organization, which is a horror show for us,” he said.
Remarks by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who is also on the delegation, have been no less belligerent. In an interview with CNBC on the trade talks he indicated he had “some hope,” but made it clear the US was ready to proceed with more tariffs and other measures if it did not win concessions.
“President Trump is of the view that it’s now time for action,” he said. “Our trade deficit is too big, too continuing, too chronic and too inspired by evil practices.”
According to the US, these “evil practices” include Chinese theft of intellectual property, forced technology transfers in which US companies investing in China have to divulge knowledge to their joint venture partners, moves by Chinese companies to acquire US firms in order to gain access to technology advances, and the use of state funding to boost technological development.
In other words, China’s recourse to methods similar to those employed by US capitalism in its rise to global dominance represent an existential threat and must be halted.
Action is already being taken by the US. Legislation is now before Congress that would give the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which examines inbound investments for potential national security threats, the power to investigate joint ventures overseas on the same basis.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration is considering action to restrict the ability of Chinese companies to sell telecommunications equipment in the US on grounds of “national security.”
China’s two leading manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, Huawei and ZTE, would be adversely affected by any ban. ZTE has already been hit by a decision to ban US firms from selling components to it for seven years, on the grounds that it breached an agreement reached after it had been found to be in violation of US restrictions on trade with North Korea and Iran. It has been reported that the US Justice Department is also considering action against Huawei over the same issue.
While there may be some limited announcements from the Beijing talks, which will have to go to Trump for final approval, the underlying conflicts are not going to be resolved and are set to intensify.