11 Jul 2018

Correcting The Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua?

Kevin Zeese & Nils McCune

There is a great deal of false and inaccurate information about Nicaragua in the media. Even on the left, some have simply repeated the dubious claims of CNN and Nicaragua’s oligarchic media to support the removal of President Ortega. The narrative of nonviolent protesters versus anti-riot squads and pro-government paramilitaries has not been questioned by international media.
This article seeks to correct the record, describe what is happening in Nicaragua and why. As we write this, the coup seems to be failing, people have rallied for peace (as this massive march for peace held Saturday, July 7 showed) and the truth is coming out (e.g., the weapons cache discovered in a Catholic Church on July 9th). It is important to understand what is occurring because Nicaragua’s is an example of the types of violent coups the US and the wealthy use to put in place business dominated, neoliberal governments. If people understand these tactics, they will become less effective.
Sandinistas and followers of President Daniel Ortega wave their Sandinista flags in a march for peace, in Managua, Nicaragua, Saturday. From The Morning Sun.
Mixing up the Class Interests
In part, US pundits are getting their information from media outlets, such as Jaime Chamorro-Cardenal’s La Prensa, and the same oligarchical family’s Confidencial, that are the most active elements of the pro-coup media. Repeating and amplifying their narrative delegitimizes the Sandinista government and presents unconditional surrender by Daniel Ortega as the only acceptable option. These pundits provide cover for nefarious internal and external interests who have set their sights on controlling Central America’s poorest and yet resource-rich country.
The coup attempt brought the class divisions in Nicaragua into the open. Piero Coen, the richest man in Nicaragua, owner of all national Western Union operations and an agrochemical company, personally arrived on the first day of protests at the Polytechnical University in Managua, to encourage students to keep protesting, promising his continued support.
The traditional landed oligarchy of Nicaragua, politically led by the Chamorro family, publishes constant ultimatums to the government through its media outlets and finances the roadblocks that have paralyzed the country for the last eight weeks.
The Catholic Church, long allied with the oligarchs, has put its full weight behind creating and sustaining anti-government actions, including its universities, high schools, churches, bank accounts, vehicles, tweets, Sunday sermons, and a one-sided effort to mediate the National Dialogue. Bishops have made death threats against the President and his family, and a priest has been filmed supervising the torture of Sandinistas. Pope Francis has called for a peace dialogue, and even called Cardinal Leonaldo Brenes and Bishop Rolando Alvarez to a private meeting in the Vatican, setting off rumors that the Nicaraguan monseñores were being scolded for their obvious involvement in the conflict they are officially mediating.  The church remains one of the few pillars keeping the coup alive.
A common claim is Ortega has cozied up to the traditional oligarchy, but the opposite is true. This is the first government since Nicaraguan independence that does not include the oligarchy. Since the 1830s through the 1990s, all Nicaraguan governments– even during the Sandinista Revolution– included people from the elite “last names,” of Chamorro, Cardenal, Belli, Pellas, Lacayo, Montealegre, Gurdián. The government since 2007 does not, which is why these families are supporting the coup.
Ortega detractors claim his three-part dialogue including labor unions, capitalists, and the State is an alliance with big business. In fact, that process has yielded the highest growth rate in Central America and annual minimum wage increases 5-7% above inflation, improving workers’ living conditions and lifting people out of poverty. The anti-poverty Borgen project reports poverty fell by 30 percent between 2005 and 2014.
The FSLN-led government has put into place an economic model based on public investment and strengthening the safety net for the poor. The government invests in infrastructure, transit, maintains water and electricity within the public sector and moved privatized services. e.g., health care and primary education into the public sector. This has ensured a stable economic structure that favors the real economy over the speculative economy. The lion’s share of infrastructure in Nicaragua has been built in the last 11 years, something comparable to the New Deal-era in the US, including renewable electricity plants across the country.
What liberal and even leftists commentators overlook is that unlike the Lula government in Brazil, which reduced poverty through cash payouts to poor families, Nicaragua has redistributed productive capital in order to develop a self-sufficient popular economy. The FSLN model is better understood as an emphasis on the popular economy over the State or capitalist spheres.
While the private sector employs about 15% of Nicaraguan workers, the informal sector employs over 60%. The informal sector has benefitted from $400 million in public investments, much of it coming from the ALBA alliance funds to finance micro loans for small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises. Policies to facilitate credit, equipment, training, animals, seeds and subsidized fuel further support these enterprises. The small and medium producers of Nicaragua have led the country to produce 80-90% of its food and end its dependence on IMF loans.
As such, workers and peasants– many of whom are self-employed and who accessed productive capital through the Sandinista Revolution and ensuing struggles– represent an important political subject of the stable, postwar social development of the last decade, including the hundreds of thousands of peasant farmers who have received land title and the nearly one-quarter of the national territory that has been given collective title as territory of indigenous nations. The social movements of workers, peasants, and indigenous groups were the base of popular support that brought the FSLN back into power.
Land titling and assistance to small businesses have also emphasized equality for women, resulting in Nicaragua having the lowest level of gender inequality in Latin America and ranked 12 out of 145 countries in the world, just behind Germany.
Over time, the FSLN government has incorporated this massive self-employed sector, as well as maquiladora workers (i.e. textile workers in foreign-owned plants located in free trade zones created by previous neoliberal governments), into the health care and pension system, causing the financial commitments to grow which required a new formula to ensure fiscal stability. The proposed reforms to Social Security were the trigger for the private sector and student protests on April 18th. The business lobby called for the protests when Ortega proposed increasing employer contributions by 3.5% to pension and health funds, while only slightly increasing worker contributions by 0.75% and shifting 5% of pensioners’ cash transfer into their health care fund. The reform also ended a loophole which allowed high-income individuals to claim a low income in order to access health benefits.
This was a counter-proposal to the IMF proposal to raise the retirement age and more than double the number of weeks that workers would need to pay into the pension fund in order to access benefits. The fact the government felt strong enough to deny the IMF and business lobby’s austerity demands was a sign that the bargaining strength of private capital has declined, as Nicaragua’s impressive economic growth, a 38% increase in GDP from 2006-2017, has been led by small-scale producers and public spending. However, the opposition used manipulative Facebook ads presenting the reform as an austerity measure, plus fake news of a student death on April 18th, to generate protests across the country on April 19th. Immediately, the regime change machine lurched into motion.
The National Dialogue shows the class interests in conflict. The opposition’s Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy has as its key figures: José Adan Aguirre, leader of the private business lobby; Maria Nelly Rivas, director of Cargill in Nicaragua and head of the US-Nicaragua Chamber of Commerce; the private university students of the April 19th Movement; Michael Healy, manager of a Colombian sugar corporation and head of the agribusiness lobby; Juan Sebastian Chamorro, who represents the oligarchy dressed as civil society; Carlos Tunnermann, 85-year-old ex-Sandinista minister and ex-chancellor of the National University; Azalea Solis, head of a US government-funded feminist organization; and Medardo Mairena, a “peasant leader” funded by the US government, who lived 17 years in Costa Rica before being deported in 2017 for human trafficking. Tunnermann, Solis and the April 19th students are all associated with the Movement for Renovation of Sandinismo (MRS), a tiny Sandinista offshoot party that nonetheless merits special attention.
In the 1980s, many of the Sandinista Front’s top-level cadre were, in fact, the children of some of the famous oligarchic families, such as the Cardenal brothers and part of the Chamorro family, in charge of the revolutionary government’s ministries of Culture and Education and its media, respectively. After FSLN’s election loss in 1990, the children of the oligarchy staged an exodus from the party. Along with them, some of the most notable intellectual, military and intelligence cadre left and formed, over time, the MRS. The new party renounced socialism, blamed all of the mistakes of the Revolution on Daniel Ortega and over time took over the sphere of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Nicaragua, including feminist, environmentalist, youth, media and human rights organizations.
Since 2007, the MRS has become increasingly close with the extreme right-wing of the US Republican Party. Since the outbreak of violence in April, many if not most of the sources cited by Western media (including, disturbingly, Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!), come from this party, which has the support of less than 2% of the Nicaraguan electorate. This allows the oligarchs to couch their violent attempt to reinstall neoliberalism in a leftist-sounding discourse of former Sandinistas critical of the Ortega government.
It is a farce to claim that workers and peasants are behind the unrest. La Vía Campesina, the National Union of Farmers and Ranchers, the Association of Rural Workers, the National Workers’ Front, the indigenous Mayangna Nation and other movements and organizations have been unequivocal in their demands for an end to the violence and their support for the Ortega government. This unrest is a full-scale regime change operation carried out by media oligarchs, a network of NGOs funded by the US government, armed elements of elite landholding families and the Catholic Church, and has opened the window for drug cartels and organized crime to gain a foothold in Nicaragua.
Nicargua meeting of the National Dialogue for Peace by Óscar Sánchez.
The Elephant in the Room
Which brings us to US government involvement in the violent coup.
As Tom Ricker reported early in this political crisis, several years ago the US government decided that rather than finance opposition political parties, which have lost enormous legitimacy in Nicaragua, it would finance the NGO civil society sector. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) gave more than $700,000 to build the opposition to the government in 2017, and has granted more than $4.4 million since 2014. The overarching purpose of this funding was to “provide a coordinated strategy and media voice for opposition groups in Nicaragua.” Ricker continues:
“The result of this consistent building and funding of opposition resources has been to create an echo chamber that is amplified by commentators in the international media – most of whom have no presence in Nicaragua and rely on these secondary sources.”
NED founding father, Allen Weinstein, described NED as the overt CIA saying, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” In Nicaragua, rather than the traditional right-wing, NED funds the MRS-affiliated organizations which pose left-sounding critiques of the Sandinista government. The regime change activists use Sandinista slogans, songs, and symbols even as they burn historic monuments, paint over the red-and-black markers of fallen martyrs, and physically attack members of the Sandinista party.
Of the opposition groups in the National Dialogue, the feminist organization of Azalea Solis and the peasant organization of Medardo Mairena are financed through NED grants, while the April 19th students stay in hotels and make trips paid for by Freedom House, another regime change organ funded by NED and USAID. NED also finances Confidential, the Chamorro media organization. Grants from NED finance the Institute of Strategic Studies and Public Policy (IEEPP), whose Executive Director, Felix Maradiaga, is another MRS cadre very close to the US Embassy. In June, Maradiaga was accused of leading a criminal network called Viper which, from the occupied UPOLI campus, organized carjackings, arsons and murders in order to create chaos and panic during the months of April and May.
Maradiaga grew up in the United States and became a fellow of the Aspen Leadership Institute, before studying public policy at Harvard. He was a secretary in the Ministry of Defense for the last liberal president, Enrique Bolaños. He is a Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum and in 2015, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs gave him the Gus Hart Fellowship, past recipients of which include Cuban dissident Yoani Sánchez and Henrique Capriles Radonski, the Venezuelan opposition leader who attacked the Cuban embassy during the coup attempt of 2002.
Remarkably, Maradiaga is not the only leader of the coup attempt who is part of the Aspen World Leadership Network. Maria Nelly Rivas, director in Nicaragua of US corporate giant Cargill, is one of the main spokespersons for the opposition Civic Alliance. Rivas, who currently also heads the US-Nicaragua Chamber of Commerce, is being groomed as a possible presidential candidate in the next elections. Beneath these US-groomed leaders, there is a network of over 2,000 young people who have received training with NED funds on topics such as social media skills for democracy defense. This battalion of social media warriors was able to immediately shape and control public opinion in Facebook in the five days from April 18th to 22nd, leading to spontaneous violent protests across the country.
Protesters yell from behind the roadblock they erected as they face off with security forces near the University Politecnica de Nicaragua in Managua, Nicaragua, April 21, 2018. Source: Voice of America
On the Violence
One of the ways in which reporting on Nicaragua has ventured farthest from the truth is calling the opposition “nonviolent.” The violence script, modeled on the 2014 and 2017 guarimba protests in Venezuela, is to organize armed attacks on government buildings, entice the police to send in anti-riot squads, engage in filmed confrontations and publish edited footage online claiming that the government is being violent against nonviolent protesters.
Over 60 government buildings have been burned down, schools, hospitals, health centers attacked, 55 ambulances damaged, at least $112 million in infrastructure damage, small businesses have been closed, and 200,000 jobs lost causing devastating economic impact during the protests. Violence has included, in addition to thousands of injuries, 15 students and 16 police officers killed, as well as over 200 Sandinistas kidnapped, many of them publicly tortured. Violent opposition atrocities were misreported as government repression. While it is important to defend the right of the public to protest, regardless of its political opinions, it is disingenuous to ignore that the opposition’s strategy requires and feeds upon violence and deaths.
National and international news claim deaths and injuries due to “repression” without explaining the context. The Molotov cocktails, mortar-launchers, pistols, and assault rifles used by opposition groups are ignored by the media, and when Sandinista sympathizers, police or passers-by are killed, they are falsely counted as victims of state repression. Explosive opposition claims like massacres of children and murders of women have been shown to be false, and the cases of torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions by police forces have not been corroborated by evidence or due process.
While there is evidence to support the opposition claim of sniper fire killing protesters, there is no logical explanation for the State using snipers to add to the death toll, and counter-protesters have also been victims of sniper fire, suggesting a “third party” provocateur role in the destabilizing violence. When an entire Sandinista family was burned to death in Managua, the opposition media all cited a witness who claimed that the police had set fire to the home, despite the house being in a neighborhood barricaded off from police access.
The National Police of Nicaragua has been long-recognized for its model of community policing (in contrast to militarized police in most Central American countries), its relative lack of corruption, and its mostly female top brass. The coup strategy has sought to destroy public trust in the police through the egregious use of fake news, such as the many false claims of assassinations, beatings, torture, and disappearances in the week from April 17th to 23rd. Several young people whose photos were carried in opposition rallies as victims of police violence have turned out to be alive and well.
The police have been wholly inadequate and underprepared for armed confrontations. Attacks on several public buildings on the same night and the first major arson attacks led government workers to hold vigils with barrels of water and, often, sticks and stones, to fend off attackers. The opposition, frustrated at not achieving more police conflicts, began to build roadblocks across the country and burning the homes of Sandinistas, even shooting and burning Sandinista families in atrocious hate crimes. In contrast to La Prensa’s version of events, Nicaraguans have felt the distinct lack of police presence, and the loss of safety in their neighborhoods, while many were targeted by violence.
Since May, the strategy of the opposition has been to build armed roadblocks across the country, closing off transport and trapping people. The roadblocks, usually built with large paving stones, are manned by between 5 and 100 armed men with bandannas or masks. While the media reports on idealistic young people running roadblocks, the vast majority of roadblocks are maintained by paid men who come from a background of petty crime. Where large areas of cities and towns are blocked off from government and police forces, drug-related activities intensify, and drug gangs now control many of the roadblocks and pay the salaries.
These roadblocks have been the centers of violence, workers who need to pass through roadblocks are often robbed, punched, insulted, and, if suspected of being Sandinistas, tied up, stripped naked, tortured, painted in blue-and-white, and sometimes killed. There are three cases of people dying in ambulances unable to pass roadblocks, and one case of a 10-year-old girl being kidnapped and raped at the roadblock in Las Maderas. When organized neighbors or the police clear roadblocks, the armed groups run away and regroup to burn buildings, kidnap or injure people in revenge. All of the victims that this violence produces are counted by the mainstream media as victims of repression, a total falsehood.
The Nicaraguan government has confronted this situation by largely keeping police off the streets, to prevent encounters and accusations of repression. At the same time, rather than simply arrest violent protestors, which certainly would have given the opposition the battle deaths it craves, the government called for a National Dialogue, mediated by the Catholic Church, in which the opposition can bring forward any proposal for human rights and political reform. The government created a parliamentary Truth and Peace Commission and launched an independent Public Ministry query.
With the police out of the streets, opposition violence intensified throughout May and June. As a result, a process of neighborhood self-defense developed. Families who have been displaced, young people who have been beaten, robbed or tortured, and veterans of the 1979 insurrection and/or the Contra War, hold vigil round the Sandinista Front headquarters in each town. In many places, they built barricades against opposition attacks and have been falsely labeled paramilitary forces in the media. In the towns that do not have such community-organized barricades, the human toll from opposition violence is much greater. The National Union of Nicaraguan Students has been particularly targeted by opposition violence. A student delegate of the National Dialogue, Leonel Morales, was kidnapped, shot in the abdomen and thrown into a ditch to die in June, to sabotage the dialogue and punish him for challenging the April 19th students’ right to speak on behalf of all Nicaraguan students.
There have been four major opposition rallies since April, directed toward mobilizing the upper-middle class Nicaraguans who live in the suburbs between Managua and Masaya. These rallies featured a whos-who of high society, including beauty queens, business owners, and oligarchs, as well as university students of the April 19th Movement, the moral high-ground for the opposition.
Three months into the conflict, none of the mortal victims have been bourgeois. All have come from the popular classes of Nicaragua. Despite claims of total repression, the bourgeois feels perfectly safe to participate in public protests by day — although the last daytime rally ended in a chaotic attack by protesters against squatters on a property of, curiously enough, Piero Coen, Nicaragua’s richest man. The nighttime armed attacks have generally been carried out by people who come from poor neighborhoods, many of whom are paid two to four times the minimum daily wage for each night of destruction.
Unfortunately, most Nicaraguan human rights organizations are funded by NED and controlled by the Movement for Sandinista Renovation. These organizations have accused the Nicaraguan government of dictatorship and genocide throughout Ortega’s presidency. International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have been criticized for their one-sided reports, which include none of the information provided by the government or individuals who identify as Sandinistas.
The government invited the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the OAS, a Washington-based entity notoriously unfriendly to leftist governments, to investigate the violent events of April and determine whether repression had occurred. The night of a controversial skirmish in the highway outside the Agrarian University in Managua ended a negotiated 48-hour truce, IACHR Director Paulo Abrao visited the site to declare his support for the opposition. The IACHR ignored the opposition’s widespread violence and only reported on the defensive violence of the government. Not only was it categorically rejected by Nicaraguan chancellor Denis Moncada as an “insult to the dignity of the Nicaraguan people,” a resolution approving the IACHR report was supported by only ten out of 34 countries.
Meanwhile, the April 19th Movement, made up of current or former university students in favor of regime change, sent a delegation to Washington and managed to alienate much of Nicaraguan society by grinning into the camera with far-right interventionist members of the US Congress, including Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz. M19 leaders also cheered Vice-President Mike Pence’s bellicose warnings that Nicaragua is on the short list of countries that will soon know the Trump Administration’s meaning of freedom, and met with the ARENA party of El Salvador, known for its links to the death squads that murdered liberation theologist Archbishop Oscar Romero. Within Nicaragua, the critical mass of students stopped demonstrating weeks ago, the large civic protests of April and May have dwindled, and the same-old familiar faces of Nicaraguan right-wing politics are left holding the bill for massive material damage and loss of life.
Nicaraguan students meet with right-wing Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen  in Washington, DC. Source Twitter Truthdig.
Why Nicaragua?
Ortega won his third term in 2016 with 72.4 percent of the vote with 66 percent turnout, very high compared to US elections. Not only has Nicaragua put in place an economy that treats the poor as producers, with remarkable results raising their standard of living in 10 years, but it also has a government that consistently rejects US imperialism, allying with Cuba, Venezuela, and Palestine, and voices support for Puerto Rican independence and a peaceful solution to Korean crisis. Nicaragua is a member of member of Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, a Latin American alternative to the OAS, neither include the US or Canada. It has also allied with China for a proposed canal project and Russia for security cooperation. For all of these reasons, the US wants to install a US-friendly Nicaraguan government.
More important is the example Nicaragua has set for a successful social and economic model outside the US sphere of domination. Generating over 75% of its energy from renewable sources, Nicaragua was the only country with the moral authority to oppose the Paris Climate Agreement as being too weak  (it later joined the treaty one day after Trump pulled the US out, stating “we opposed the Paris agreement out of responsibility, the US opposes it out of irresponsibility”). The FMLN government of El Salvador, while less politically dominant than the Sandinista Front, has taken the example of good governance from Nicaragua, recently prohibiting mining and the privatization of water. Even Honduras, the eternal bastion of US power in Central America, showed signs of a leftward shift until the US-supported military coup in 2009. Since then, there has been massive repression of social activists, a clearly stolen 2017 election, and Honduras has permitted the expansion of US military bases near the Nicaraguan border.
In 2017, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed the Nicaraguan Investment Conditionality Act (NICA Act), which if passed by the Senate will force the US government to veto loans from international institutions to the Nicaraguan government. This US imperialism will cripple Nicaragua’s ability to build roads, update hospitals, construct renewable energy plants, and transition from extensive livestock raising to integrated animal-forestry systems, among other consequences. It may also signify the end of many popular social programs, such as subsidized electricity, stable bus fares, and free medical treatment of chronic diseases.
The US Executive Branch has used the Global Magnitsky Act to target the finances of leaders of the Electoral Supreme Court, the National Police, the city government of Managua and the ALBA corporation in Nicaragua. Police officers and public health bureaucrats have been told their US visas have been revoked. The point, of course, is not whether these officials have or have not committed acts that merit their reprimand in Nicaragua, but whether the US government should have the jurisdiction to intimidate and corner public officials of Nicaragua.
While the sadistic violence continues, the strategy of the coup-mongers to force out the government has failed. The resolution of the political crisis will come through elections, and the FSLN is likely to win those elections, barring a dramatic and unlikely new offensive by the right-wing opposition.
Latin American Presidents Zelaya (Honduras), Correa (Ecuador), Chavez (Venezuela), Ortega (Nicaragua), and Morales (Bolivia) celebrate Correa’s inauguration for a second term, in Quito, Ecuador. (Prensa Presidencial)
An Upside Down Class War
It is important to understand the nature of US and oligarch coups in this era and the role of media and NGO deception because it is repeated in multiple Latin American and other countries. We can expect a similar attack on recently elected Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico if he seeks the changes he has promised.
The US has sought to dominate Nicaragua since the mid-1800s. The wealthy in Nicaragua have sought the return of US-allied governance since the Sandinistas rose to power. This failing coup does not mean the end of their efforts or the end of corporate media misinformation. Knowing what is really occurring and sharing that information is the antidote to defeating them in Nicaragua and around the world.
Nicaragua is a class war turned upside down. The government has raised the living standards of the impoverished majority through wealth redistribution. Oligarchs and the United States, unable to install neoliberalism through elections, created a political crisis, highlighted by false media coverage to force Ortega to resign. The coup is failing, the truth is coming out, and should not be forgotten.

More inconsistencies in account of second UK novichok poisoning

Thomas Scripps 

Yesterday evening in the UK saw the release of reports from Salisbury District Hospital that, “We have seen a small but significant improvement in the condition of Charlie Rowley. He is in a critical but stable condition, and is now conscious.”
Rowley is the second victim of a reported poisoning by a “novichok” nerve agent. His partner, Dawn Sturgess, died Sunday.
Events since the two reportedly came into contact with a nerve agent on June 29 have piled questions on top of questions.
Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Neil Basu claimed on Monday that Sturgess and Rowley received a high dose of novichok as a result of handling a container of some sort holding the nerve agent. The pair’s “reaction is so severe it resulted in Dawn’s death and Charlie being critically ill. This means they must have got a high dose.”
Rowley’s house in Amesbury, Sturgess’ Salisbury homeless hostel and the nearby Queen Elizabeth Gardens—along with several other sites—have been cordoned off and are being searched by around 100 police officers for the container, which has still not been identified in the 11 days since June 30, when they became ill and were hospitalised.
Twenty-one individuals—including police officers, hospital staff and members of the public—have been medically assessed over fears of exposure to the poison. All have been discharged.
Each development only adds to the opaque and contradictory descriptions of “novichok” first given during the Skripal affair. Dr. Mirzayanov, who claims to have worked on production of the nerve agent, states that it would have decomposed in the four months since the Salisbury events, raising doubts that it relates to Sturgess’ death. Leonid Rink, another claimed creator, agrees that the substance would have disintegrated.
But another scientist who also claims to have worked on novichok, Vladimir Uglev, now describes the substance as “very stable”, saying “it won’t decompose.”
“The substance can absorb itself into any soft surface, whether trees, leather or park benches. From there it can be absorbed onto people’s skin with all the consequences,” he stated.
The Office for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) report into the Skripal case raised serious questions as to whether a novichok weapon of the kind that has been described even exists.
Given these conflicting statements, by individuals whose motivations are themselves unclear, how a novichok nerve agent is alleged to have come into contact with Rowley and Sturgess, if such a substance was ever even present, is open to serious question.
If novichok is capable of lingering and being absorbed into various surfaces and was found in greatest concentration on the pairs’ hands, then one must ask how it did not end up more widely spread. As far as is known, none of the friends who were with Rowley and Sturgess at various points have even been screened for contamination or symptoms. Ben Milsom, whose van Rowley travelled in a few hours before he was taken to hospital, has even been told to hang on to items cleared from the van before it was sold and later quarantined. “I’ve told the police and the health authority about it but they have just told me not to touch it and leave it there”, he told The Sun .
Other questions raised include: What item is supposed to have contaminated Rowley and Sturgess? Where was it stored to enable such a high concentration of nerve agent, and how did it come to be there?
The Ministry of Defence Porton Down chemical weapons research centre lies midway between Salisbury and Amesbury and is just as capable of producing novichok as it is of analysing it.
No official consideration is being given to this. Instead, the main presentation is that the discarded agent was picked up and shared between Sturgess and Rowley somewhere in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens. This would have been in the afternoon of Friday 29 June, the day before they fell seriously ill.
The theory advanced by the government, now more stridently by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, is that “Russia has committed an attack on British soil which has seen the death of a British citizen.”
The specifics of the accusation, therefore, must include the assumption that, following or prior to an attempt on the Skripals’ lives, the assassins left dangerous and potentially incriminating evidence in a nearby public place. Whatever this item was, moreover, it was capable of applying a “high dose” of poison to Sturgess and Rowley, considerably more effectively than by supposedly smearing it on a doorknob during the intended assassination of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
None of these hypotheses appear credible. Indeed, the basis of this explanation was undermined by the admission of Home Secretary Sajid Javid that the sample of the substance taken from Sturgess’ blood was not enough to confirm whether it came from the same batch as the substance alleged to have poisoned the Skripals. This leaves the “discarded container” of highly concentrated agent thesis, which must have been on their hands as well as in their blood, without any substantial justification.
The seizure and quarantining of a car in Swindon, some 40 miles away from Amesbury, opens a new unexplained chapter. The two vehicles quarantined in connection with this case prior to the car were the bus in which Sturgess and Rowley traveled from Salisbury to Amesbury and the van in which Rowley traveled around town the next day. What the pair’s connection with the car might be has not been revealed. If there is no such connection, then that would suggest another party to the events of last week whose involvement has not been disclosed.
Also unexplained by the government or police, hospitals across a number of counties in southern England were briefed on how to deal with nerve agent poisoning a few days before Sturgess’ death. According to the Daily Mirror, “The dossier circulated was written five days after mother-of-three Dawn, 44, and partner Charlie Rowley were contaminated” and reports a fear that more “novichok cases” may occur.
This is at odds with the “low risk to the public” message which has been put out to Amesbury and Salisbury residents. It suggests that an even wider section of the population is considered potentially at risk. Such a situation would hardly fit with accusations of a Russian operation against a specific individual. What events really prompted this advice to be distributed?
A coroner’s report on Sturgess’ death is currently being written up. Former British ambassador Craig Murray has raised a serious matter that has to be addressed if there is any hope of uncovering the truth of the events. He writes in his latest blog post, “I trust that Dawn Sturgess will get a proper and full public inquest in accordance with normal legal process, something which was denied to David Kelly. I suspect that is something the government will seek to delay as long as possible, even indefinitely.”
Dr. Kelly worked at Porton Down, and his suspicious death on July 17, 2003, officially by suicide, followed criticisms he made of the “dodgy dossier” used to justify pre-emptive war against Iraq. In 2010 it was revealed that the government had sealed medical records relating to his death for 70 years.

A striking feature of the latest chapter of the novichok saga is how restrained in their commentary newspapers such as the New York Times and the Guardian have been, compared with their blaring accusations against Moscow following the poisoning of the Skripals. This does not suggest a retreat from their anti-Russian stance, but rather a recognition that the British authorities have yet to get their story straight.

Nauru government bans ABC journalists ahead of Pacific summit

Patrick O’Connor

The Nauru government announced last week that it was banning Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) journalists from entering the country to cover the Pacific Islands Forum summit being held in September.
Over the last five years, Nauru President Baron Waqa has established a virtual dictatorship. Backed by the Australian government, which uses the tiny Pacific state as one of its illegal offshore refugee concentration camps, the Waqa administration has deported and imprisoned opposition politicians, disciplined the police and judiciary, shut down social media web sites, and criminalised political dissent.
On July 2, the government announced that an ABC cameraman, who was part of a three-person pool of journalists selected by the Canberra press gallery, would not be issued a visa. A government statement accused the ABC of “blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 election, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our Government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.”
A follow up statement issued the following day condemned the ABC’s response to the ban as “arrogant, disrespectful and a further example of the sense of entitlement shown by this activist media organisation.”
The ABC and other journalists condemned the Waqa administration for attacking press freedom. Several outlets announced a boycott of the Pacific Islands Forum to protest the ABC’s exclusion, though it appears that Murdoch’s News Corporation outlets have rejected this. There is a definite element of cynicism in the outcry, given the Australian media’s silence over the persecution of WikiLeaks’ editor Julian Assange, which represents a far greater threat to press freedom than the travel bans of a tiny Pacific state.
Nauru is nevertheless proceeding with the full backing of the Australian government. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared that he “regretted” that the ABC would not be covering the Pacific Islands Forum, but “it is a matter for Nauru, Nauru is entitled to decide who comes into Nauru … we have to remember and respect Nauru’s sovereignty.” In other circumstances, Australian governments have used inflated media reports, particularly by the ABC to justify military/police interventions as in East Timor in 2006.
Canberra’s support for the increasingly repressive Waqa administration is driven by its concern to maintain geo-strategic dominance across the South Pacific and lock out rival powers, above all China. The upcoming Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru will be dominated by the Australian government’s efforts to impose a new “security agreement” that boosts the Australian and New Zealand military’s presence in the region, and discourages Pacific countries from collaborating with Chinese military activity.
Nauru functions as an Australian semi-colony, with its population of just 11,000 people living on an isolated island that is smaller in land mass than a major international airport. It is nevertheless located in a strategically important point, near the equator south of the US-controlled Marshall Islands, which serves as an important American army missile testing ground.
Nauru is also one of just 18 states internationally that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan, not the People’s Republic of China. The rejection of the “one China policy” by Nauru and several other Pacific states, such as Solomon Islands, now serves as one mechanism through which Australia checks Beijing’s regional influence.
The Waqa administration’s complaints stem from a series of broadcasts and news reports in 2015 and 2016. In June 2015, ABC’s “7.30” current affairs program publicised leaked email correspondence between President Waqa and other government members and an Australian-based phosphate company, Getax. The ABC alleged: “The emails reveal a plot to overthrow the Nauru government in 2010.”
Current Nauruan Justice Minister David Adeang emailed Getax in 2009, when he was in opposition, suggesting that the company could take over the country’s entire phosphate industry if he and his allies came to power. Getax director Ashok Gupta replied: “We give you full authority to mobilise or lubricate the MPs to secure the vote and win the battle.” According to the ABC, the company funnelled more than a half a million dollars in kickbacks to Adeang, Waqa, and other figures who came to power in 2013. A follow up story on the ABC later showed bank statements detailing the alleged bribes.
The ABC’s reporting reflects concerns about the Waqa administration from a section of the Australian foreign policy establishment that it might not be toeing Canberra’s line closely enough.
In 2005, the Australian government launched the Pacific Regional Assistance for Nauru program (PRAN). Modelled on Canberra’s flagship neo-colonial intervention the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI), PRAN saw Australian officials take over key elements of the state apparatus, including the finance ministry, police, and judiciary. This formed part of Australian imperialism’s efforts to maintain control over the South Pacific and shut out rival powers, above all China.
In 2013, however, several important Australian officials were sacked or deported after Waqa became president. The list included Nauru police commissioner and Australian Federal Police agent Richard Britten, magistrate and Supreme Court registrar Peter Law, chief justice Geoffrey Eames, solicitor-general Steven Bliim, Parliamentary Counsel Katy Le Roy, and former government media adviser Rod Henshaw.
These moves coincided with a broader shift towards authoritarian rule. New laws introduced in 2015 threatened seven-year jail terms for anyone who stated or published anything that “stirred up political hatred,” “caused emotional distress to a person,” or was “likely to threaten national defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.”
Law Societies in New Zealand and Australia agitated for a response, and in September 2015, the New Zealand government announced the suspension of all aid financing Nauru’s judiciary. There is no question that Waqa’s moves against Australian officials would have triggered concerns within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australian Federal Police. Comparable developments in other Pacific states have previously triggered determined regime-change operations, most notably in Solomon Islands 2006–2007.
The Australian government, however, has maintained its steadfast support for Waqa. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has repeatedly insisted that the Nauruan administration’s moves were “domestic matters” that she discussed “confidentially” with the president.
In addition to geo-strategic calculations, the Australian government relies on the Waqa administration to continue to assist its illegal refugee trafficking program. More than 1,000 men, women, and children who attempted to claim asylum in Australia after arriving by sea now reside on Nauru after being deported by Australian Border Force officials.
Most of the refugees and asylum seekers live in the general community, with around 400 remaining in the Australian-operated detention centre. The refugees suffer horrific mental health problems, with self-harm and suicide rife, lack of access to basic facilities, and are largely cut off from the outside world. Only vetted and favoured journalists have been allowed in to the country since 2014.
The Australian government’s sponsorship of the repressive and corrupt Waqa regime in Nauru further exposes the fraud that it promotes “democracy” and “humanitarianism” in the South Pacific. Amid mounting concern over China’s rising diplomatic and economic influence in the region, the predatory and ruthless nature of Australian imperialism is growing ever more transparent.

Nicaragua sees bloodiest clashes yet after months of protest

Bill Van Auken

Nicaragua saw its bloodiest clashes yet over the weekend, after nearly three months of protests, as security forces and armed government supporters moved to forcibly dismantle barricades erected by protesters.
The most violent clashes took place south of the capital of Managua in the towns of Diriamba and Jinotepe, where 35 people were reported killed. Another three died in the northern province of Matagalpa. Among the dead were protesters as well as several members of the police and paramilitary government supporters.
The government laid siege to the towns at dawn on Sunday, bringing in bulldozers to clear barricades from a key road linking Managua to the country’s south and the Costa Rican border. Security forces employed rubber bullets and live ammunition to quell the protesters.
Nicaragua has been gripped by nationwide protests since April 18, when President Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista Front for National Liberation announced pension cuts and increases in social security contributions dictated by the International Monetary Fund.
Initial demonstrations by students were met with deadly force and, as the protests have continued, their focus has become a demand for the ouster of Ortega and Rosario Murillo, who is both his wife and vice-president.
According to human rights groups, the number of people killed in clashes since April has risen to more than 310. The government has acknowledged only 47 deaths.
The protests and barricades have largely crippled Nicaragua’s economy. After the government forces demolished the barricades in Diriamba and Jinotepe, some 350 cargo trucks were able to pass after being stuck for a month.
An incident that took place in Diriamba on Monday may have more far-reaching effects than the bloodshed on the barricades. A group of Catholic bishops and priests led by the auxiliary bishop, Monsignor Silvio Jose Baez, and the Vatican’s representative in Managua, the Apostolic Nuncio Waldemar Stanislaw Sommertag, went to mediate a peace in the besieged town and secure the release of a group of protesters, journalists and clerics trapped inside a local church.
Upon their arrival in Diriamba, the group was surrounded by pro-government sympathizers, many of them wearing ski masks, who denounced the clerics as “assassins,” “coup supporters” and “pedophiles.” The pro-government elements then forced their way into the church, roughing up the priests and bishops and wounding one with a knife.
The Catholic Church’s Episcopal National Council of Nicaragua (CEN) has been mediating talks between the Ortega government and the opposition Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, a coalition of business interests together with student organizations, unions and other groups, some of which received funding from US government sources.
After the incident in Diriamba, Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes, president of CEN, declared, “What sense does it have to continue with the dialog, if the streets continue to be filled with blood?”
Last week, the CEN submitted an undisclosed proposal to the Ortega government that was thought to include moving national elections scheduled for 2021 up to next year.
Ortega explicitly rejected any such change in the electoral calendar in a speech delivered to supporters in Managua Saturday—his first public appearance in a month. “You can’t just change the [electoral] rules overnight because of a group of coup-plotters,” he said.
The US government, meanwhile, has steadily ratcheted up pressure on the government, imposing sanctions last week on three officials, including Francisco Díaz, a deputy chief of the national police force, whose daughter is married to one of Ortega’s sons.
The penalties are designed to “expose and hold accountable those responsible for the Nicaraguan government’s ongoing violence and intimidation campaign against its people,” a State Department spokeswoman said in a statement.
The State Department has also ordered all “non-essential” US diplomatic personnel to leave the country and has issued a travel warning against US citizens visiting Nicaragua.
Washington has been noticeably reticent until now about denouncing the state violence in Nicaragua, reflecting the amicable relations that it had forged with the Ortega government.
A leader of the FSLN guerrilla movement in the 1970s, Ortega had played a leading role in the toppling of the US-backed dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza in 1979, subsequently emerging as the head of a Sandinista government that Washington attempted to overthrow by means of a dirty war waged by a CIA-backed Contra terrorist army. After years of war and deprivation, the Sandinista government was voted out of power in 1990 in an election that was grossly manipulated by Washington, including through threats that if its chosen candidate, Violeta Chamorro, failed to win, both the war and an economic embargo would continue.
Ortega returned to power in 2007 on the basis of a right-wing pro-business economic program and an embrace of Christian Evangelicalism. He also forged close ties between the Nicaraguan military and the US Southern Command, which included joint military exercises and training programs.
At the same time, he and his wife monopolized an ever-greater share of both political and economic power, emerging as the richest people in Nicaragua and drawing comparisons between themselves and the old Somoza dynasty.
Ortega’s government was supported by both the major business associations in Nicaragua and foreign capital. It proved effective in suppressing the struggles of a restive and impoverished working class, including some 120,000 workers toiling in free trade zones for poverty wages.
enced by the ties it has established with both China and Russia. Trade with China has increased rapidly, even as Managua maintains ties to the government of Taiwan. The Ortega government also granted a license in 2013 to a Chinese investment firm to build and operate a canal across the country, linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and serving as a rival to the Panama Canal. Thus far, the project has remained stalled.
At the same time, Ortega forged military ties with Moscow, purchasing some 3,000 surface-to-air weapons and 50 tanks, while entering discussions on buying fighter aircraft. Russia has also set up a military training center in Nicaragua and plans are in the works for joint military exercises. Moscow has also set up a satellite-monitoring station in the Central American country.
In his 2018 statement to the US Congress, SOUTHCOM chief Admiral Kurt Tidd posed Russia’s involvement in Nicaragua as a strategic threat, providing Moscow “with persistent, pernicious presence, including more frequent maritime intelligence collection and visible force projection in the Western Hemisphere.”
“Left unchecked, Russian access and placement could eventually transition from a regional spoiler to a critical threat to the US homeland,” the admiral warned
Even as it sought to maintain close ties with Ortega, Washington has invested heavily in his even more right-wing and openly pro-US imperialist opposition. The National Endowment for Democracy has funneled $4.1 million into the country since 2014 to finance 54 separate opposition groups. USAID, meanwhile, had a budget for Nicaragua in 2018 of $5.2 million, most of it going to “civil society” operations.
US imperialism increasingly sees Latin America as a battleground in its “great power” conflicts with Russia and China. In Nicaragua, it aims to advance this agenda by replacing Ortega’s reactionary bourgeois government with an even more pliant US puppet regime.
Whether such a regime would prove any more capable of containing the social upheavals that have rocked the country, however, is by no means clear.

Concerted efforts to save May’s government and the chance of a “soft Brexit”

Chris Marsden 

In a day filled with high-profile declarations of support for Prime Minister Theresa May and opposing any leadership challenge, perhaps the most significant statement was that of the European Union’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier.
Speaking in New York while attending the Council on Foreign Relations, Barnier made clear the concern of the European powers that May’s beheading by the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives is to be avoided if possible.
After previously ridiculing the suggestion that the EU would accept any preferential “cherry-picking” arrangement for the UK, Barnier declared that “we have agreed on 80 percent of the negotiations” and that he was determined to agree on the remaining 20 percent.
“No deal is the worst solution for everybody. It would be a huge economic problem for the UK and also for the EU,” he added.
Barnier still stressed the EU’s position that the “four freedoms of movement of people, goods, services and capital” were “indivisible” and that “at the end of this negotiation that the best situation, the best relationship with the EU, will be to remain a member.” But he insisted, “I will negotiate only with the British government… so our next negotiations will be next Monday with the British delegation appointed by Mrs. May.”
However, the EU clearly calculates that the possibility of reversing Brexit at this point comes second to preventing a hardening of the Tories’ anti-Brexit stand in the aftermath of the resignation of Brexit Secretary David Davis, his minister Stephen Baker and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Such concerns would have been highlighted by the resignation of two Conservative party vice-chairs, Ben Bradley and Maria Caulfield, only minutes before May was to begin a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the EU Western Balkans Summit in London that was dominated by questions over Brexit.
It is a measure of May’s crisis that she told Merkel not to answer questions from the British press, and to only take one question from a German reporter, which produced an expression of obvious surprise from the chancellor.
European fears will have been sharply focused by the comments of US President Donald Trump, made at the White House before flying to the NATO Summit and just two days before he arrives in the UK.
Trump has made no secret of his hostility to the EU and desire to weaken what he considers a rival trade bloc, including supporting Brexit and the more recent imposition of sanctions.
He said he expected to see a country in “turmoil” when he lands in the UK and viewed Johnson as a “friend of mine,” who had been “very nice” and “very supportive”.
“So I have NATO, I have the UK which is in somewhat turmoil, and I have [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all,” he declared.
Asked if May should stay in power, Trump said, “That’s up to the people, not up to me.”
Time after time, May’s Tory allies, including figures and newspapers closely associated with the campaign to leave the EU, have centred their opposition to the Brexiteers on warnings that they will only hasten the election of a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.
Leading Brexiteer and former Tory Party leader Lord Michael Howard told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “I do think that it would be extremely foolish and extremely ill-advised for anyone to send in letters to mount a motion of no confidence in the prime minister.”
Referring directly to Johnson’s resignation letter, he added, “I do not believe the Brexit dream is dying.”
William Hague, another ex-leader and a Remainer who then declared for Leave following the referendum, wrote in the Daily Telegraph, house organ of the Tory right, describing Johnson and Davis as “romantics” who risked scuttling Brexit.
Tory MPs “with their pens hovering over letters demanding a vote of no confidence” might end up with an even softer Brexit or no Brexit at all by undermining the government. “The chances that such resignations will lead to the sort of Brexit they desire are around zero, but the possibility that they will give fresh momentum to demands for a second referendum or further weaken the negotiating position of the UK is considerable,” he insisted.
In the Daily Mail, Stephen Glover warned of his fear that “this orgy of infighting means a nightmarish age of Corbyn may almost be upon us.”
This “nightmarish age,” he explained, would be “a disaster by the side of which the worst possible outcome over Brexit would virtually pale into insignificance. Mass nationalisation, confiscatory taxes, rocketing public expenditure, hard-Left trade union leaders dictating policy, the embrace of odious foreign regimes and the boorish rejection of dependable allies such as the United States: these are just a few of the nightmarish consequences that would almost inevitably follow a Corbyn victory.”
Yet the object of this campaign of fearmongering, Corbyn, has been muted in his own statements precisely because he has no intention of implementing mass nationalisations, taxes on the rich, or any other serious measures against capitalism. His aim is to convince Britain’s ruling elite that Labour is a safe pair of hands, not just regarding ameliorating the impact of Brexit, but in suitably “moderating”, i.e., neutering, demands for social and political change among workers and youth.
Above all he will do nothing that threatens unity with his party’s right wing. In this regard, the most telling statement of support for May’s government came from Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson.
A second referendum on Brexit might become necessary, he said, but only if an increasingly divided Tory Party cannot agree a viable Brexit plan.
“It is conceivable that there is no majority position for any deal in the current arrangements in parliament,” he said, raising the “highly, highly, highly unlikely” prospect of “a people’s vote” if “parliament just can’t make a decision on it…”
Tory splits, he added, “electorally might help my party.” However, “We want to work with the government for best deal.”
“It’s not a question of Labour trying to bring the government down, it’s actually a question of Labour trying to help the government get a good deal and try and stop the government bringing itself down.”

10 Jul 2018

Internet Society Youth@IGF Programme for Young Leaders (Fully-funded to Paris, France) 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd July 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Paris, France

About the Award: Many young people age 18-25 are the first generation of adults to grow up not knowing the world without the Internet. For those who do not have access, they are some of the people that are pushing hardest for it.
Young people are shaping online culture in so many ways. They use the Internet to meet people around the world, create the videos that go viral, create art that moves us, and start and stand behind online social movements that make us think.
They are building their dream Internet.
And yet, when it comes to policy discussions, most of them are not at the table.
The Internet Society, in collaboration with CGI.br, decided in 2015 to change that!
Together with our partners, NIC.MX, the Government of Mexico, Microsoft and Verizon, we have brought more than 160 youth to IGF 2015, 2016 and 2017, under the Youth@IGF program.
This time, we are sending even more young people to the IGF through the 2018 Youth@IGF program. Concretely, the top performers will have a chance to go to the Internet Governance Forum 2018 in Paris, France, in Paris the week of 12 November, as well as to be part of an Onsite Collaborative Leadership Exchange on November 11.

Type: Fellowship, Training

Selection Criteria: All applicants must be ISOC members* between the ages of 18-25 years.
Also, they must have:
  • Basic awareness of Internet-related issues
  • Fluency in English, French or Spanish
  • Be able to write clearly
  • Be comfortable with public speaking and communicating your positions
  • Have regular access to the Internet
  • Alignment with the Internet Society mission and vision
  • Spend a minimum of 8 hours each week during each of the phases
  • Be ready take part in the meetings or webinars (this is the single most important requirement and should be evaluated seriously by any potential applicant).
The selection committee is focused on professional, geographical and gender diversity in the overall selections. Also, please note that, while those selected will be on a global basis, regional considerations will be given and the majority of selected Fellows will likely be from Europe and MENA.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The program has the following phases:
  1. Online course work
  2. Travel fellowship to IGF 2018
  3. Webinar lecture series
  4. Onsite Collaborative Leadership Exchange
How to Apply: Apply now!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Internet Society

Important Notes: There will be an additional selection process for the second phase (Travel Fellowship). It is only available for selected participants who have accomplished the online course with a minimum of 90% participation rate.

Beiersdorf International Internship Challenge for International Students (Win a Fully-funded internship in Germany) 2018

Application Deadline: 15th July, 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

Field of Internship: 
  1. Brand Management and Digital Marketing
  2. Sales & eCommerce
  3. Supply Chain Management
  4. Finance & Controlling.
About the Award: Once a year we host our Beiersdorf International Internship Challenge at our Corporate Headquarters in Hamburg, Germany. We invite 32 top international students to compete for four fully-funded international internships. Are you up for the challenge? Interns are enrolled in a university program in business administration/engineering, or they already hold a Bachelor’s degree and are about to start their Master’s (gap year) in order to be eligible for the three months long internship program.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: You want to join our event? This is what it takes:
  • In your planned internship period (end of 2018/ in 2019) you are enrolled in a university program in business administration/engineering, or you already hold a Bachelor’s degree and are about to start your Master’s (gap year).
  • You have a focus on one of these areas: marketing/sales, digital marketing/e-commerce, finance/controlling, or supply chain management.
  • You have gained work experience through internships.
  • You feel at ease in an international environment and have the courage to step off the beaten track.
  • You have strong teamwork/communication skills and can work independently, with a high level of dedication.
  • You have excellent analytical skills and no trouble to communicate fluently in English.
Value and Number of Award(s): The four strongest applicants will win a fully-funded international internship at one of our 150 subsidiaries across the globe or at Beiersdorf’s Corporate Headquarters in Germany.

Duration of Program: three months

How to Apply: 
  • Show us who you are: Apart from your CV and relevant documents (last transcript of records/internship certificates), we want to see how motivated you are. Let us know why you are the perfect candidate to win an internship abroad.
  • Do an Online Test: In the next step, we’ll invite you to take an online test including verbal, logical and numerical reasoning tasks.
  • Submit a video interview: We’ll invite the best candidates to submit a pre-recorded video interview. It’s super easy: We’ll send you a link to a video portal where you’ll find several questions. You’ll have a week to answer them.
  • Join our IIC in Hamburg: If you’re selected for the International Internship Challenge we’ll invite you to our Corporate Headquarters in Hamburg. Naturally, we’ll cover your travel and accommodation costs. This is a great opportunity to get to know us and the beautiful city of Hamburg.
Apply only for one position – your first choice. Throughout the application you will get the chance to mention other areas of interest.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Beiersdorf

Brazilian Government Graduate Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018 (Application opens 1st August)
Registrations for Proof of proficiency in Portuguese language 2018 are open until 13th July 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Brazil

About the Award: The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) launched the selection of candidates for the Postgraduate Students-Agreement Program ( PEC-PG ), which aims to grant full scholarships for students, professors, researchers and other professionals of developing countries, with which Brazil maintains an Agreement for Educational, Cultural or Science and Technology Cooperation.

Type: Doctorate

Eligibility: Among the requirements to apply to the PEC-PG is that the candidate:
  • must be a citizen of a developing country, with which Brazil has an agreement or memorandum of understanding in the area of ​​Educational, Cultural or Science and Technology Cooperation;
  • can not have Brazilian nationality,
  • even if binational, nor be the son of Brazilians;
  • can not have a permanent visa in Brazil;
  • must have a full undergraduate or masters degree;
  • besides being financially responsible for the passage to Brazil and for its maintenance for a minimum of 60 days, until the receipt of the first monthly payment of the PEC-PG scholarship.
Number of Awards: 100 scholarships

Value of Award: 
Modalities:
  • Full Doctor in Brazil
Benefits:
  • Monthly
  • Brazil – external passage (financed by MRE)
Duration of Programme:
The activity schedule is as follows:
– disclosure: June 2018;
– registration submission: 01 to 31 August 2018;
– disclosure of the preliminary result: until 15 November 2018;
– disclosure of the final result: until 30 November 2018;
– start of academic activities: from February 2019.

Duration: 48 months

How to Apply: In order to apply, candidates must present the registration to take the Certificate of Proficiency in Portuguese for Foreigners (Celpe-Bras). Candidates from Portuguese speaking countries are exempt from the proficiency exam. Celpe-Bras will be held this year at October 1st (registration until 13 July).
A preparatory course is available at Brazil-South Africa Cultural Centre (CCBAS – ccbas.pretoria@itamaraty.gov.br /phone: +27 12 366 5293) from 30 July to 26 September.
Online registration for CELPE-Bras: https://goo.gl/TfbkZH
We reiterate the importance of the candidate to register for the CELPE-Bras Exam until July 13 .

Visit Programme Webpage for Details   and  Here

Award Providers: The Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Staff (CAPES) of the Brazilian Government.

Merck Diabetes and Merck Hypertension Awards for African Medical Students 2018

Application Deadline: 30th September 2018

Eligible Countries: African and Asian countries

About the Award: The Award is divided in two (2) parts:
  1. Merck Diabetes Award
  2. Merck Hypertension Award
Merck Diabetes Award 2018:  All medical postgraduates and final year undergraduates are invited to apply for the Merck Diabetes Award 2018.
Theme: Every Day is a Diabetes Day

Submit a concept paper about:

  • How to improve the awareness about Diabetes Early Detection and Prevention in your country.
  • How to encourage your society, scientific community, local authorities, media and relevant stakeholders to Think and Act on Diabetes Every Day.
  • Your ideas of developing new policies, strategies, social media campaigns and more.
Value and Duration of Program: Merck Diabetes Award 2018 is enrollment to a 1 year Online: “Post Graduate Diploma in Diabetes Management with University of South Wales”.

How to Apply: Please submit your one page concept paper to:
submit@merckdiabetesaward.com
Applicants Name, Gender, Age, Country, University/Collage, Expected year of completion of MBBS/Medical Graduation, address, email and Mobile number must be provided with the submission.


Merck Hypertension Award 2018: All medical undergraduates, interns and postgraduates are invited to apply for the Merck Hypertension Award 2018.
Theme: What the Healthy Heart needs
Submit a concept paper about:
  • How to improve the awareness about hypertension control and prevention in your country.
  • How to encourage your society, scientific community, local authorities, media and relevant stakeholders to Think and Act on Hypertension Every Day.
  • Your ideas of developing new policies, strategies, social media campaigns and more.
Value and Duration of Program: Merck Hypertension Award 2018 is enrollment to a 1 year Online: “Post Graduate Diploma in Preventive Cardiovascular Medicine with University of South Wales”.


How to Apply: Please submit your one page concept paper to:
submit@MerckHypertensionAward.com
Applicants Name, Gender, Age, Country, University/Collage, Expected year of completion of MBBS/Medical Graduation, address, email and Mobile number must be provided with the submission. 


Type: Award

Number of Awards: Not specified

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Merck

Mexico Returns to Its Place in the Vanguard

Manuel E. Yepe

Mexico and Latin America are partying! Mexico elected a President who can rise to the nation’s role in history!
A broad, overwhelming and unquestionable electoral victory made Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) the next President of the United States of Mexico. His candidacy was put forth by the Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena), a party he founded and whose most recent national registration, forming the Together We Will Make History alliance, together with the Labor and Social Encounter parties.
His prestige rests mainly on his honesty and his election theme, la esperanze de Mexico (Mexico’s Hope) which has now become a reality.
The popular victory of AMLO in the homeland of the priest Hidalgo, Benito Juárez, Emiliano Zapata, Pancho Villa and Lázaro Cárdenas constitutes a political history of Latin America and the Caribbean. It is is a milestone in the political history of Latin America and the Caribbean. It significantly shifts the balance of power in favor of popular struggles, Latin American unity and the support for progressive governments against neoliberalism.
The rise of a popular government whose foreign policy heralds a constant struggle in defense of sovereignty, independence, non-intervention and peaceful resolution of conflicts. These were given in the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace agreed by the the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in its Second Havana Summit, a vital instrument for the defense of peace in the region.
Insecurity and violence; social inequalities and poverty, all linked to rampant corruption and a tense relationship with the United States, are some of the most urgent and arduous challenges that AMLO will have to face. He will take the presidency of Mexico on December 1, after a five-month transition. In addition, the US president has threatened to build a wall on the Mexican border to isolate himself from the world and to have it paid for by the Mexican treasury
With regard to Mexico’s and Latin America’s relations in with their neighbor to the north, this proverb always resonates: “Mexico, so far away from God and so close to the United States,” Today we recall the prophetic study published by AMLO in April 2017 in Le Monde Diplomatique, on the strategy that would lead to Donald Trump to the US presidency and the situation that would be created for Mexico under Trump’s presidency:
“About two years ago, the future president (Trump) and his advisers began to systematically study the mood of the American people. Among the most frequent feelings they cited were: disappointment, irritation, anger, sadness and despair. It was enough to take advantage of this general mood, to articulate it and to push this interpretation forward in the hope that it would permeate the whole society.
“Long before Trump’s inauguration, it was clear that his campaign, the anti-Mexican approach, did not originate in an economic analysis of his country, but rather in an economic one. that was (and still is) in the political interest of taking advantage of nationalist sentiment in the U.S..”
Mexico’s new president-elect promises to cut the “top of its head” off privileges”, ending the “power mafia”, ending the the corruption by example and giving priority to the poor.
This son of merchants, born on November 13, 1953 in Tepetitán, Tabasco, and known by his initials as AMLO, embodies for many Mexicans the desire for change.
He is a mass leader who conveys confidence and trust in his speech. With a single call from him, tens of thousands of fill up the public squares.
From an ideological point of view, he is not easy to pigeonhole, but the media and the people generally think of him as a politician of the left or as an honest politician.
In economic terms, he is committed to the internal market, to set prices guarantees for the countryside and to review the opening of the oil sector to private capital.
In the social area, AMLO seeks to reduce inequalities but steers clear of issues that would fall within a traditional agenda of the left, such as abortion and same-sex marriages.
After having lost in the 2006 and 2012 elections, in the current campaign, he moderated his tone to attract sectors that previously distrusted his progressive preaching but never got past it. of his identification with the humble.
In fact, he proposes a change comparable to the big transformations in history such as the Mexican Revolution of 1910, as part of the political system.
He has declared that he is inspired by the fathers of the homeland, who left lessons on the fight for justice, for democracy, and for national sovereignty.

When ISIS is Gone, Iraq Will Remain a Deeply Corrupt Country

Patrick Cockburn

Iraqis disagree about many things but on one topic they are united: they believe they live in the most corrupt country in the world, barring a few where there is nothing much to steal. They see themselves as victims of a kleptomaniac state where hundreds of billions of dollars have disappeared into the pockets of the ruling elite over the past 15 years, while everybody else endures shortages of everything from jobs and houses to water and electricity.
The popular rage against the political class that came to power in 2003 explains why the movement led by the populist-nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which demands political and social reform and is allied to the Iraqi Communist Party, topped the poll in the parliamentary election in May. But the low turnout of 44.5 per cent underlined a conviction on the part of many that nothing much is going to change, whatever the makeup of the next government – something still being patched together in snail’s pace negotiations between the parties. “Even friends of mine who did vote are disillusioned and say they will not vote again,” one Baghdad resident told me.
It is impossible to exaggerate the frustration of Iraqis who know they live in a potentially rich country, the second largest oil producer in Opec, but see its wealth being stolen in front of their eyes year after year.
I was in Ramadi, the capital city of the province of Anbar, west of Baghdad, looking at the war damage when I met Muthafar Abdul Ghafur, 64, a retired engineer who had just finished rebuilding his house which had been destroyed in an airstrike. “I did it all myself and got no compensation from the government,” he said, adding bitterly that some whose houses were largely intact had received compensation because, unlike him, they bribed the right officials. “Write that Iraq has no government!” he shouted at me. “It has only thieves!”
Back in Baghdad, I visited the upper middle-class districts of Mansour and Yarmouk to talk to a real estate dealer, Safwat Abdul Razaq, who said he was doing good business. The price of property in this area had doubled in the past two years, but he was less optimistic about the future because of the weak government and, above all, because of the pervasive state corruption. “The government has no credibility,” he said. “Wherever you go, they ask you for a bribe.”
He added that a contractor invariably had to pay off officials to win a contract and one of the three businessmen sitting in the office said that this could easily be 50 per cent of the contract price. There was plenty of private money in Iraq but little of it was invested there because corruption made any business activity insecure: “that is why I buy property in Jordan but not in Iraq.”
These are well-off people, but I heard the same complaints in the Shia working-class stronghold of Sadr city, where heaps of rubbish lie uncollected in the streets. “The young people are a lost generation, who can’t afford to get married because they have no jobs and no prospects unless they know somebody in the government,” said a local paramilitary. Water and electricity were in short supply and expensive to buy privately.
Grotesque examples of official theft have been frequent since a new class of leaders, mostly Shia and Kurdish, took power in Iraq after the US invasion. When the Iraqi government was supposedly fighting for its life militarily in 2004-2005, the entire $1.3bn (£980m) military procurement budget disappeared. A few years later, police at checkpoints in Baghdad were trying to detect car bombs with a useless device that cost a few dollars to make and which the government had bought for tens of thousands.
How did successive Iraqi governments get away with such blatant thefts for so long? For years they diverted attention away from their looting of Iraq’s oil revenues by claiming that the struggle against al-Qaeda in Iraq and later Isis was the only thing that mattered. They appealed to the sectarian solidarity of the Shia and, in northern Iraq, to the ethnic solidarity of the Kurds.
But a year after Isis suffered a decisive defeat in the siege of Mosul, these excuses no longer work. Security is better than at any time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, so Iraqis are more conscious than ever before of the failings of a parasitic leadership and a semi-functional state machine.
A word of caution here: Iraqis like to think of their country as uniquely cursed by corruption with billions of dollars paid to shell companies for projects in which not a single brick is placed on top of another. But Iraq is not alone in this, since all the states whose wealth is drawn entirely from the exploitation of their natural resources – usually oil – operate similarly. In each case, members of a predatory ruling elite – from Angola to Saudi Arabia and Iraq – plug into state revenues and grab as much as they can get their claws on.
Obscenely excessive expenditure by the ruling circles in these countries is notorious, but they are not the sole beneficiaries. All these resource-rich states have vast patronage systems whereby a large chunk of the population gets jobs, or receives salaries, though no work may be necessary. Iraqis and Saudis may denounce corruption at the top but millions of them have a stake in the system, which gives it a certain stability. In Iraq, for instance, some 4.5 million Iraqis work for the state and these are the plum jobs that others would like to have. Though political leaders in Baghdad talk about reforming this system, it is politically dangerous to do so because the networks of corruption and patronage established themselves too long ago and involve too many powerful people and parties.
“Anti-corruption campaigns” – in Iraq as in Saudi Arabia – are often just one group of super-rich trying to displace another. The patronage system is the only way that many Iraqis and Saudis get a share of the oil revenues and they will resist being deprived of this in the supposed interest of creating a more functional system.
In Iraq the mechanics of corruption operate in a slightly different way than elsewhere because of the role of the political parties. Mudher Salih, a financial adviser to the prime minister Haider al-Abadi, told me that “unless the political system is changed it is impossible to fight corruption”. He said that the reason for this is that parties use the government ministries they control as cash cows and patronage machines through which they sustain their power. This way of doing things is probably too ingrained, and in the interests of too many people, to be radically changed.
Corruption cannot be eliminated in Iraq, but it can be made less destructive. When al-Abadi became prime minister in 2014 Isis was advancing on Baghdad and oil prices were well. Salih said that in response to the crisis the government “cut expenditure by 37 per cent by removing ‘fishy’ items – money being spent for nothing at all”. Corruption will stay, but in future Iraqis can at least hope to get something for their money.