20 Sept 2018

Turkish government frames up airport construction workers

Jean Shaoul 

An Istanbul court granted the prosecutor’s demand that 24 workers, including two union leaders, involved in last Friday’s mass protests over the lethal working conditions at Istanbul’s new airport, be remanded in custody. The court ordered the release of the remaining 19 on condition they were subject to judicial monitoring.
These 43 workers are just a fraction of the hundreds of workers arrested during protests. Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin said that 401 people had been detained, either for refusing to work or “trying to provoke others.” Sahin claims some 275 had been released, although the unions say many more have been arrested.
The 24 face provisional charges such as “damaging public property,” “violating laws on assemblies and rallies,” “resisting police” and “violating freedom to work,” but could face additional charges. This is a travesty of the truth and as such, sets the stage for the beginning of a vindictive and ruthless frame-up trial.
There is every indication that the authorities are seeking to make an example of these workers to intimidate and repress all opposition to the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) efforts to place the full burden of Turkey’s economic crisis on the working class.
Pro-government media even described the protesting workers as “terrorists.” Kadir Kurt, organizing secretary at the builders’ union Insaat-Is, told the website al-Monitor, “We were publicly called terrorists. We cannot understand the reaction a legal protest created. These workers were asserting their democratic rights.”
He said the crackdown was “aimed at stirring fear to prevent workers elsewhere from demanding their rights … which are all written into law and the violation of which should be subject to prosecution. The biggest problem is that the bosses don’t regard the worker as a human being.”
The Transportation Ministry said, “This project [Istanbul’s new airport] is Turkey’s project of pride, and no one has the power to stop or obstruct it. As we promised our people, it will open October 29, 2018, honored by our president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”
Last Friday’s mass protests of thousands of workers at the new airport, which is being constructed on a vast 77 million square metre site of former forest and farmland near the Black Sea coast, broke out after a shuttle bus accident left 17 workers injured. The incident was the latest in a raft of industrial accidents at the site, which workers describe as a “graveyard” due to the lack of basic safety protections and pressure to open the first stage of the giant airport by the end of next month.
Hundreds of workers chanted, “We are workers, we are right. We will have our way one way or another.” The hashtag supporting the workers, “#we are not slaves” (#köledegiliz), gained strong support throughout Turkey.
Police and gendarmes used military vehicles, tear gas and water cannon to break up the protests of striking workers, arresting hundreds of workers. The following day, the police carried out dawn raids on the workers’ living quarters near the construction site, arresting dozens of workers who had pledged to continue their protests.
The following day, the police presence was massively ramped up, with one young man telling Deutsche Welle, “Now it’s like a state of emergency here. There are tanks everywhere.” Another 20 people were arrested as they rallied to demand the release of the detained workers.
Workers say they are working as under military conditions. They are being put onto buses under the baton of the police-gendarmerie and working among hundreds of civilian police officers. As a worker told the Construction Workers Union, “They’re really hard on taking pictures. And now they’re looking at our phones.”
Another worker said, “It’s like we’re building a pyramid for a pharaoh. People who lost their lives while doing this pyramid are ignored. Unfortunately, even the people out there don’t know enough about what’s going on here. This perception must change. In any case, people should understand that it is not a crime to seek their rights, and that the only thing that workers do here is to seek their rights.”
The airport workers published a list of their demands that included payment of their wages, no dismissal from their jobs, more shuttle buses and better living conditions, citing the atrocious conditions in their company-supplied container homes near the construction site. Some 15,000 workers sleep in these units, which are infested with fleas and bed bugs, and have uncollected garbage and cracks in the walls and ceilings.
A key demand was for improved safety conditions. Last February, the opposition newspaper Cumhuriyet said that the government—which claims that just 27 workers had died from workplace accidents or poor health since construction began in 2015—was covering up as many as 400 deaths at the site, which employs 36,000 workers, and called for the cause of their deaths to be investigated.
Kazim Bayraktar, a lawyer for the workers’ union Insaat-Is, said it was impossible for union members to check the safety precautions because they were not allowed in. He told Deutsche Welle, “It is more difficult to get into this area than into army barracks.” He said it was also almost impossible to contact the families of the deceased because, “The relatives are threatened. That’s how these incidents are prevented from making it into court. It is very difficult for us to get in contact with the families.”
The workers told the newspaper that employers have put pressure on them to increase productivity after several delays in the target opening date. Many deaths go unreported, workers told the newspaper, because the government pays the families of the victims—many of whom live in impoverished villages far away from Istanbul or overseas—as much as 631,433 lira (US$100,000) in “hush money.”
The new airport in Europe’s largest city is one of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s flagship projects that he hopes will be the largest in the world. It is being built by a consortium of five Turkish companies that will pay the government about $26 billion to operate it for 25 years.
This and similar mega infrastructure projects launched by the AKP government over the last 15 years have underpinned the growth of the Turkish economy over the last decade. But their estimated $250 billion loans and Treasury guarantees have played a major part—alongside Ankara’s worsening relations with Washington that have led to a doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs last month in retaliation to Turkey’s refusal to release imprisoned US pastor Andrew Brunson—in exacerbating Turkey’s foreign indebtedness and its fiscal and currency crisis.
The lira has fallen by 60 percent relative to the US dollar this year, sending inflation, already around 18 percent, and unemployment, expected to be around 15 percent in August, to new highs. It has forced Erdogan to shelve some of his grand projects in a bid to shore up the economy.
Turkey’s Central Bank has raised interest rates by 6.25 percent to 24 percent—the biggest increase since Erdogan became prime minister in 2003—to prop up the lira, in defiance of Erdogan, who has long opposed any interest rate increase. This will drive many companies to the wall, especially in the construction industry, and many households, saddled with consumer debt, to breaking point.
Erdogan also issued a decree that property agreements must be made in Turkish lira, outlawing indexing to foreign countries, and existing contracts converted within 30 days, in a new bid to prop up the country’s beleaguered currency.
Under these conditions, Erdogan and the ruling clique around him are determined to prevent any opposition that could rapidly escalate into mass class struggles.
Last July, the government ended the two-year-long state of emergency, put in place after the failed coup of July 2016, only to introduce new legislation that gives police-state measures the force of law.
The two-year-long state of emergency was used to sanction the detention of some 160,000 people—77,000 of whom have been formally charged and kept in jail pending trial—the firing of around 150,000 state employees and the annulment of nearly 200,000 passports.
Now the new “anti-terrorism law,” passed in July and renewable in three years’ time, strengthens the authorities’ powers to detain suspects, impose public order and ban public meetings and rallies. It also authorizes the firing of public employees if there are links to or contacts with “terrorist organisations” or other “perceived threats to national security.” This and the new executive presidency give Erdogan sweeping powers to stifle dissent.
Just one month later, the authorities banned a decades-old weekly vigil, whose 700th sit-in in downtown Istanbul was broken up by police, for Turkish victims who “disappeared” while in the custody of state-linked agencies and paramilitary groups.
In another ominous development, the leaders of the AKP and the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) have also agreed to restore the death penalty, abolished in 2004 as part of the accession talks with the European Union, for “terrorists” and killers of women and children. Following the coup, Erdogan said that he would restore the death penalty “without hesitation,” regardless of the EU’s stance.
The airport workers must be released. There is absolutely no basis for their detention or indictment.
Workers in Turkey and around the world must come to their defense. In challenging their slave-like conditions of employment, they are striking a blow for workers not just in Turkey but around the world. Their defense is a vital step in forging the international unity of the working class that is needed to fight global capital.

Over 5 million children face starvation as US-backed forces attack Yemeni aid port

Bill Van Auken

Soaring food and fuel prices and dwindling supplies have driven another million Yemeni children to the brink of famine, bringing the total number of children facing starvation to 5.2 million, the UK-based aid group Save the Children warned in a report issued Wednesday.
The report appeared as the US-backed coalition led by Saudi Arabia and its fellow Persian Gulf oil monarchies announced an escalation of their offensive against the Yemeni port city of Hodeidah, which constitutes the sole lifeline for food, medicine and fuel for some 80 percent of the country’s population.
Save the Children warned that any disruption in the supplies flowing through Hodeidah could “cause starvation on an unprecedented scale” and risk killing “an entire generation of Yemeni children.”
The United Nations food agency, meanwhile, reported that it anticipates its current estimate of 8.4 million Yemenis confronting famine will rise by another 3.5 million, given rising food prices—35 percent over the past year alone—and the collapse in the value of the country’s currency.
“Time is running out for aid agencies in Yemen to prevent this country from slipping into a devastating famine,” David Beasley, the executive director of the World Food Program (WFP), warned in a statement Wednesday.
The country is already facing what the UN has termed the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet and the threat of the worst famine in modern history, with the WFP reporting that 18 million Yemenis, almost two thirds of the population, do not know where their next meal will come from.
Conditions have descended to the point that in some areas of the country families are trying to stay alive by eating leaves. In the capital of Sana’a, fuel shortages have led to streets being emptied of vehicles, leaving people unable to transport the wounded and sick to hospitals.
The UN had attempted to negotiate a humanitarian corridor for badly wounded civilians, cancer patients and others who will lose their lives unless they are transported out of the country for medical treatment. But the US-backed Saudi-led coalition has refused to allow planes to transport these people from Sana’a. A report that such flights were imminent led to long lines of people in wheelchairs and mothers carrying their dying babies forming outside Yemen’s health ministry.
New deaths have also been reported as a result of a cholera epidemic—the worst in modern history—that has affected over a million Yemenis and claimed the lives of well over 2,000.
The threat of mass starvation has intensified with the increasingly violent assault on Hodeidah, a city of 600,000 people, which has come under sustained Saudi bombing. This is combined with a tightening naval blockade and a ground assault by troops of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and various mercenary forces supposedly loyal to the exiled US-Saudi puppet president of Yemen Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi.
UN officials have warned that the siege of the city could claim as many as a quarter of a million lives, while the blocking of aid through the port could kill millions more.
Saudi Arabia and its allies launched their war of aggression against Yemen in 2015 in a bid to reinstall Hadi in the capital of Sana’a by defeating the Houthi rebels who overthrew him. The war has been waged by means of an unrelenting bombing campaign that has destroyed hospitals, schools, marketplaces, factories, ports and residential neighborhoods, as well as crucial electrical and water infrastructure, creating the conditions for the spread of cholera.
This campaign would be impossible without extensive support from Washington, including the sale of tens of billions of dollars in arms and munitions to Riyadh and its allies, and the provision of midair refueling for Saudi warplanes as well as targeting information and other intelligence and logistical assistance. The US Navy serves as a backup for the punishing naval blockade imposed upon the starving country.
This military aid began under the Obama administration and has continued and intensified under Trump. Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a pro-forma declaration to Congress, required under a military appropriation bill as a condition for continuing the midair refueling operation, that the Saudi-led coalition was “undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians.”
The certification followed a series of war crimes, including the August 9 bombing of a bus filled with school children, which claimed the lives of 40 children and 11 others, while wounding another 79, including 56 children. An August 23 strike against civilians fleeing the besieged city of Hodeidah killed 22 children and four women.
The renewed onslaught against Hodeidah has been accompanied by a fresh massacre of innocent civilians. A Saudi coalition warship attacked a fishing boat off Yemen’s Red Sea port of Al Khokha, 75 miles south of Hodeidah, killing 18 of those aboard and leaving only one survivor. The port was seized at the end of last year by forces of the United Arab Emirates, which turned it into a military base.
Washington’s responsibility for this slaughter of civilians has been underscored by documented evidence provided by the Yemeni human rights group Mwatana to the US cable news network CNN. The evidence establishes—through the examination of fragments bearing serial numbers—that bombs and missiles used in attacks that have inflicted mass casualties upon civilians across Yemen have all come from US military stockpiles and have been manufactured by major US arms corporations, including Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. These include cluster munitions—banned by an international treaty that neither the US nor Saudi Arabia signed onto. These weapons spread lethal bomblets over an area the size of a football field.
The damning evidence is posted on the network’s website under the headline Made in USA: Bombs Used on Yemeni Civilians, but it has not been featured on CNN’s television broadcasts. Other major US media have ignored the evidence.
The escalation of the siege of Hodeidah, with its potential for triggering mass starvation, could be carried out only with the approval of the White House and the Pentagon.
Washington views the savage war against the population of Yemen strictly through the lens of geo-strategic interests. It is seen as a means of countering Iranian influence and asserting US hegemony in the region. US officials have claimed, without presenting any credible evidence, that the Houthis act as a proxy for Tehran and are armed and trained by Iran. In reality, both Riyadh and Washington oppose any government in Yemen that is not their servile puppet.
To press its campaign against Iran and for US hegemony in the region, US imperialism is willing to sacrifice the lives of millions. Top officials in the White House and the Pentagon—from Obama and Trump on down—are guilty of war crimes in Yemen that are comparable to those carried out by Germany’s Nazi regime in the Second World War.

Germany’s grand coalition promotes far-right secret service chief to state secretary

Ulrich Rippert

Ever since the negotiations to form a coalition government in Germany earlier this year, the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP—Socialist Equality Party) has warned that the grand coalition government comprised of the Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union and Social Democratic Party is the product of a conspiracy to implement far-right policies in line with the programme of the fascistic Alternative for Germany (AfD).
This right-wing conspiracy was revealed once again on Tuesday night.
In recent weeks, Hans-Georg Maaßen, the head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), the German secret service, has been increasingly exposed as a supporter and adviser to the AfD. It emerged that he consulted with the AfD before issuing the BfV’s annual security report. Then, following the neo-fascist riot last month in Chemnitz, in which ultra-right demonstrators were videotaped hunting down and attacking people they presumed to be immigrants, Maaßen publicly defended the rioters and cast doubt on the authenticity of the damning videos.
This provoked mass protests demanding that Maaßen be forced to resign. Tens of thousands gathered in several cities to oppose the right-wing xenophobic agitation and the support given it by Maaßen and Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU). In Chemnitz, 70,000 people took part in a “rock against the right wing” concert. Under these conditions, the Social Democrats (SPD) declared that Maaßen was no longer acceptable as BfV president and demanded he be fired.
However, Seehofer publicly backed Maaßen, declaring that his ministry was responsible for overseeing the secret service.
The coalition committee met Tuesday evening under the auspices of the three party leaders and agreed that Maaßen would be replaced as BfV president. However, far from being dismissed, he would be given a position as state secretary in Seehofer’s Interior Ministry.
Maaßen was not fired, he was given a promotion. He now holds a high position in the ministry that has powers of oversight and direction of the BfV. The coalition leaders declared that Maaßen would not be responsible for overseeing the BfV in his new post, but Seehofer made clear the worthlessness of this claim by stating repeatedly that he valued Maaßen’s work as a leading political official.
The indications are that Maaßen will function as Seehofer’s right-hand man. He will receive a much higher salary as a state secretary than he did as head of the BfV.
It remains unclear who will take over as head of the secret service. However, it is likely that a current state secretary in the Interior Ministry will move to the BfV to complete the musical chairs maneuver, removing the domestic intelligence service from the firing line and strengthening it.
The German government has responded to the protests against the AfD and its neo-fascist provocations by shifting further to the right. The grand coalition is integrating the hated secret service president and his pro-AfD policy more directly into the government and attempting to cover up the right-wing conspiracy that has long been under way in the BfV by installing a new leadership.
The SPD is playing a key role in this operation. With Maaßen’s promotion to state secretary, the SPD has demonstrated that its demand for his firing and its threat to withdraw from the coalition was pure theatre. The SPD is celebrating the elevation of Maaßen within the state apparatus as a victory.
In reality, it wanted to avoid a new election at all costs. This was due not only to its fear of losing further support, but also because it did not want to hold an election in a situation where tens of thousands of people are taking to the streets each weekend to protest against the far-right and a powerful mass opposition to the grand coalition’s right-wing policies is developing.
It was not for nothing that the SPD negotiated for months behind closed doors to bring about the coalition, thereby making the AfD the official opposition in parliament and granting it political legitimacy and greater prominence.
In almost all areas, the new government’s policies conform to the AfD’s right-wing extremist politics. The coalition agreed on the doubling of the defence budget to make it the largest military budget since World War II. Seehofer’s “masterplan,” adopted by the grand coalition, included a major expansion of deportation and internment camps for refugees. At the same time, the police state infrastructure is being strengthened.
The AfD has been fully integrated into parliamentary work by the SPD, in particular. As the new parliament was being constituted, the SPD demanded a “collegial” approach to the AfD. Stefan Brandner, a leading AfD politician, has the SPD to thank for his appointment as chairman of the parliamentary judicial committee. It was Thomas Oppermann, the SPD vice president of parliament, who proposed Brandner, a representative of the volkish-nationalist wing of the AfD and close ally of the right-wing extremist Björn Höcke.
The connection between the government and the AfD was clearest of all in the secret service. Maaßen met with leading AfD politicians on numerous occasions and discussed his agency’s plans with them, even though these plans were considered state secrets.
Brandner has confirmed that Maaßen spoke with him about this year’s secret service report. Neither the AfD, nor its neo-fascist wing, nor numerous other right-wing extremist groups are mentioned in the report. Instead, organizations that oppose the right-wing extremists are labeled “left-wing extremists.” For the first time, the SGP is declared to be “left-wing extremist” because of its opposition to capitalism and nationalism, according to the report.
Maaßen used the secret service to politically strengthen the AfD and the most right-wing circles in Germany. He is now being rewarded accordingly.
He took over as head of the BfV in the summer of 2012, when the intelligence agency was in deep crisis. Nine months earlier, news about the right-wing terrorist cell National Socialist Underground came to light. Many agents of the secret service were active in its milieu. The BfV subsequently shredded a large number of files. Heinz Fromm, Maaßen’s predecessor, was forced out as a result of the scandal.
Maaßen did not put a halt to ties with far-right extremist groups, but strengthened them. In early 2015, he filed criminal charges against two journalists from the blog Netzpolitik.org. He thus initiated a clampdown on freedom of speech while at the same time establishing close ties with the AfD.
It became clear this summer that the BfV was much more involved in the terrorist attack in Berlin in December 2016 than had previously been known. There is much to suggest that the attack was aimed at creating an atmosphere of fear at the beginning of an election year, so as to strengthen the AfD.
With its decision to promote Maaßen, the grand coalition is giving its backing to the right-wing networks in the secret service and leaving no doubt about the character of the current government.
The SGP therefore demands the dissolution of the BfV and the immediate holding of new elections. The vast majority of the population opposes the government’s right-wing policies, which were negotiated behind closed doors by the losers of last year’s election.
The SGP is doing everything in its power to mobilise the only social force capable of halting the right-wing, authoritarian and militarist policies of the ruling class and all of its parties—the international working class. This requires a socialist perspective.
Our demands are:
  • Stop the conspiracy of the grand coalition, the state apparatus and right-wing extremists!
  • No more war! Stop Germany’s return to a militarist great power policy!
  • Dissolve the secret service! An immediate halt to the surveillance of the SGP and other left-wing organizations!
  • Defend the right to asylum! No to the militarisation of the state! No to surveillance!
  • End poverty and exploitation—for social equality! Expropriate the super-wealthy and place the banks and corporations under public ownership and democratic control!

US-China Contestation and North Korean De-Nuclearisation

Sandip Kumar Mishra

It is conventional wisdom that China’s role would be the most crucial in the process of de-nuclearising North Korea. North Korea and China share strong historical connections along with political and strategic mutual needs. Given how nearly 90 per cent of North Korea’s external trade has been with China alone in the past few years, the salience of this wisdom cannot be exaggerated. For North Korea, China is definitely the most important country, providing a credible and continuous economic and military backup, despite the fact that on occasion, Beijing faces discomfort and annoyance arising from Pyongyang’s provocative and isolationist behaviours including its nuclear and missile programmes.
After coming to power, US President Donald Trump first tried to squeeze North Korea by courting China on the basis of these few discords between Beijing and Pyongyang. On several occasions, Trump profusely praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his cooperation in dealing with North Korea and appealed for more of it. Trump correctly realised that his policy of ‘maximum pressure’ on North Korea could not succeed without China’s cooperation. There are opinions that the US tried to at least postpone disagreements and contestations with China in most of the contentious issues. China also obliged by placing more restrictions in its economic transactions with North Korea.
However, in early 2018, North Korea surprised Trump when it agreed to hold direct talks with the US to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee. After few hiccups, the historic summit between the leaders of the US and North Korea finally took place in Singapore on 12 June 2018. Even though both have been maintaining contact with each other, the US and North Korea do not sufficiently trust each other. For the same reason, just a few days before the Singapore summit, Trump declared that his proposed meeting with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, might not happen–and eventually, the process was brought back on the track thanks to South Korean intervention. China appeared less active in this phase as North Korea, South Korea and the US were apparently making all the moves.
Unlike during the previous occasions, the US’ engagement policy towards North Korea did not involve sufficient communication with China, and Beijing was not given much of a space and role in the process. However, the occasion provided a golden opportunity to North Korea for reaching out to China–and Pyongyang immediately grabbed it. In fact, Kim Jong-un visited China both before his first summit meet with South Korean leader Moon Jae-in in April 2018 and also before his Singapore summit with Donald Trump in June 2018. Overall, the North Korean leader has met Xi Jinping three times in the last six months and some other important high level visits between North Korea and China have also taken place.
Basically, North Korea has cleverly utilised growing frictions between the US and China in 2018 on trade and other strategic issues. In last few months, the US accused China for not doing enough towards resolving the North Korean nuclear and missile issues; raked up the Taiwan issue; and more importantly, imposed trade restrictions on China. In March 2018, the US signed the Taiwan Travel Act; and in August 2018, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen made stopovers in the two US cities–Los Angeles and Houston–during her trip to Central and South America. By early July 2018, the US and China had imposed tariffs on US$34 billion worth of goods from the other countries, and on 7 September 2018, Trump threatened to add another US$267 billion worth tariffs on goods imported from China. In a way, the US has touched upon two extremely sensitive issues for China–Taiwan and trade–and Beijing must be highly annoyed by Washington’s policy and moves.
Trump anticipates that he may create gap between North Korea and China by being soft towards North Korea but tough on China. The US policy was evident, when on 9 July 2018, Trump tweeted that he is confident ”that Kim Jong Un will honor the contract we signed &, even more importantly, our handshake” but blamed that “China, on the other hand, may be exerting negative pressure on a deal because of our posture on Chinese Trade-Hope Not!”
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo alleged that ”China has relaxed sanctions against North Korea” and that there have been complications in achieving North Korean de-nuclearisation because of Chinese behaviour. Unfortunately, the US strategy towards deal with North Korea alone does not appear to succeed. The US needs to go back to the conventional wisdom which demands working with China to resolve the North Korean issue. The US needs take a more in-depth, patient, innovative approach to devise a mutually acceptable quid pro quo with China rather than venturing alone.

19 Sept 2018

Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG) Scholarships for Women from Developing Countries 2019/2020 to Study in US & Canada

Application Deadline: 15th January 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Accepted Fields of Study: Any field of study

To be taken at (country): United States (US) & Canada

About the Award: The Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG) provides grants to women from developing countries to help further their education and strengthen their leadership skills to improve the lives of women and children in developing countries. About $15,000 Education grants are awarded to women from developing and middle-income countries who, upon obtainment of their degree, intend to return to or remain in their countries, or other developing countries, and work to improve the lives of women and/or children.

Offered Since: 1981

Type: Masters

Who is qualified to apply? Applicants must meet the following eligibility criteria:
  • Be at least 25 years old at time of application deadline (see specific regional program application below);
  • Be a national of a country listed on the MMEG Country Eligibility List (listed below);
  • Be enrolled at an accredited academic institution when submitting application; and plan to be enrolled for a full academic term after award of the grant by the Board;
  • Not be related to a World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund or Inter-American Development Bank staff member or spouse;
Number of Scholarships: Not Specified

Scholarship benefits: Approximately $15,000 per scholarship recipient

Duration: The grant is a onetime award to last for the duration of study

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Rep., Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt , Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Other Countries:
Afghanistan, Ecuador , Macedonia, FYR of , Albania, Arab Rep., Serbia, El Salvador, Seychelles, Malaysia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Solomon Islands, Argentina, Armenia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh , St. Kitts and Nevis, Belarus, Georgia, Mexico, St. Lucia, Belize, Micronesia, Fed. Sts , St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada, Bhutan, Guatemala, Moldova, Suriname, Bolivia, Mongolia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, Syrian Arab Rep., Guyana, Tajikistan, Brazil, Haiti, Bulgaria, Honduras, Myanmar, Thailand, India, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia, Iran, Islamic Rep. of, Nicaragua,Tonga, Iraq, Trinidad and Tobago, Cape Verde, Jamaica, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Palau, Turkmenistan, Chile, China, Kiribatii, Panama, Colombia, Korea, Republic of, Papua New Guinea, Ukraine, Comoros, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uruguay, Kyrgyz Rep, Peru, Uzbekistan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Vanuatu, Costa Rica, Latvia, Poland, Venezuela, RB, Lebanon, Romania, Vietnam, Croatia, Russian Federation, West Bank & Gaza, Yemen, Rep, Dominica, Samoa, Dominican Republic, São Tomé and Principe

How to Apply:  Apply via Scholarship Webpage link below.
Remember to read the Application Checklist & FAQs before applying, and when applying (after signing up), select “US-Canada program” in the first question of the application. If the programme name does not appear, the programme may be closed to new applications.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG)

Important Notes: Please make sure to submit ALL documents as listed. Only complete applications will be accepted. Decisions will be announced by April.

VLIR Training Scholarships for Sustainable Development and Human Rights Law (SUSTLAW) Postgraduate Programme 2019

Application Deadline: 30th September 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): University of Antwerp, Belgium

About the Award: SUSTLAW offers a comprehensive teaching programme based on the research lines of the Law and Development Research Group. The postgraduate programme runs in conjunction with the Faculty’s Master of Laws (LL.M).

Type: Training

Eligibility: You can only apply for an ITP scholarship if you meet the following requirements:
  • Nationality and country of residence:  A candidate should be both a national and a resident of one of the 31 eligible countries (not necessarily the same country) at the time of the application.
  • Relevant professional experience and a support letter: Priority is given to candidates who are employed in academic institutions, research institutes, governments, the social economy or NGOs, or to those who aim to have a career in one of these sectors. The training candidate should have relevant professional experience and a support letter confirming (re)integration in a professional context where the acquired knowledge and skills will be immediately applicable.
  • Fungibility with other VLIR-UOS funding: Candidates who are working at a university where we already fund IUC, TEAM or SI projects, can receive an ITP-ICP scholarship if they clearly motivate the reason for their application and if they clarify why the participation at the ICP or ITP programme cannot be funded as part of the IUC, TEAM or SI programme or project funds that already exist.
  •  Other VLIR-UOS scholarship applications and previously awarded scholarships: A potential candidate can only submit one scholarship application with us per year – irrespective of the scholarship type – and can, therefore, only be selected for one VLIR-UOS scholarship every year. Candidates who already received one of our scholarships to participate in another ITP, will not be eligible. Candidates who already received one of our scholarship to participate in an ICP (or vice versa) can only be selected if the previously attended course is thematically linked to the ITP.
Candidate must also meet the course’s admission requirements.

Number of Awards: 12

Value of Award: The scholarships cover the programme fees, accommodation, travel expenses, visa costs, insurance and an allowance.

Duration of Programme: 11 February to 3 May 2019.

How to Apply: To apply for an ITP scholarship, you first need to apply for the training programmes at this link. Follow the guidelines for application on the programme´s website. Mention as part of your training application that you wish to apply for the ITP scholarship.
It is important to visit the Programme Webpage (See Link below) to access the application form and for detailed information on how to apply for this scholarship.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

The Afghan Morass

Cesar Chelala

On learning that he was from Afghanistan, I asked my Afghan taxi driver in New York his opinion about the situation in his country. “Americans don’t get it,” he said. “They are not going to succeed in Afghanistan. My father was a warlord who fought the Russians, and I grew up in Afghanistan, so I know the situation there. I have a lot of respect for the Russian soldiers, who fought us fiercely. But I don’t have the same respect for the coalition soldiers who always overprotect themselves. They don’t seem to understand that we have fought for centuries against foreign occupation in my country, and we have always succeeded.”
The taxi driver’s assessment confirmed the strength of the Afghan soldier, able to fight with the most primitive weapons against the greatest empires on earth. When these soldiers feel their land usurped by foreign forces, their strength is multiplied. And this is just one of the obstacles confronting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Matthew Hoh, a former Foreign Service officer and former Marine Corps captain who became the first U.S. official to resign in protest over the Afghan war, had declared, “Upon arriving in Afghanistan and serving in both the East and South (and particularly speaking with local Afghans) I found that the majority of those who were fighting us and the Afghan central government were fighting us because they felt occupied.”
More than 2,200 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, and the U.S. has spent more than $840 billion fighting the Taliban and paying for relief and reconstruction. The amount of money the U.S. has so far spent in Afghanistan is higher than what it spent, in current dollars, on the Marshall Plan, which help rebuild Europe after World War II.
Despite all these financial resources spent in Afghanistan, and even though the American military says that the Afghan government “controls or influences” 56 percent of the country, this control is limited to district and military quarters while the Taliban controls the rest.
According to Afghan official statistics, the Afghan security forces outnumber the Taliban by 10 to 1. However, as recently as the second week in September, dozens of police officers, soldiers and civilians were killed by Taliban insurgents in four well-coordinated attacks which even included one in Kabul.
In the deadliest attack, the insurgents killed over 30 members of the government security forces in Baghlan Province, located in the north of the country. The casualties among the Afghan security forces have been significant. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, a U.S. government agency, 6,785 Afghan police and soldiers have died in the first 10 months of 2016.
As there are increasing calls for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the real dilemma for the U.S. is if it is worth to persist in what increasingly seems like an unwinnable war on this natural resources-plentiful country. The Taliban have indicated that they are ready for a second round of talks with the U.S.
It is now time for both parties in this cruel war to put and end to what has been like a hemorrhage in the body of the Afghan people. Those who have failed in the past should be a sobering reminder to the troops now fighting in that country. Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires. It should more properly be called the end of an illusion.

Yemen’s Descent into Hell: A Saudi-American War of Terror

Rajan Menon

It’s the war from hell, the savage one that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, along with seven other Middle Eastern and North African states, have been waging in Yemen since March 2015, with fulsome support from the Pentagon and American weapons galore. It’s got everything. Dead children in the dozens, a never-ending air campaign that pays scant heed to civilians, famine, cholera, you name it. No wonder it’s facing mounting criticism in Congress and from human rights groups. Still, ever since President Donald Trump (like Barack Obama before him) embraced the Saudi-led coalition as this country’s righteous knight errant in the Middle East, the fight against impoverished Yemen’s Houthi rebels — who have, in turn, been typecast as Iran’s cats-paw — has only grown fiercer. Meanwhile, the al-Qaeda affiliate there continues to expand.
For years now, a relentless Saudi air campaign (quite literally fueled by the U.S. military) has hit endless civilian targets, using American smart bombs and missiles, without a peep of protest or complaint from Washington. Only a highly publicized, completely over-the-top slaughter recently forced the Pentagon to finally do a little mild finger wagging. On August 7th, an airstrike hit a school bus — with a laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin — in northern Yemen, killing 51 people, 40 of them schoolchildren. Seventy-nine others were wounded, including 56 children. Soon after, a U.N. Security Council-appointed group of experts issued a report detailing numerous other egregious attacks on Yemeni civilians, including people attending weddings and funerals. Perhaps the worst among them killed 137 people and wounded 695 others at a funeral in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, this April.
The attack on those schoolchildren and the U.N. report amplified a growing global outcry against the carnage in Yemen. In response, on August 28th, Secretary of Defense James Mattis let it be known that the Trump administration’s support for the Persian Gulf potentates’ military campaign should not be considered unreserved, that the Saudis and their allies must do “everything humanly possible to avoid any innocent loss of life.” Considering that they haven’t come close to meeting such a standard since the war started nearly five years ago and that the Trump administration clearly has no intention of reducing its support for the Saudis or their war, Mattis’s new yardstick amounted to a cruel joke — at the expense of Yemeni civilians.
The Statistics of Suffering
Some appalling numbers document the anguish Yemenis have endured. Saudi and Emirati warplanes officially have killed — and it’s considered a conservative estimate — 6,475 civilians and wounded more than 10,000 others since 2015. Targets struck have included farmshomesmarketplaceshospitalsschools, and mosques, as well as ancient historic sites in Sana’a. And such incidents haven’t been one-off attacks. They have happened repeatedly.
By April 2018, the Saudi-led coalition had conducted 17,243 airstrikes across Yemen, hitting 386 farms, 212 schools, 183 markets, and 44 mosques. Such statistics make laughable the repeated claims of the Saudis and their allies that such “incidents” should be chalked up to understandable errors and that they take every reasonable precaution to protect innocents. Statistics compiled by the independent Yemen Data Project make it clear that the Gulf monarchs don’t lie awake at night lamenting the deaths of Yemeni civilians.
Saudi Arabia and its partners have accused the Houthis, the rebels with whom they have been in such a deadly struggle, of also attacking Yemeni civilians, a charge Human Rights Watch has validated. Yet such a they-do-it-too defense hardly excuses the relentless bombing of non-military sites by a coalition that has overwhelming superiority in firepower. Houthi crimes pale by comparison.
And when it comes to the destruction of civilian lives and livelihoods, believe it or not, that may be the least of it. Take the naval blockade of the country by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that cut the number of ships docking in the Houthi-controlled port of Hodeida from 129 between January and August 2014 to 21 in the same months of 2017. The result: far less food and medicine entered the country, creating a disaster for Yemenis.
That country, the Arab world’s poorest, has long relied on imports for a staggering 85% of its food, fuel, and medicine, so when prices soared, famine spread, while hunger and malnutrition skyrocketed. Nearly 18 million Yemenis now rely on emergency food aid to survive: that’s an unbelievable 80% of the population. According to the World Bank, “8.4 million more are on the brink of famine.” In December 2017, following a barrage of bad publicity, the Saudi-Emirati blockade was eased marginally, but it had already set in motion a spiral of death.
The blockade also contributed to a cholera epidemic, which the shortage of medicines only exacerbated. According to a World Health Organization report, between April 2017 and July 2018, there were more than 1.1 million cholera cases there. At least 2,310 people died from the disease, most of them children. It is believed to be the worst cholera outbreak since statistics began to be compiled in 1949. At 800,000 cases between 2010 and 2017, Haiti held the previous record, one that the Yemenis surpassed within half a year of the first cases appearing. The prime contributors to the epidemic: drinking water contaminated by rotting garbage (uncollected because of the war), devastated sewage systems, and water filtration plants that stopped running due to lack of fuel — all the result of the horrendous bombing campaign.
Wartime economic blockades starve and sicken civilians and soldiers alike and so amount to a war crime. The Saudi-Emirati claim that the blockade’s sole purpose is to stanch the flow of Iranian arms to the Houthis is nonsense, nor can it be considered a legitimate act of self-defense, even though it was instituted after the Houthis fired ballistic missiles at the airport in the Saudi capital and the residence of that country’s monarch. (Both were shot down by Saudi air defenses and were clear responses to coalition airstrikes on Houthi-held territory that killed 136 civilians.) By the standards of international humanitarian law or simply common sense, choking off Yemen’s imports was a disproportionate response, and clairvoyance wasn’t required to foresee the calamitous consequences to follow.
True to form, President Trump’s U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, echoed Saudi charges that the Houthi missiles were Iranian-supplied Qiam-1s and condemned that country’s interference in Yemen. Given the scale of destruction by a foreign coalition using armaments and technical assistance provided by the United States (and Britain), her comments, in less grim circumstances, would have been laughable.
Those American-supplied weapons have included cluster munitions, which pose a particular hazard to civilians because, when dropped from a plane, their devastating bomblets often disperse over enormous areas. (Such bombs are banned under a 2008 treaty signed by 120 countries that neither Riyadh nor Washington has joined.) In May 2016, the Obama White House confirmed that it had stopped sending such weapons to Saudi Arabia, which then continued to use Brazilian-made variants. However, other American arms have continued to flow to Saudi Arabia, while its warplanes rely on U.S. Air Force tankers for mid-air refueling (88 million pounds of fuel as of this January according to a Central Command spokeswoman), while the Saudi military has received regular intelligence information and targeting advice from the Pentagon since the war began. And with the advent of Donald Trump, such military involvement has only deepened: U.S. Special Operations forces are now on the Saudi-Yemen border, helping to find and attack Houthi redoubts.
In June 2018, ignoring U.S. opposition, the Saudi coalition heightened the risk to Yemeni civilians yet more by launching an offensive (“Golden Victory”) to capture the port of Hodeida. (So much for the Pentagon’s standard claim that supporting the war gives the U.S. influence over how it is waged and so limits civilian casualties.) Saudi and Emirati airpower and warships supported Emirati and Sudanese troops on the ground joined by allied Yemeni militias. The advance, however, quickly stalled in the face of Houthi resistance, though only after at least 50,000 families had fled Hodeida and basic services for the remaining 350,000 were disrupted, creating fears of a new outbreak of cholera.
The Roots of War
Yemen’s progression to its present state of perdition began as the Arab Spring’s gales swept through the Middle East in 2011, uprooting or shaking regimes from Tunisia to Syria. Street demonstrations grew against Yemen’s strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and only gathered strength as he attempted to quell them. In response, he allied ever more strongly with Saudi Arabia and the United States, alienating the Houthis, whose main bastion, the governate of Saada, abuts the Saudi border. Adherents of Zaydi Islam, the Houthis played a pivotal role in creating a political movement, Ansar Allah, in 1992 to assert the interests of their community against the country’s Sunni majority. In an effort to undercut them, the Saudis have long promoted radical Sunni religious leaders in Yemen’s north, while intermittently raiding Houthi territories.
As a Houthi rebellion began, Saleh tried to make himself an even more indispensable ally of Washington in its post-9/11 anti-terrorist campaigns, notably against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a growing local franchise of al-Qaeda. For good measure, he joined the Saudis in painting the Houthis little more than tools of an Iran that Washington and Riyadh both loathed. When those powers nonetheless came to see the Yemeni autocrat as a political liability, they helped oust him and transfer power to his deputy, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Such moves failed to calm the waters, as the country started to disintegrate and Saudi-U.S. efforts to consolidate the transition from Saleh to Hadi unraveled.
Meanwhile, regular American drone strikes against AQAP angered many Yemenis. In their eyes, not only did the attacks violate Yemen’s sovereignty, they intermittently killed civilians. Hadi’s praise for the drone campaign only discredited him further. AQAP’s power continued to grow, resentment in southern Yemen rose, and criminal gangs and warlords began to operate with impunity in its cities, highlighting the Hadi government’s ineffectuality. Neoliberal economic reforms only further enriched a clutch of families that had long controlled much of Yemen’s wealth, while the economic plight of most Yemenis worsened radically. The unemployment rate was nearly 14% in 2017 (and exceeded 25% for young people), while the poverty rate rose precipitously, as did inflation.
It was a formula for disaster and when Hadi proposed a plan to create a federal system for Yemen, the Houthis were infuriated. New boundaries would, among other things, have cut their homeland off from the Red Sea coast. So they gave up on his government and girded for battle. Soon, their forces were advancing southward. In September 2014, they captured the capital, Sana’a, and proclaimed a new national government. The following March, they occupied Aden in southern Yemen and Hadi, whose government had moved there, promptly fled across the border to Riyadh. The first Saudi airstrikes against Sana’a were launched in March 2015 and Yemen’s descent to hell began.
The American Role
The commonplace rendition of the war in Yemen pits a U.S.-backed Saudi coalition against the Houthis, cast as agents of Iran and evidence of its increasing influence in the Middle East. Combatting terrorism and countering Iran became the basis for Washington’s support of the Saudi-led war. Predictably, as this cartoonish portrayal of a complicated civil war gained ground in the mainstream American media and among Beltway pundits (as well, of course, as in the Pentagon and White House), inconvenient facts were shunted aside.
Still, all these years and all those dead later, it’s worth considering some of those facts. There are, for instance, significant differences between the Houthis’ Zaydi variant of Shia Islam and the Twelver Shiism dominant in Iran — and some similarities between Zaydis and Sunnis — which makes the ubiquitous claims about a Iran-Houthi faith-based pact shaky. Moreover, Iran did not jump into the fray during the violent 2004-2010 clashes between Saleh and the Houthis and did not have longstanding ties to them either. In addition, contrary to the prevailing view in Washington, Iran is unlikely to be their main source of weaponry and support. Sheer distance and the Saudi coalition’s naval blockade have made it next to impossible for Iran to supply arms to the Houthis in the volume alleged. Besides, having pillaged various military bases during their march toward Aden, the Houthis do not lack for weaponry. Iran’s influence in Yemen has undoubtedly increased since 2015, but reducing the intricacies of that country’s internal crisis to Iranian meddling and a Tehran-led Shiite bloc expanding from Syria to the Arabian Peninsula amounts to, at best, a massive oversimplification.
The obsession of Trump and his key advisers with Iran (a remarkable number of them are Iranophobes) and The Donald’s obsession with plugging American arms makers and hawking their wares helps explain their embrace of the House of Saud and continuing support for its never-ending assault on Yemen. (Jared Kushner’s bromance with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman undoubtedly played a part as well.) None of that, however, explains the full-scale American backing for the Saudi-led intervention there in the Obama years. Even as his administration denounced Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of Syrian civilians, his officials seemed unmoved by the suffering war was inflicting on Yemenis. In fact, the Obama administration offered $115 billion worth of weaponry to Riyadh, including a $1.15 billion package finalized in August 2016, when the scale of Yemen’s catastrophe was already all too obvious.
In recent years, opposition to the war in Congress has been on the rise, with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna playing prominent roles in mobilizing it. But such congressional critics had no effect on Obama’s war policy and are unlikely to sway Trump’s. They face formidable barriers. The mainstream narrative on the war remains powerful, while the Gulf monarchies continue to buy vast quantities of American weaponry. And don’t forget the impressive, money-is-no-object Saudi-Emirati lobbying operation in Washington.
That, then, is the context for the Pentagon’s gentle warning about the limits of U.S. support for the bombing campaign in Yemen and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s subsequent certification, as required by Congress, that the Saudis and Emiratis were taking perfectly credible action to lower civilian casualties — without which the U.S. military could not continue refueling their planes. (Mattis “endorsed and fully supported” Pompeo’s statement.)  As the fifth anniversary of this appalling war approaches, American-made arms and logistical aid remain essential to it.  Consider President Trump’s much-ballyhooed arms sales to the Saudis, even if they don’t total $100 billion (as he claimed): Why then would the Saudi and Emirati monarchs worry that the White House might actually do something like cutting off those lucrative sales or terminating the back-end support for their bombing campaign?
One thing is obvious: U.S. policy in Yemen won’t achieve its declared goals of defeating terrorism and rolling back Iran. After all, its drone strikes began there in 2002 under George W. Bush. Under Obama, as in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, drones became Washington’s anti-terrorist weapon of choice. There were 154 drone strikes in Yemen during the Obama years according to the most reliable high-end estimates, and civilian casualties ranged between 83 and 101. Under Trump they soared quickly, from 21 in 2016 to 131 in 2017.
The reliance on drone attacks has bolstered al-Qaeda’s narrative that the American war on terror amounts to a war on Muslims, whose lives are deemed expendable. And so many years later, in the chaos of Yemen, the group’s power and reach is only growing. The U.S.-backed, Saudi-led intervention is also likely to prove not just self-defeating but self-prophetic. It seems to be cementing an alliance between Iran and the Houthis who, though they have been pushed out of Aden, still control a big chunk of Yemen. Meanwhile, in a move that could make the war even deadlier, the Emiratis appear to be striking out on their own, supporting secession in southern Yemen. There’s not much to show on the anti-terrorism front either. Indeed, the Saudi coalition’s airstrikes and U.S. drone attacks may be moving Yemenis, enraged by the destruction of their homes and livelihoods and the deaths of loved ones, toward AQAP. In short, a war on terror has turned into a war of and for terror.
In Yemen, the United States backs a grim military intervention for which — unless you are a weapons company — it is hard to find any justification, practical or moral. Unfortunately, it is even harder to imagine President Trump or the Pentagon reaching such a conclusion and changing course.