23 Oct 2018

Brazil: The Eternal Country of the Future Trapped in Its Colonial Past

Jorge Majfud

Former military officer Jair Bolsonaro has advanced to a run-off presidential election in Brazil. (Photo: O Imparcial)
Days before the elections in Brazil, a young Brazilian approached me and said, “God willing, Bolsonaro to win. He is a military man and will end corruption.” I did not want to answer. I esteem this boy as a good person, maybe too young to be anything else. But these two brief sentences summed up several volumes of Latin American history to its present.
Beginning with the obvious: if there were governments and corrupt regimes on the continent, those were the military regimes. First, because every dictatorship is corrupt by definition, and second, because direct robberies were always massive, by denouncing the disappearances, then only to reappear by floating in a river with evidence of torture. It would suffice to mention the most recent investigation into the fortune of General Pinochet, a military leader who accumulated several million dollars in salary as an unelected president, without mention of such details as the thousands killed and many more persecuted during his rule. There were shams of decorated honors for assuming “moral reserve” and for the “bastion of courage” by owning weapons financed by the people’s work, only to later be threatened by their own armies in “bringing order,” by garrison and cemeteries. That same barbaric culture of innumerable generals, soldiers, and scoundrels boasting to be “macho” and valiant fighters, never won or went to any war against other armies, but dedicated themselves to serving the rural oligarchy by terrorizing and threatening their own people. In the coining of a neologism, millions of thugs are now hidden within their new condition of digital cowangry.
This military mentality applied to civil practice and domestic life (deviates from any raison d’être of an army) is a Latin American tradition born prior to the Cold War and long before the new republics were born and consolidated with corruption, deep in hypocritical racism. This is especially true in Brazil, the last country in the continent to abolish slavery. Even Captain Bolsonaro’s vice presidential candidate, General Mourão, a mulatto man like most of his compatriots, is pleased that his grandson contributes to the “branqueamento da raça (whitening of the race).” Have any of us ever crossed paths with this kind of deep racial and social disregard for 90 percent of their own family? The same historical problems permeate in other regions that stand out for their brutality in Central America and the Caribbean.
The second, and less obvious, is the appeal to God. In the same way that the United States replaced Great Britain in its consolidation of Spanish colonial verticality, the Protestant churches did the same with those ultraconservative societies (limitless landowners and silent masses of obedient poor), which had been shaped by the previous hierarchy of the Catholic church. It took some Protestant sects like the Pentecostals and others at least a century more than the dollar and the cannons. The phenomenon probably started in the Sixties and Seventies: those innocent, presumably apolitical, gentlemen, who went door to door talking about God, should have a clear political translation. The paradoxical effect of Christian love (that radical love of Jesus, a rebel who was surrounded by poor and marginal people of all kinds, who did not believe in the chances of the rich reaching heaven, and did not recommend taking the sword but turning the other cheek, who broke several biblical laws such as the obligation to kill adulteresses with stones, who was executed as a political criminal) ended up leading to the hatred of gays and the poor, in the desire to fix everything with shots. Such is the case of medieval candidates like Captain Jair Messias Bolsonaro and many others throughout Latin America, who are supported by a strong and decisive evangelical vote. These people in a trance are watered in sweat and hysterical cries and say they “speak in tongues,” but just speak their disjointed language of political and social hatred in blind fanaticism that God prefers them with a gun in their hands rather than peaceably fighting for justice, respect for the different, and against arbitrary powers.
In the midst of the euphoric golden decade of progressive governments, such as Lula’s, we note two mistakes: naive optimism and the dangers of corruption, and the ramifications of a domino effect because corruption was not a creation of any government, but instead a mark of identity of the Brazilian culture. To name just one more case, this is also the state of affairs in neighboring Argentina.
We must add to all this that the traditional social narrators of a more rancid and powerful Latin America can be found in Maduro’s Venezuela where the equally pathetic opposition is never mentioned. As the example, this is the perfect excuse to continue terrorizing about something that almost all the countries of the continent have lived with since the colony: poverty, economic crises, dispossession, impunity, civil and military violence. So it is Venezuela that is exemplifying Brazilian propaganda and not the Brazil of Lula that took 30 million out of poverty, the one with super entrepreneurs, the one of “Deus é brasileiro (God is Brazilian),” the Brazil that was going away to eat the world and had passed the GDP of U.K.
It was the perfect alibi: for others to believe that corruption did not have 200 years of brutal exercise but had been created by the last five to 10 years of a pair of leftist governments. On the contrary, these governments were an ideological exception within a deeply conservative, racist, classist, and sexist continent. Everything that now finds resonance from Europe to Latin America, to the United States, abandons the ideals of Enlightenment and plunges neurotically into a new Middle Ages.
We still don’t know whether this medieval reaction of the traditional forces in power is just that; a reaction, or a long historical tendency of several generations that began in the Eighties and stumbled 15 years ago.
For the second round in Brazil, the coalition against Bolsonaro has already launched the slogan: “Juntos pelo Brasil do diálogo e do respeito (Together for Brazil for dialogue and respect).” This motto only goes to show that those who oppose Bolsonaro in Brazil, like those who oppose Trump in the United States, do not understand the new cowangry mentality. The cowangry need to know that there is someone else (not them) who is going to return women to the kitchens, gays to their closets, blacks to work on the plantations, and poor to the industries, that someone is going to throw a bomb in some favela (“dead the dog, dead to the rage”). Someone will torture all who think differently (especially poor blacks, teachers, journalists, feminists, critics, educated people without titles, and other dangerous subversives with foreign ideas, all in the name of God) and in that way, someone will punish and exterminate all those miserable people solely responsible for the personal frustrations of the cowangry.

New Zealand military covered up killing of Afghan children

Tom Peters 

On October 15 the magazine North and South published allegations that the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) covered up the killing of two Afghan children by a member of the elite Special Air Service (SAS) unit.
The 10-page article by journalist Nicky Hager was based on accounts by unnamed members and ex-members of the SAS and NZDF. It reported that in 2004 an SAS medic joined a raid on an Afghan village, led by US forces. During the fighting, the medic shot dead two Afghans defending the village. He later discovered they were just boys, aged 12 and 13.
The article is the latest revelation of potential war crimes committed by New Zealand troops in Afghanistan. The Labour Party-led government of Prime Minister Helen Clark sent the SAS to join the US-led invasion in 2001. For 17 years NZ forces have been deployed in the impoverished country, under Labour and National Party-led governments alike.
Troops were also sent to the Iraq war in 2003 as part of the bipartisan agenda to strengthen New Zealand’s alliance with US imperialism. The Labour Party-led government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently extended NZ’s deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and sent troops to support the US military encirclement of North Korea.
Hager and journalist Jon Stephenson co-authored a book last year, Hit and Run, which described in detail how a New Zealand-led raid on a defenceless Afghan village in 2010 led to six civilian deaths and injured 15 people. The NZDF denied the allegations and the government has established an inquiry into what took place. Most of the hearings, however, will be held in secret.
The North and South article explains that the SAS medic violated the Geneva Conventions, which strictly ban medical personnel from shooting anyone, except in self-defence. A former SAS member told Hager the corporal was severely “damaged” by taking part in the raid. “He was thinking, ‘Shit, I’ve killed kids’” and was “angry at [the SAS commanders] for sending him into it and, when it turned to custard, for turning on him.”
According to the source, the NZDF initially considered court-martialling the corporal, a claim the NZDF denies. Instead, the article explains, details of the raid were kept secret and the medic was given New Zealand’s second-highest medal, the Gallantry Decoration. In a July 2007 ceremony, Prime Minister Clark presented the award, saying it was “for displaying outstanding courage and leadership, and accepting extraordinary risks... testimony to the dedication, skill and professionalism of the NZSAS.”
The ex-SAS member came forward to Hager after seeing then-Chief of Defence Force Tim Keating deny any responsibility for the civilian deaths documented in Hit and Run. The source said in his opinion Keating was lying. He said: “The SAS is at the extreme end of thinking they’re above the law, that they don’t have to be held accountable to others. We can say we never committed war crimes, but we have.”
The article also detailed the violent, abusive, alcohol-soaked culture within the NZDF, which is at odds with the picture painted by its well-funded public relations department. In preparation for greater wars, the NZDF is engaged in a recruitment drive, with posters and online advertisements telling young people they can follow their “passion” in the armed forces.
Hager pointed to several allegations of sexual assault and rape that were ignored or downplayed by the NZDF. Hayley Young, a navy marine engineer, said she was raped in 2009 while posted on a British warship, but her navy friends told her speaking out would be “career suicide.” When she left the navy in 2012, she sent a letter to the captain of fleet personnel and training detailing what she had endured.
Young was given no support. She was horrified to discover, 18 months later, that the navy was “using her face, without asking her, on thousands of brochures and posters promoting NZ Navy careers to young women.” Young told North and South her case was “the very tip of an iceberg.”
Sources also told Hager that homophobic bullying was common, despite the NZDF being named the 2018 Supreme Winner in the Diversity Awards, “based on information NZDF had provided about itself.”
In 2010, 20-year-old Ethan Hall fell from a building in Palmerston North after being bullied at Linton Military Camp. Three soldiers who believed Hall was gay had held him down and tortured him by scorching his leg with a gas burner. One of Hall’s former colleagues told Hager he was driven to suicide. A coroner ruled Hall’s death an accident based on a commanding officer’s statement that the bullying had been an isolated incident.
Other sources outlined the lack of support for soldiers returning from combat overseas. One former SAS trainer said: “NZDF doesn’t care about the people who work for them... When they come home, anger management and PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] are treated as their personal problems.” Another source said: “Three to six months after a deployment, you start to see people with alcohol problems, domestic violence, drugs, financial problems, affairs, suicide, anxiety and depression.”
The military has remained virtually silent on the North and South article. A brief report by Newstalk ZB said “in an initial response to specific points, the Defence Force says the claims are either incorrect, or that it has taken appropriate action.” It did not elaborate.
The Labour Party-led coalition government has said nothing, including the Green Party and New Zealand First, underscoring the cross-party agreement with the government’s militarist agenda. Defence Minister Ron Mark, from the right-wing nationalist NZ First, is a former soldier who completed the SAS selection course in 1982.
The corporate media, after a handful of reports, has buried the story. Pro-Labour Party commentator Chris Trotter, writing on the Daily Blog, called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the alleged “breaches of the Geneva Convention, dishonesty and cover-ups, sexual assault and torture.” He blamed these heinous crimes, not on militarism or imperialism, but on “a culture of toxic masculinity.” He called for a “purge” to ensure that the armed forces are led by “brave, upright and honourable personnel.”
In fact, the atrocities and brutality exposed by Hager and Stephenson are the direct and foreseeable product of the much bigger crimes perpetrated by New Zealand’s ruling elite. Genuine accountability requires the prosecution not just of leading military personnel, but the leaders of successive Labour and National-led governments who authorised participation in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have killed more than a million people.

Sharp decline in numbers in latest China Rich List

Robert Campion

The Hurun Research Institute released its annual China Rich List for 2018 on October 10, the 20th annual ranking of the richest individuals in China. The number of individuals with a personal wealth greater than 2 billion yuan ($US290 million) fell to 1,893 in 2018, a sharp 11 percent decrease from last year’s tally of 2,130 billionaires.
This is the first absolute drop in numbers since 2012 and the highest turnover in names ever. Moreover, some 219 new names appear on the list, which means that in all 456 multi-millionaires are no longer on the list—a fall of 21 percent. The decline reflects the impact of a slowing Chinese economy, the impact of the US trade war measures and sharp falls in China’s share markets this year.
The list included 620 US dollar billionaires, slightly down from last year. Despite this year’s fall in numbers, there is still an astounding 89 percent more billionaires on the list than 5 years ago and a four-fold increase from 10 years ago. When Hurun reports began in 1998, the list had no dollar billionaires and only eight individuals in China with wealth over the benchmark of 2 billion yuan.
The report notes that the increase is taking place amid “the fastest wealth creating period in the history of the world”. Globally, Chinese entrepreneurs now comprise 35 percent of the Hurun Global Rich List, overtaking US entrepreneurs for the first time two years ago.
At the same time, wealth in China is becoming more concentrated among the upper stratum. “The Big Three are pulling away from the rest,” said Hurun Report chairman and chief researcher Rupert Hoogewerf. Furthermore, he added, “the wealth of the top 10 placings equates for(sic) 10 percent of the total wealth on the list, and that of the top 200 accounts for half of the total wealth.”
The wealthiest individual in China is Jack Ma, the owner of e-commerce giant Alibaba, whose wealth shot up 35 percent to $US39 billion. The growth was largely due to the increased value of his Ant Financial, which is now the world’s most valuable financial technology (fintech) company, worth $US150 billion as of June. The market value of Alibaba reached $390 billion at the end of September, making it the most valuable company in China and one of the 10 largest companies globally.
Hui Ka-yan, the chairman of property developer Evergrande Group, lost 14 percent of wealth from last year and dropped to second place ($US36 billion). The wealth of the third richest individual—Pony Ma Huateng of Tencent, a conglomerate of internet-related services and products—dropped by 4 percent to $US35bn.
Manufacturing proved to be the main source of wealth, as it has been for the past five years, with 26.1 percent of the Rich List making their money from the sector, slightly down from last year’s 27.9 percent amid the growing US-China trade war. Real estate came in second rising from 14.6 percent to 14.9 percent, while finance and investments ousted IT with a year-on-year increase from 10.9 percent to 11.6 percent.
Many of those on the Rich List have strong political ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The number of those on the Rich List appointed to the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) decreased from last year by 10 percent to 142 individuals. However, the wealth of those present at this year’s NPC and CPPCC sessions in March actually increased almost 20 percent from last year to $US624 billion—larger than the GDP of neighbouring Taiwan.
Business people were formally welcomed into the CCP as advisors in 2002, coinciding with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. Their representation has steadily increased to about 20 percent of the 3,000-member NPC, according to the state-owned media earlier this year.
The CCP, which has presided over four decades of capitalist restoration in China, represents the interests of the wealthy elite that have amassed great riches through the exploitation of, and at the expense of, the working class. Social inequality has deepened despite an overall rise in the per capita GDP and the emergence of substantial middle class layers.
According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the country’s Gini coefficient was 0.467 in 2017, the last time it was measured officially. The scale runs from zero, which would mean the same income for everyone, to 1, which signifies absolute inequality—one person receives all income.
An International Monetary Fund working paper released in June called ‘Inequality in China–Trends, Drivers and Policy Remedies’ placed China among the most unequal countries in the world and noted the sharp increase in income inequality since capitalist restoration in the early 1980s. It pointed out that those in the rural areas were falling further behind: households in urban areas had an average disposable income of around $5,600 in 2017, almost three times that of those in the countryside ($2,064).
While those living in absolute poverty has dropped, large numbers of people still live in desperate situations, particularly in rural areas. According to Oxfam, there are still over 70 million people who live below the national poverty line of less than 2,300 Yuan (353.75 US Dollars) a year.
The minimum monthly wage for workers varies across provinces and within provinces. The figures for 2016 varied from 1,030 yuan ($US148) to 1,895 yuan ($US273)—a miniscule fraction of the income of the ultra-wealthy members of the Hurun Rich List.
The social gulf between rich and poor, as well as rising living expenses, including health and education, is fuelling a resurgence of the class struggle. While no official figures of protests and strikes are available, the China Labour Bulletin based in Hong Kong reported that the first eight months of this year alone saw 1,194 strikes, almost matching last year's total of 1,257.

Thousands mourn victims of school shooting in Crimea

Andrea Peters 

Thousands of people attended funerals and memorial services in recent days for the victims of a mass shooting that took place in Crimea, Russia last Wednesday. More burials in towns across the country are expected this week, as families from as far away as the Ural Mountains mourn their loss.
Just before noon on October 17, Vladislav Roslyakov opened fired at the Kerch Polytechnical College, killing 21 people and injuring 73. The fourth-year student, aged 18, began his rampage in the college’s cafeteria, where he detonated a homemade bomb, according to some reports. He then made his way through the building, shooting bystanders at random before turning his gun on himself.
Among the dead were five staff members of the college. The other fatalities were students at the vocational institution, which offers training in a variety of applied sciences. Of the students killed, a majority were under the age of 18.
A special team of pediatric surgeons from Saint Petersburg was dispatched to nearby hospitals to help treat the youngest among the injured. Doctors are dealing with shrapnel wounds as well as gunshot wounds as a result of the explosive device apparently set off during the attack.
There is some speculation, based on video evidence, that Roslyakov had an accomplice. A copy of surveillance camera footage was recently posted on Vesti.ru, but has since been taken down, after objections to making it public.
Public officials have announced that families of the dead will receive 1 million rubles, just over $15,000. Those of the injured will get half that amount.
Kerch, the site of the tragedy, is a port city of just under 150,000 on the far eastern edge of Crimea. In addition to attracting tourists to its ancient ruins and nearby beaches along the Black and Azov seas, Kerch is home to fishing, metallurgical, iron and shipbuilding enterprises. A newly opened bridge connects Kerch and all of Crimea to Russia’s mainland.
The Crimean peninsula, formerly a part of Ukraine, became a region of Russia in 2014 after a popular referendum held in the aftermath of a far-right coup in Kiev. In opposition to the anti-Russian government installed in Ukraine with the support of the US and Germany, in March 2014 Crimea’s population—overwhelmingly Russian-speaking—voted to become a part of their eastern neighbor. While the Kremlin has sought to make much of the social and economic improvements made in Crimea in the aftermath of Russia’s takeover, wages still remain well below the national average and much of the population struggles to pay for basic necessities.
Roslyakov’s motives are unknown. He was, by all accounts, a quiet and socially isolated young man. In 2016, he stopped using his social media accounts but continued to have an internet presence using a number of pseudonyms. According to press reports, Roslyakov followed sites that promoted Nazis and violence and viewed material on executions and bomb-making. He had a gun permit and purchased his weapon legally, although Russia has relatively tight gun laws and widespread gun violence is uncommon.
Prior to carrying out the attack, Roslyakov destroyed his personal effects in a fire, including his clothes, laptop and cell phone. Investigators are currently working to retrieve information from his electronic devices.
There is some speculation, based on what he was wearing at the time of the shooting and the videos he watched online, that Roslyakov modeled himself after the Columbine massacre killers. In 1999, two seniors at Columbine High School in Colorado murdered 12 people in one of the first mass school shootings in the US. Dozens more such horrific events have taken place at schools in the US since.
The Kremlin blamed Western influences for the crime, with Russian President Vladimir Putin declaring that one could see in the event the effects of “globalization” and “social networks.” The Russian authorities, which preside over a society with extreme levels of social inequality and widespread feelings of despair, are incapable of providing any sort of honest account, much less an explanation, of what kind of reality might drive an individual to such psychopathic levels of violence. Instead, they seek to use the tragedy as a means to crack down on the internet and promote Russian nationalism by implying that what happened is the product of a Western culture they oppose.
In Ukraine there has been an effort to blame Russian influence for Roslyakov’s murder spree. One pro-Kiev human rights group declared that it was a product of the militarization of everyday life in the region, which they insist was illegally invaded and seized by Moscow. The idea, however, that such pro-Ukrainian forces are concerned about mass violence is absurd. The government in Kiev is under the control of far-right politicians who allow murderous gangs of Nazi sympathizers to rage around the country.

Europe makes delayed criticism of Saudis over Khashoggi murder

Jean Shaoul

Britain has issued a joint statement with France and Germany condemning “in the strongest possible terms” the torture and murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
The foreign ministers said there was an “urgent need for clarification on exactly what happened” after Khashoggi entered the consulate on October 2. “Defending freedom of expression and a free press are key priorities for Germany, the United Kingdom and France,” the three declared.
The hypocritical protest comes in the wake of the media’s almost universal dismissal of Saudi Arabia’s latest version of the events surrounding Khashoggi’s assassination, calling it a crude cover-up to protect Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is presumed to have ordered the assassination.
All three imperialist powers have extensive economic interests in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, none more so than Britain. London, taking its cue from the US, barely commented on the affair until President Donald Trump, under pressure from the political establishment in Washington, qualified his previous support for the Kingdom’s transparent lies, saying he was “not satisfied” with the Saudi explanation and was dispatching Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Riyadh.
Even then, Britain’s comments were carefully calibrated. At the end of last week, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the “response will be considered” if Saudi Arabia was found to be responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance. When asked if the UK would stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia, he cited a “strategic relationship” and told the BBC that the UK had “a very strict arms sale control mechanism.”
A spokesman for International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, who has now pulled out of this week’s investment conference in Saudi Arabia, said, “The UK remains very concerned about Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance... those bearing responsibility for his disappearance must be held to account.”
Britain’s “considered” response contrasts starkly with its virulent anti-Russia campaign after the alleged novichok poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March. Theresa May’s Conservative government insisted that the father and daughter were the victims of an operation ordered by President Vladimir Putin. May expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and called for an extension of sanctions against Moscow, without offering any evidence proving Moscow’s culpability.
Britain’s quiescence reflects its dependence on the House of Saud for policing the oil-rich Gulf, as well as concerns for its massive arms sales to the kingdom and other equally reactionary petro-monarchies as they come under threat from their own populations. Since 9/11, this has been legitimised with the rhetoric of “combatting terrorism and radicalisation,” with successive governments piously invoking the catechism, “Gulf security is our security.”
London’s fundamental interest in the Gulf, at one time under its imperial “protection,” is to ensure that profits accrue to its oil corporations, BP and Anglo-Dutch Shell.
Israel’s defeat of the Arab nationalist regimes in 1967 and 1973, the quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 after the establishment of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and rising demand for oil served to strengthen and enrich the feudal states of the Arabian Peninsula and enhance their influence.
By 1976, Britain was an economically spent force and had to turn to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. Under those conditions, it bent over backwards to ensure that the Gulf states’ wealth was recycled through the City of London and used to buy British military hardware and manufactured goods.
The higher oil prices also helped to make the exploration of North Sea oil economically viable, with the result that Britain now obtains only 3 percent of its oil and 20 percent of its gas supplies from Qatar. As a major producer, the British oil sector—like its US counterpart—gains from higher prices in a way that non-producers do not, while the government gains additional revenues via taxation. This makes a close working relationship with Saudi Arabia, whose significant reserves enable it to act as a “swing producer,” advantageous.
The Gulf has become even more important since 2016, with the May government making a concerted push—under the rubric of “Global Britain”—to offset the implications of Brexit for the UK.
Today, the Gulf’s sovereign wealth funds and private fortunes constitute a vital source of investment in Britain’s property market, corporations and banks. These capital flows have helped balance the UK’s chronic trade deficit, maintain the value of the pound and generate profits for the British financial sector.
The £43 billion al-Yamamah arms deal signed in 1985, and secured by Britain’s largest manufacturing corporation BAE with massive bribes, provided the House of Saud with a modern air force and aerial defence system. In 2006, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened to stop a Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery by BAE in order to secure another Saudi arms deal worth £40 billion, which was signed in 2007.
These weapons, and the military training that goes with them, were used by the Saudi royal family and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to suppress dissent in Bahrain—Britain’s former colonial possession—in 2011. Media reports revealed that Britain had provided extensive training for the Bahraini military and police, alongside a Defence Cooperation Agreement to provide “a framework for current and future defence engagement activity, including training and capacity building, in order to enhance the stability of the wider region.”
Bahrain, where Britain recently opened a permanent military base staffed by up to 500 soldiers, sailors and airmen, provided Britain with an important staging post for operations against Afghanistan and Iraq. The new facilities will enable Britain to police the Gulf and the strategic Straits of Hormuz and play a key role in a military conflict with Iran.
According to the Daily Telegraph, writing in 2011, Britain had a secret military training unit in Saudi Arabia, where British personnel trained security forces in crowd control. The House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs provided more details in 2014, confirming that British army personnel were training the National Guard and stating that the UK had some 130 military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Britain has continued to supply arms, intelligence and training to Riyadh, as well as diplomatic cover for its military operations in Yemen. According to the United Nations, the war in Yemen has caused the deaths, including indirectly through famine, of more than 60,000 people, mostly civilians, with 14 million now facing starvation.
Speaking of the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir stated in January 2016, “We have British officials and American officials and officials from other countries in our command and control centre. They know what the target list is and they have a sense of what it is that we are doing and what we are not doing.”
As well as civil servants and military personnel, BAE’s contracts with the kingdom include joint activities with the Ministry of Defence Saudi Armed Forces Projects (MODSAP), with the line between the government, BAE and its subcontractors increasingly blurred.
These arms deals play a major role in sustaining British arms exports and the UK defence industry, positioning Britain as the world’s second largest arms exporter. They also underpin the viability of the Gulf’s petro-monarchies and Britain’s position as a military power. Just last year, the UK signed a new Military and Security Cooperation Agreement confirming its commitment to the House of Saud.
London’s reluctance to comment on the Khashoggi assassination stems from its fear that the crisis triggered by the killing will compound economic problems in Saudi Arabia and fuel demands for sweeping social change. Seven years after the revolutionary movement that swept the Mubarak dictatorship from power in Egypt, the former colonial power dreads a mass political upheaval in the oil-rich country and its Gulf neighbours.

22 Oct 2018

US-MEPI Student Leaders Program 2019 for Students from Middle East and North Africa

Application Deadline: 31st December, 2018.

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia.

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: The Student Leaders program is a rigorous exchange program for up to 60 undergraduate and graduate students from the Middle East and North Africa. Students are divided among U.S. academic institutions where they develop leadership skills and expand their understanding of civil society and participatory governance and how both may be applied in their home communities. Participants have the opportunity to meet their American peers, engage in local community service activities, and observe and take part in the governmental process on the local, state, and federal levels. The program includes academic coursework, as well as study tours to various regions of the United States.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters

Eligibility:
  • Students from the following countries named above are eligible to apply.
  • This program is open to university students between the ages of 20 and 24. We seek a gender-balanced pool of candidates and give preference to traditionally under-served participants. While nominees may be undergraduate or graduate students in any field of academic specialization, it is critical that they exhibit a serious interest in pursuing leadership opportunities in their home countries and demonstrate a desire to deepen their civic engagement.
  • Those who have previously traveled to the U.S. or studied abroad are ineligible. Applicants should demonstrate sufficient English-language skills to participate in U.S. university-level classes and must be enrolled in and attending a university in their home countries. At the time of application and while participating in the program, participants cannot hold U.S. citizenship or be a U.S. Legal Permanent Resident.
Number of Awards: Up to 60

Value of Award: Expenses for the program are fully paid by the U.S. Department of State.

Duration of Program: 5 Weeks (June 26 – July 31, 2019)

How to Apply: Participants apply for the program online here and are then interviewed and nominated by Embassies.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: U.S. Department of State.

Erasmus+ Masters in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) Scholarship Programme 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018 at 13:00 CET

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:  
  • Programme Countries are member states of the European Union (EU): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the following Non-EU programme countries: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Turkey.
  • Partner countries are all the other countries that are not Programme Countries.
To Be Taken At (Country): The “DCLead: Digital Communication Leadership” is carried out as a EMJMD Programme coordinated by the Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, Department of Communication Studies together with the Aalborg University (AAU), Denmark and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium.

About the Award: The Erasmus+ programme of the European Union has granted over 40 scholarships to the Consortium. About 12 to 15 scholarships will be available every year, for three years, starting from the academic year 2016-2017. Only applicants who will submit all required documents will be eligible for consideration. The final decision lies with the Agency of Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of the European Union based on the evaluation provided by a selection committee of the DCLead consortium.
The Master in Digital Communication Leadership (DCLead) approaches the vast and recent field of digital communication from an interdisciplinary and international point of view bringing together advanced academic discussion with practical knowledge and skills. The programme promotes a non-techno-deterministic, social and ethical reflection on digital communication for future leaders of the field.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 
  • Candidates of all nationalities are eligible for Erasmus + Scholarship, although 75% of these scholarship are Partner Countries scholarships.
  • Candidates are not allowed to apply for scholarship for more than 3 Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Programmes for the same academic year.
  • Candidates should note the existence of a 12-months rule: any candidate from a partner country, who has lived for more than 12 months in a programme country within the five years’ period prior to submission deadline, can only apply for programme country scholarship.
Selection Criteria: 
  • very good/outstanding study results (= academic excellence) in the relevant study areas
  • academic potential
  • level of language skills
  • motivation
  • recommendations
  • work experience and professional qualifications (if applicable)
  • results of interviews (if applicable)
Number of Awards: 12-15

Value of Award: Partner Countries E+ Scholarship grantees receive a stipend of 1.000 EUR per month for the maximum duration of the 24 month, 1.000 or 3.000 EUR for travel costs depending on the distance of the home country to the coordinating university (University of Salzburg), and 1.000 EUR for installation costs. The grant also covers the participation costs.

How to Apply:  It is important to go through the Admission requirements and procedures on the Program Webpage (See Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: European Commission

Heinrich Boll Foundation Scholarships for International Students in Germany – Undergraduate, Masters & PhD – 2018/2019

Application Deadlines: 1st March 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, or Universities of the Arts in Germany

Accepted Subject Areas: Any subject area is applicable

About Scholarship: The Heinrich Böll Foundation grants scholarships to approximately 1,000 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students of all subjects and nationalities per year, who are pursuing their degree at universities, universities of applied sciences (‘Fachhochschulen’), or universities of the arts (‘Kunsthochschulen’) in Germany.

The special focus regions for international students are Central and Eastern Europe; EU neighborhood countries and the CIS; the Middle East and North Africa; transition and newly industrialized countries; and conflict regions worldwide.

Selection Criteria: Scholarship recipients are expected to have excellent academic records, to be socially and politically engaged, and to have an active interest in the basic values of the foundation: ecology and sustainability, democracy and human rights, self determination and justice.

Eligibility: The following general requirements apply to international student applicants (except EU citizens) who wish to study in Germany:
  • You must be enrolled at a state-recognized university or college (e.g. Fachhochschule) in Germany at the time the scholarship payments begin.
  • You should provide proof that you have already graduated with an initial professional qualification. This programme mainly supports students aiming for a Masters degree.
  • You need a good knowledge of German, and require you provide proof of your proficiency. Please note that the selection workshop (interviews, group discussions) will normally be in German. Exceptions (interview in English) are, however, possible.
  • Unfortunately, the current guidelines specify that the foundation cannot support foreign scholarship holders for stays abroad in third countries for more than four weeks.
  • You should definitely apply for a scholarship before the start of your studies, in order to ensure long-term support and cooperation.
  • The Heinrich Böll Foundation cannot award you a scholarship, if you are studying for a one-year Masters degree and were not previously supported by the foundation.
  • Applications are possible before you begin your study programme or within the first three semesters.
  • Applicants must provide proof that they have been accepted as a doctoral student by an institution of higher education in Germany or an EU country (for doctoral scholarship).
Number of Scholarships: Approximately 1000

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarship will be offered for the duration of the undergraduate, Masters or Doctoral programme

How to Apply: The application form will be completed online; additional application documents will be submitted as PDF.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details 

Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF

Melvin A. Goodman

The Trump administration has decided to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the most comprehensive disarmament treaty ever negotiated between Washington and Moscow.  National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time opponent of arms control, reportedly will inform Russian President Vladimir Putin this week that the United States will do so. The Trump administration will also be briefing our key European allies on the decision, which will complicate relations with Germany and France who favor maintaining the treaty.  This is the latest in a series of U.S. steps over the past 20 years that have put the Russians on the defensive, and led Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more assertive in protecting Moscow’s interests in East Europe.
The INF treaty actually eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range missiles from the U.S. and Soviet arsenals in 1987.  The Pentagon opposed the treaty, and Secretary of Defense Weinberger and his deputy for arms control and disarmament, Richard Perle, resigned in protest over President Ronald Reagan’s decision to go forward.  The Pentagon has opposed all presidential decisions to pursue disarmament, although—in the case of INF—the Soviets destroyed more than twice as many missiles as the United States, and the European theatre became safer for U.S. forces stationed there.  The treaty and the improved bilateral relations actually led to a slowdown in military spending in both the United States and Russia.
In 2002, President George W. Bush created the worst of all possible strategic worlds when he abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the cornerstone of strategic deterrence and one of the pearls of Soviet-American arms control policy.  Bush inflicted the diplomatic wound of abrogating a treaty without cause in order to incur the expense of moving into the world of National Missile Defense (NMD) without any guarantee that even rogue missiles could be stopped.  There is no better example of the creation of national insecurity than the Bush administration’s foolish belief that we could create an impenetrable nuclear umbrella.
President Bill Clinton bears heavy responsibility for the initial worsening of the Russian-American relationship because of his expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a betrayal of Washington’s commitment to never “leap frog” over East Germany to seek new members in East Europe if the Soviets were to withdraw their 380,00 troops from the region.  Clinton invited former members of the Warsaw Pact into NATO.  President Bush worsened the situation by inviting former Soviet republics into NATO. Bush even toyed with the idea of inviting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel convinced him of the heavy risk of such a decision. The conventional wisdom is that Putin is responsible for the worsening of relations with the West because of the Russian-Georgian war in the summer of 2008 and the seizure of the Crimea in 2014, but U.S. machinations in both Tbilisi and Kiev had much to do with Russian actions.
The New York Times, for example, in its discussion of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the INF treaty simple echoes Washington’s arguments that Putin’s actions in East Europe are entirely to blame.  While it is true that Moscow’s development of a land-based cruise missile, the SSC-8, presumably violates the treaty, the actions of recent American administrations are primarily responsible for the worsening of relations between the United States and Russia.  The efforts of Bush and President Barack Obama to deploy a regional missile defense in East Europe, which was opposed by our NATO European allies, antagonized Russia, and explains the increase in Russian troop exercises on its borders with former Soviet republics.  Clinton’s dissolution of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency worsened the domestic problem of negotiating any disarmament agreement within our own national security bureaucracy without strong disarmament specialists to stand up to the opposition of the Pentagon.
Without the limitations of the INF treaty, the United States is expected to pursue a new version of the Tomahawk cruise missile to be launched from land as well as from ships and submarines.  Future versions of the Tomahawk cruise missile, moreover, could be fitted with nuclear warheads, which would worsen the problem of verification.  Any future deployment of nuclear weapons on ships, which was stopped by President George H.W. Bush, would encourage Russia and China to do the same, and thus compromise a clear U.S. advantage in sea power.
The withdrawal from INF marks a major victory for Donald Trump’s relatively new “war cabinet” and particularly for National Security Adviser Bolton.  Trump continues to pay lip service to the idea of improving Russian-American relations, but there is no indication that any member of his national security team shares such an objective.

A gruesome murder bares world powers’ flawed policies

James M. Dorsey

Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s gruesome murder raises fundamental questions that go far beyond Middle Eastern geopolitics.
They go to the risks of support for autocratic regimes by democratic and authoritarian world powers, the rise of illiberal democracy in the West, increasing authoritarianism in Russia, and absolute power in China in which checks and balances are weakened or non-existent.
Mr. Khashoggi’s killing is but the latest incident of hubris that stems from the abandonment of notions of civility, tolerance and plurality; and the ability of leaders to get away with murder, literally and figuratively. It also is the product of political systems with no provisions to ensure that the power of men like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is restrained and checked.
Mr. Khashoggi was an advocate of the necessary checks and balances.
In his last column published in The Washington Post posthumously, Mr. Khashoggi argued that “the Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum, isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the structural problems their societies face.”
Mr. Khashoggi’s words were echoed by prominent journalist and political analyst Rami Khouri. “We are heading to the law of the jungle if big power and Mideast state autocracy is not held accountable,” Mr. Khouri said.
In a similar vein, a survey by the Arab Barometer survey concluded that public institutions in the Arab world, including the judiciary enjoyed little, if any, public trust.
“Part of the lack of trust comes from the disenfranchisement felt by many, especially youth and women… The lack of alternative political forces is adding to the fatigue and lack of trust in institutions. Citizens in the region struggle to find an alternative to the ruling elite that might help address the issues of ineffective governance and corruption,” said a report by the Carnegie for Endowment of Peace.
“Citizens are increasingly turning toward informal mechanisms such as protests and boycotts, and focusing more on specific issues of governance, such as service provision, particularly at the local level. Furthermore, with democracy under threat across the globe, calls for broad democratic reform have been replaced by more basic demands,” the report went on to say.
What puts the price Mr. Khashoggi paid for advocating controls of absolute power in a class of its own, is the brutality of his killing, the fact that he was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul rather than, for example, by an unknown killer on a motorbike; and the increasingly difficult effort to resolve politically the crisis his death sparked.
Beyond the support by world powers of often brutal autocrats facilitated by a lack of checks and balances that in the past three decades has destroyed countries and costs the lives of millions, Mr. Khashoggi’s murder is also the product of the failure of Western leaders to seriously address the breakdown in confidence in leadership and political systems at home and abroad.
The breakdown peaked with the 2011 popular Arab revolts; simultaneous widespread protests in Latin America, the United States and Europe; and the increased popularity of anti-system, nationalist and populist politicians on both the right and the left.
Mr. Khashoggi joins the victims of extrajudicial poisoning in Britain by Russian operatives of people who like him may have been a thorn in the side of their leaders but did not pose an existential threat – not that that would justify murder or attempted murder.
He also joins the millions of casualties of failed policy and hubris caused by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s gassing of Kurds in the 1980s and reckless 1990 invasion of Kuwait, support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s determination to cling to power irrespective of the human cost, the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen that has produced the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two, and China’s attempt to brainwash and socially engineer what the country’s leaders see as the model Chinese citizen.
And those are just some of the most egregious instances.
No better are the multiple ways in which autocratic leaders try to ensure conformity not only through repression and suppression of a free press but also, for example, by deciding who deserves citizenship based upon whether they like their political, economic or social views rather than on birth right.
Take Bahrain whose minority Sunni Muslim regime has stripped hundreds of its nationals of their citizenship simply because it did not like their views or Turkey with its mass arrests of anyone critical of the government.
The irony is that if elections in democracies are producing illiberal leaders like US President Donald J. Trump, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungary’s Victor Orban, in Asia and Africa they are bring forth governments mandated to reverse Belt and Road-related, Chinese funding of projects that primarily benefit China rather than the recipient economically and pave the way for greater Chinese influencing of domestic politics as well as the export of systems that enhance unchecked state power.
In some cases, like Malaysia, they produce leaders willing to take on China’s creation of a 21stcentury Orwellian surveillance state in its north-western province of Xinjiang.
It matters little what label world powers put on their support for autocrats and illiberals. The United States has long justified its policy with the need for regional stability in the greater Middle East. Russia calls it international legality while China packages is it as non-interference in the domestic affairs of others.
Said Middle East expert and former US official Charles Kestenbaum building on Mr. Khashoggi’s words: “If they (Middle Eastern states) want to compete with the globe in IT (information technology) and tech more broadly, they must encourage risk, innovation and freedom to fail. Such social and political freedom does not exist adequately in the region. The opposite in fact, authoritarian regimes repress such initiative and openness. So what do they have to compete and globally engage in the 2020’s? Nothing.”

Are people really hungry?

Sheshu Babu

Poverty and hunger are common features of India. The Global Hunger Index has further exposed this truth in a report prepared by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) . The report said, ‘ India is ranked 100th out of 119 countries, and has the third- highest score in all of Asia – only Afghanistan and Pakistan are ranked worse’. The report further said that at 31.4, India’s GHI (Global Hunger Index) of 2017 is at the high end of ‘ serious ‘ category and is one of the main factors pushing South Asia to the category of worst performing region on GHI followed closely by Africa south of Sahara. In an article analysing India’s low performances in most development indexes, Mohan Guruswamy ( How Hungry is India and Why? 20 October 2018, thecitizen.in) says, ‘ Hunger in India is not a consequence of not producing enough food. It is a consequence of very many people not having enough money to spend on food, sometimes even for bare sustenance’.
Poverty amidst plenty
While there were over 190.7 million people who were undernourished in 2014, the number has increased since then. According to FAO estimates in ‘ The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018’ report, 195.9 million people are undernourished in India. ( Hunger in India, www.indiafoodbanking.org) . That is ,14.8% of people are undernourished. India has the largest undernourished population and yet, total foodgrains produced reached an all time high of 251.12 Million tonnes (MT) in FY15. Total Rice and Wheat production stood at 102.54 MT and 90.78 MT respectively. Thus, distribution of food is a primary cause of starvation and deaths.
Some factors
Most important factor for hunger is that food remains inaccessible to most poor people. Much food is wasted which may feed thousands of people. Indians waste as much food as the whole of United Kingdom consumes. According to United Nations Development Programme, upto 40% of food produced in India is wasted. (Food Wastage in India: A Serious Concern, September 10, 2015, thecsrjournal.in). According to agriculture ministry, about Rs. 50,000 crore worth of food is wasted every year.
Another factor relates to the small size of land holdings. There are about 58% of rural households depend on agriculture for their livelihood. According to 2011 census, there are about 118. 9 million cultivators across the country in addition to 144 million landless labourers . Both together constitute about 22% of the population. About 65 per cent of farmland consists of marginal and small farms less than one hectare in size. The average holding size has halved since 1970 to 1.05 ha. As per 2001 census, about 490 million people depend on small farms. This reflects the spread of poverty.
Also, poverty and hunger is more in lower castes because of low and pathetic wage levels. They are well below the level of minimum wage prescribed by government in construction, marginal labor, agriculture labor, unorganized labour, etc.
Another cause of hunger is high rate of unemployment specially among lower castes and sections of society. They go without food for days due to unavailability of enough money.
Adding to misery, the present system of identification has contributed to starvation deaths. PDS , which assisted many poor to get ration in time, became inaccessible due to technical glitches for identification. Many women and children died of hunger due to unavailability of monthly ration in states like Odisha and Jharkhand.
Poor healthcare system also led to deaths of rural poor who could not afford medication to get treated for malnutrition. The starved people in tribal areas were not provided with adequate medicines for improving health and alleviating from hunger.
Apathy
Thus, hunger and starvation is mostly not due to unavailability of food but apathy of the rulers . Unequal distribution of wealth and resources widened gap between rich and poor. While rich had many amenities, the poor did not have minimum money for subsistence. The gap is increasing. Hunger and starvation is rising though there are plenty of resources that can be distributed. Food production is rising but deaths due to starvation continue unabated. India is truly, a rich country with poor people. The system has created more hungry people because of the hegemony of elites controlling wealth of the country. According to a Johannesburg – based company,New World Wealth,India is the second most unequal country globally with millionaires controlling 54% of its wealth. (Inequality in India: what is the real story?, 4 Oct 2016, weforum.org). The richest 1% own 53% of wealth according to latest data by Credit Suisse. Richest 5% own 68.6% and top 10% own 76.3% . The poorer half has only 4.1% of national wealth. Thus, there is a long way to go to reduce income gap and consequently hunger and starvation deaths of poor.

China, A New Imperial Power?

Chandra Muzaffar

Is China a new imperial power threatening some of the developing economies in Asia and Africa? This is a perception that is being promoted through the media by certain China watchers in universities and think-tanks mainly in the West, various politicians and by a segment of the global NGO community.
The peddlers of this perception argue that by giving out loans for development to poor countries China is snaring them in a debt trap. It is a trap that ensures that they are perpetually under China’s control. Is there such a debt trap? To find out, we shall look at three Asian countries before we turn to Africa.
Pakistan has taken loans from China for projects under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The US 50 billion CPEC is a network of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan that will connect China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. A number of these projects will strengthen Pakistan’s energy sector which is vital for its economic growth. They will help to reduce its severe trade deficit. Debt servicing of CPEC loans which will only start this year amounts to less than 80 million.
Pakistan’s largest creditors are not China but Western countries and multilateral lenders led by the IMF and international commercial banks. Its foreign debt “is expected to surpass 95 billion this year and debt servicing is projected to reach 31 billion by 2022-2023.” There is evidence to show that its creditors “have been actively meddling in Pakistan’s fiscal policies and its sovereignty through debt rescheduling programs and the conditionalities attached to IMF loans.”
The media does not highlight this which is in fact Pakistan’s real debt trap. Neither does it inform the public that CPEC loans are for projects that are of immense and direct value to the Pakistani people. Their value will be further enhanced when the new Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan visits China on 3rdNovember and broadens the CPEC to emphasisecooperation in agriculture and social sector development.
Distortions and half-truths have also coloured media accounts of China’s relationship to the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. The construction of the port was a Sri Lankan idea, not a Chinese initiative.  The Sri Lankan government reached out to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and Japan among others to finance its construction. For different reasons, its request was turned down. It was only then that the government approached China which agreed to help.
As Hussein Askary and Jason Ross point out in an EIR study of 30th August 2018, contrary to media reports, Hambantota on the southern coast of Sri Lanka has tremendous potential. It is “located just 6-9 nautical miles from one of the busiest and most important commercial shipping lines on the planet.”  The Chinese built port was opened for commercial use in 2010. Unfortunately, usage was below par. Because of poor revenue, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority was forced to sign an agreement whereby a Chinese state-run enterprise “took a 99 year lease of 70% of the port and 85% ownership of the port and industrial area with the obligation to continue investing in upgrading the facilities there —- The purpose of this deal was to relieve Sri Lanka off the burden of this debt.”
In the case of our third example, Malaysia, which witnessed a change of government in May 2018, major infrastructure projects funded by Chinese state companies could not be implemented because the nation is in a financial crunch. Besides, the projects were obviously lopsided favouring the Chinese companies more than their Malaysian partners. In announcing his decision, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, made it very clear that the lop-sidedness was due more to the previous Malaysian government than its Chinese counterpart.
From the three cases in Asia, it would be patently wrong to label China a new imperial power. A quick look at Africa will reinforce this view. The “majority of African debt is notheld by China but by Western countries and such Western-backed institutions as the IMF and World Bank.”
Nonetheless, many African states have Chinese debt. This in itself is not a problem — provided loans are utilised for the public good. In this regard, infrastructure financing under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — building ports, railways and fibre-optic cables — appears to be a major component of China’s involvement in Africa. The four billion dollar Addis-Ababa-Djibouti Railway which began commercial operations earlier this year would be one such example. The 3.2 billion Madaraka Express railway between Nairobi and Mombasa in Kenya would be another case in point.
The exception in Africa is perhaps the tiny East African state of Djibouti.  In the last two years, it has borrowed 1.4 billion from China. This is more than three-quarters of Djibouti’s GDP. It is alleged that China has leveraged upon this to open its first overseas military installation in Djibouti.  It should be noted at the same time that Djibouti also hosts the largest US military base in Africa.
Djibouti aside, Chinese ventures in Africa have been almost totally economic. The quid pro quo for the Chinese it is true has been access to the continent’s rich natural resources. But it is always access, never control. Control over the natural resources of the nations they colonised was the driving force behind 19th century Western colonialism. Control through pliant governments and, in extreme cases, via regime change continues to be a key factor in the West’s — especially the US’s — quest for hegemony over Africa and the rest of the contemporary world.
It is because China’s peaceful rise as a global player challenges that hegemony that the centres of power in the West are going all out to denigrate and demonise China. Labelling China as a new imperial or colonial power is part of that vicious propaganda against a nation, indeed a civilisation that has already begun to change the global power balance. It is a change — towards a more equitable distribution of power — that is in the larger interest of humanity. For that reason, the people of the world should commit themselves wholeheartedly to the change that is embracing all of us.