15 Nov 2018

At least 200 soldiers in German Army neo-Nazi terror network

Christopher Lehmann & Johannes Stern 

The neo-Nazi terrorist cell in the German Army associated with Lieutenant Franco A. is much larger than previously revealed. This revelation was included in an article in the current edition of the news magazine Focus titled “The Conspiracy.”
Based on investigations by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), the magazine reported on a network of at least 200 active duty and retired soldiers, including members of the special forces command (KSK) and Military Intelligence Service (MAD).
The following was already publicly known about the case of Franco A:
The lieutenant was arrested on February 3, 2017, at Vienna’s airport while trying to retrieve a weapon he had previously concealed there. Subsequent investigations revealed that he had collaborated with two other accomplices, Maximilian T. and Matthias F., to carry out attacks on high-ranking politicians, among them former president Joachim Gauck, Justice Minister Heiko Maas and Left Party Minister President of Thuringia Bodo Ramelow. They were also planning to attack institutions such as the Central Council of Jews and the Central Council of Muslims.
Despite this, Franco A. has been a free man since the end of last year. In November 2017, Germany’s Federal Court cancelled his arrest warrant. According to the official explanation, there was insufficient evidence at that point in the investigation to indicate the immediate threat of a criminal act in connection with a serious act of violence.
The Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeals argued along similar lines this year. In a decision on June 7, it confirmed that Franco A. would not be charged for the preparation of a serious act of violence.
In light of the latest revelations, the decisions by the two courts raise serious questions. In their article, authors Josef Hufelschulte and Alexander Rakkow paint a picture of a close-knit terrorist network, which, like the Black Wehrmacht during the Weimar Republic, is preparing the murder of politicians and the violent suppression of revolutionary struggles. Even though the charges against Franco A. were thrown out, the BKA investigation already provided evidence of the existence of a shadow army.
The Focus article begins with the summation of the BKA interrogation of former Air Force officer and major in the reserves Horst S. on July 13, 2017, as part of the BKA’s investigation into the Franco A. case. According to the statements of Horst S., a group chiefly composed of elite soldiers was “preparing at the general staff level for an ominous ‘Day X.’ ” Asked by the investigator what was meant by this, the 48-year-old soldier answered that ‘Day X’ would come during an extreme crisis caused by “attacks on women and children by refugees, rapes, terrorist attacks or slum German cities.”
In a transcript of the witness’s testimony printed in Focus, the statement continues: “Associated with this is I believe also the fear that the state will lose its monopoly on violence and cannot fulfill its tasks as a result.” This has “led to consideration being given to what can be done if such a case occurs.”
The result of these considerations was that “we would have to take precautions in different aspects of life for such a case. That means we would need to procure, for example, diesel to power emergency generators, radios and long-lasting foodstuffs. Munitions should also be stored so we could fight.”
The plans for attacks were apparently far advanced. In concrete terms, Horst S. “named individual participants, who, in their deeply rooted ‘hatred of the left’ and refugees, had organised ‘a folder with addresses and pictures’ of targeted persons, who had to ‘go.’ ”
Two acquaintances of Horst S. saw the lists and “also have a well-stocked weapons cabinet.” According to the transcript, discussions took place in a small circle about bringing the targeted people to one location “where they would be killed.”
The “allegedly conspiratorial squadron” included members of the elite KSK force, according to Focus. For this reason, the authorities kept “secret the initial evidence of a potential underground network ready to commit violence.”
There were also connections to the Uniter organisation, which is mainly made up of KSK combatants, but also included paratroopers, reconnaissance troops, members of special forces police units, lawyers and doctors. An employee of the Bavarian state intelligence agency is also a Uniter member.
Focus wrote that within the association, “according to witness testimony, a conspiratorial network of around 200 active duty and former soldiers has formed.” Testimonies “in the file numbered GBA 2 Bjs 205/17-5a” painted a picture “of conspiratorial soldiers, who apparently were even willing to consider targeted killings of political opponents.”
According to information obtained by investigators, the soldiers “had secret locations for weapons, munitions, fuel, and food,” and established so-called “safe houses” on the borders with Austria and Switzerland. These arrangements were made in chat groups.
Uniter published a statement on its website distancing itself from the allegations and accusing Focus of “disinformation.” In a threatening tone, it said that since the article was published, it had “made direct contact with all named representatives of the authorities, including the police and military, as well as the responsible state prosecutor.”
It declared that it can be “established that the information in the article is drawn from several proceedings, creating an overall picture that would not stand up to any research.” The chat groups mentioned in the Focus article were “certainly not authorised or operated by Uniter,” the statement asserted.
The World Socialist Web Site does not possess any independent information in this case, but it is obvious that widespread right-wing extremist terrorist networks are operating in Germany and are being concealed by sections of the military, the police and the intelligence apparatus. The domestic secret service, in particular, has deep roots in the neo-Nazi scene and has been implicated in a series of right-wing extremist violent acts.
Several dozen informants from the secret service and police operated around the right-wing terrorist group NSU, which was responsible for the murders of nine immigrants and a police officer. The latest revelations surrounding the sacking of the long-standing president of the domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, have confirmed that the intelligence service was led by a self-acknowledged right-wing extremist.
A lieutenant from the Military Intelligence Service (MAD) is currently appearing at the Cologne District Court on a charge of betraying secrets in the Franco A. case. The officer is accused of having warned suspects associated with him about imminent investigations by the state prosecutor, according to a court spokesperson. The man was a contact point for the BKA and the state prosecutor at the military intelligence service, added the court spokesperson, thereby indirectly confirming Focus ’s information.
According to the news magazine, the MAD lieutenant is 42-year-old Peter W., who last autumn “warned a KSK member about raids on Uniter members.” Prior to his work with the intelligence services, W. was a member of the KSK.
“According to the investigators’ findings,” the main beneficiary of the tip-off was staff sergeant Andre S., “a strict KSK trainer who is responsible for the unit’s military security.” According to testimonies, S., who now heads Uniter, was an “informant” to Uniter about MAD and had presented “the only credible information about the KSK’s internal processes.”
A report in the TAZ daily newspaper also suggests that S. had contact with Franco A. Under the pseudonym Hannibal, S. was the administrator of chat groups in which Franco A. was “allegedly also a member.” The newspaper reported that “the authorities responsible” did not want to “share” whether Franco A. and S. “knew each other personally or only virtually.” The Cologne District Court suggested that they might have moved in each other’s “orbit.”
The explosive character of these disturbing revelations stands in stark contrast to the response in the political establishment and the media. The major daily newspapers have barely reported on the terrorist network, and spokesmen for the government and military have remained silent.
At the federal government’s press conference on November 9, Defence Ministry spokesman Jens Flossdorf confirmed that proceedings “against a member of the MAD” were underway, but added that he could “provide no further information.” A “report by the MAD” would be provided only to “the appropriate intelligence committees in Germany’s parliament.” He would not, was not permitted, and could not “provide any more specifics on this.”

14 Nov 2018

Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership to End Malaria 20th Anniversary Media Fellowship 2019 (Fully-funded to Geneva, Switzerland)

Application Deadline: 31st January 2019

Eligible Countries:  Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, India, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania

To be taken at (country): Geneva, Switzerland

About the Award: For the first time, the RBM Partnership invites print/online and broadcast journalists based in the 11 countries with the highest burden of malaria to apply for the RBM Partnership to End Malaria Media Fellowship.
The fellowship is designed to support the deepening and expansion of print, broadcast, and/or multimedia news coverage that engages citizens and/or policy makers in the 11 highest burden countries on issues related to malaria and its impact. Topics could include best practices for protecting citizens from malaria, policies needed to prioritize funding for universal coverage of life-saving malaria interventions, and partnerships and innovations that are accelerating the end of malaria.
The award offers an opportunity for journalists to learn from leading global health and malaria experts the key challenges and opportunities to eliminate malaria within our generation, as well as to investigate malaria-related issues in their country.

Type: Fellowship, Training

Eligibility: If you are a journalist from one of the 11 high burden malaria-affected countries (please see list above) with a passion for improving health and a hunger to learn more about malaria and the difference you can make in your country and/or region, we would like to hear from you.

Number of Awards: A minimum of 5 and a maximum of 11 journalists will be selected for the fellowship

Value and Duration of Award: For a duration of one year, the RBM Partnership will support selected fellows with projects and features relating to malaria. The Media Fellowship will comprise:
• A compulsory workshop taking place in Geneva, Switzerland in May 2019, led by leading global malaria experts, where selected fellows will learn about challenges, opportunities and initiatives focused on ending malaria;
• Introductions and meetings organised between fellows and global, regional and national organisations working to end malaria;
• Limited financial support for approved in-country or in-region projects proposed by individual participants; and,
• Continued support with coordination of relevant projects and updates on new developments.

Travel-related expenses will be covered and a per diem provided for the trip to Geneva. In addition,limited financial support will be provided for project-related travel or research.

How to Apply: Apply here
Selected fellows will be notified by Thursday 28 February 2019.


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Symantec Graduate Fellowship Program 2019 for Outstanding PhD Students

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018 (Pacific Time Zone).

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: Symantec will award Symantec Research Labs (SRL) Graduate Fellowships to outstanding Ph.D. students who meet the eligibility criteria listed below. A key goal of the program is to fund innovative research that has real-world value, in areas where Symantec conducts business. We are soliciting applications for the following areas:
  • Next Generation Security: Security, cryptography and cyber-risk assessment and modeling, in the areas of networks, information security, big data analytics, data center, privacy, cloud, etc.
  • Network and Cloud Security: Advance the state of the art in digital certificates, high throughput network security, securing public/private Cloud infrastructure, applications, and services, etc.
  • Machine learning and data mining: Extend and apply predictive-analytics and anomaly-detection algorithms at scale, in support of the security and systems areas mentioned above.
Award recipients are strongly encouraged to take a separate salaried internship with Symantec that we plan to offer to all fellowship recipients.  Interns will usually work directly with Symantec Research Labs at one of our locations (Culver City, CA, USA; Mountain View, CA, USA; Dublin, Ireland; Sophia-Antipolis, France) or with another group within Symantec. Each recipient is paired with a mentor from Symantec. A mentor is a top researcher or engineer who can provide ongoing technical guidance on the recipient’s research during graduate training as well as during an internship at Symantec.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 
  • Applying students must be enrolled in a Ph.D. program.
  • Preference will be given to students with a desire to work in an industrial research lab and those working on innovative research projects in areas related to Symantec’s businesses such as host-based and network security, cloud computing, virtualization, machine learning, data mining, etc.
  • Recipients will also be selected based on their overall potential for research excellence and their academic progress to date as evidenced by publications.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of FellowshipThe SRL Graduate Fellowship provides up to $20,000 USD that may be used to cover one year of the student’s tuition fees and to reimburse expenses incurred by the student to engage into research collaboration with Symantec, such as conference registration fees, travel expenses, hardware, etc. If the fellowship is to cover tuition, this portion of the award will be made through the university.

How to Apply: Application materials must include the following:
  • Resume or C.V.
  • Personal statement of research interests not to exceed 500 words. Applicants are strongly encouraged to articulate the value and novelty of their research.
  • Two letters of recommendation from professors or industry researchers who can evaluate the applicant’s scientific aptitude and potential for research.  Letters of recommendation may be sent separately and confidentially.
Application Dates and Process:
  • Fellowship applications, including Resumes or C.V.’s, personal statements of research, and letters of recommendation, must be received no later than 5:00pm on November 30th, 2018 (Pacific Time Zone).
  • As part of the application process, some candidates may be contacted for telephone interviews.
  • Final award decisions will be announced in January 2019.
  • Applications and letters of recommendation may be sent to us via email
Email to: SRLFellowship@Symantec.com

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

ICANN65 Policy Forum 2019 (Fully-funded to Marrakesh, Morocco)

Application Deadline: 14th December 2018 at 23:59 UTC                                                                                              
To be taken at (country): Marrakesh, Morocco

About the Award: The goal of the ICANN Fellowship Program is to strengthen the diversity of the multistakeholder model by fostering opportunities for individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities to become active participants in the ICANN community.
Fellows are exposed to the workings of the ICANN community, are assigned a mentor, and receive training across different areas of knowledge and skill building before, during, and after an ICANN Public Meeting. Travel assistance to attend the meeting is also provided.
Fellowship participants come from a variety of backgrounds.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Participants of the Fellowship Program must:
  • Be at least 21 years of age
  • Be interested in, or already engaged in, the various components of ICANN‘s work in policy building, the operation of the Domain Name System and the security and stability of the global Internet
  • Complete mandatory ICANN Learn course(s);
  • NOT be involved in or associated with other ICANN supported travel programs at time of selection
  • If a Policy Forum, have successfully completed an ICANN Fellowship
  • Second and third time fellows must prove their involvement and engagement in one of the ICANN communities; learn more here
Number of Awards: Up to 45 fellows

Value of Award:
  • Travel will be booked by ICANN via its travel service provider.
  • A stipend not to exceed USD 500.00 will be provided to offset reasonable individual expenses (such as meals, transport to/from the airport and incidentals). One half of the allotted stipend will be provided to each participating fellow prior to the meeting; the second half of the stipend will be provided via wire transfer by ICANN upon successful completion of the ICANNFellowship Program and submission of the post-meeting survey two weeks after the ICANN Meeting.
  • ICANN will defer costs incurred by fellows to obtain a visa, up to the USD 200.00
  • ICANN will only cover the cost of a hotel room directly using an ICANN meeting partner hotel as established by ICANN‘s Constituency Travel Support Guidelines and implemented by ICANN‘s travel service provider.
Duration of Programme: 24-27 June 2019

How to Apply: Apply in the link below

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Important Notes: Only those who have successfully completed an ICANN Fellowship (Fellowship Alumni) are eligible to apply for a Policy Forum fellowship.

International Program in Public Health Leadership (IPPHL) 2019 for Mid-career African Leaders (Fully-funded to short study at University of Washington, USA)

Application Deadline: 6th December, 2018 (5 pm PST).

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, USA; Nairobi, Kenya.

About the Award: Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and hosted by the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Policy & Governance in collaboration with the Center for Creative Leadership, IPPHL focuses on individual coaching and mentoring, peer sharing and learning, and the development of a community of practice to give participants access to a wider network that can help them design solutions to the unique policy and program implementation challenges they face.

Type: Short course

Eligibility:
  • Mid-career public health professional from Africa, working in government, for a government initiative/partner, or entity at the federal, regional, state, or provincial level
  • Responsible for managing public health program(s) with supervisory responsibilities, either individual staff or a team; Accountable for the performance of public health programs and/or for managing front-line health workers
  • Holds either an advanced degree related to public health, development, policy, or a medical professional
  • A citizen and resident of a country in Africa
  • Strong English-language skills, and the ability to articulate the various policy or program implementation challenges that they deal with in public health
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: IPPHL makes every effort to cover direct costs associated with the program, including lodging and airfare for the two-week Seattle Residency and Capstone Seminar, however the participant is responsible for covering certain costs, such as visa fees and internet, and will receive financial support for these expenses either during or after the completion of the program. 

Duration of Programme: 
  • April 15 – June 6 (8 weeks):  Preliminary Course Work and Skill-Building Online, Distance Learning Format including two hours of live course sessions per week
  • June 17 – 28 (2 weeks): In-Person Class Sessions, Mentoring, and Professional Networking, In-residence at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, USA (all accommodation provided)
  • July 1 – September 6 (10 weeks): Post-Residency Enrichment Intersession, Distance Learning Format
  • September 9 – 12 (4 days): In-Person Class Sessions, Capstone Seminar, Nairobi, Kenya
How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Study in Denmark: FIG Foundation PhD Scholarships 2019 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Denmark

Field of Study: Surveying and other related fields

Type: PhD

Eligibility: Applicants shall:
  1. be studying for a PhD degree and registered solely in a surveying/geomatics academic programme that teaches surveying in a country listed by the World Bank as a low-income, lower-middle or upper-middle income economy,
  2. must have had a paper accepted by a peer reviewed international journal based on their doctoral research project; applicants should be the lead author, and the paper should be co-authored with their supervisor,
  3. should not have submitted their final thesis at the application deadline.
Selection Criteria: Applications will be judged on the quality of the application and need. In the event that two excellent applications are judged to be of equal quality, applications from low-income and lower-middle income countries will be preferred.

Value of Scholarship: The FIG Foundation will be providing scholarships of up to 4,000 euros to PhD students. Successful applicants will qualify for a further grant of up to 3,000 euros to attend and present a peer reviewed paper at a FIG conference.

How to Apply: Applicants should submit the following set of documents in English in the order set out below as a single file in PDF format on A4 paper:
  1. A cover sheet showing the candidate’s personal details and those of his/her institution.
  2.  A 200 word abstract. This should be written in terms understandable to the lay person; similar to a press release and which the FIG Foundation could actually use as a press release in the event of a successful application.
  3. A one page research proposal as per the template below on A4 size paper. Note that the one page limit will be strictly enforced; material that extends beyond one page will be deleted.
  4. A copy of the paper that has been re-submitted to the journal after corrections have been completed.
  5. A letter from the editor of the journal indicating that the paper has been accepted and that the necessary corrections have been completed satisfactorily.
  6. The journal paper’s referees’ reports.
  7. A list of peer reviewed journal publications over the last 6 years using the International Journal of GIS reference list format. See Notes for Authors on the IJGIS website.
  8. A list of research funding obtained over the past 5 years, indicating which grants are peer reviewed or not.
  9. A description of research compliance, the research account and activity auditing structures and processes in their institution. For example, if a scientist spends money inappropriately, are there structures in place to refund the granting agency?
  10. A copy of the ethics approval notice for the research from the institution if that is relevant to the grant application. If ethics clearance is not required, then this should be stated in the application.
  11. A budget indicating how the funds will be spent and a one page justification of the budget. Note that as a general rule, equipment will not be funded. Travel to FIG Conferences to present results and tuition fees may be included in the budget. Per diems for field work will not be funded, but reasonable actual costs of field work are refundable.
Applications are to be sent to fig.foundation@fig.net with “FIG Foundation PhD Scholarship Application” shown in Subject Line.
or by post:
The FIG Foundation
c/o FIG
Kalvebod Brygge 31-33
DK-1780 Copenhagen V
DENMARK
Tel. + 45 3886 1081
Fax + 45 3886 0252
E-mail: fig.foundation@fig.net


Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Important Notes: Applicants are not to contact Foundation directors individually. Decisions are final. No correspondence will be entered into during or after the competition.

TWAS/Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) President’s PhD Fellowships 2019 (Fully-funded to China)

Application Deadline: 31st March 2019

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): China

Eligible Fields of Study: 
01-Agricultural Sciences
02-Structural, Cell and Molecular Biology
03-Biological Systems and Organisms
04-Medical and Health Sciences incl. Neurosciences
05-Chemical Sciences
06-Engineering Sciences
07-Astronomy, Space and Earth Sciences
08-Mathematical Sciences
09-Physics


About the Award: According to an agreement between the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) for the advancement of science in developing countries, up to 200 students/scholars from all over the world will be sponsored to study in China for doctoral degrees for up to 4 years.
This CAS-TWAS President’s Fellowship Programme provides students/scholars that are non-Chinese citizens an opportunity to pursue doctoral degrees at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) or Institutes of CAS around China.
Under the terms of the CAS-TWAS agreement, travel from their home countries to China will be provided to the fellowship awardees in order to begin the fellowship in China (one trip only per student/scholar). TWAS will select 80 awardees from developing countries to support their international travel, while CAS will support the other 120. Visa fee will also be covered (once only per awardee) as a lump sum of USD 65 after all the awardees are on site in China. Any awardee on site in China, the host country, at the time of application will NOT be eligible for any travel or visa reimbursement.

Type: PhD

Eligibility: Applicants must:
  • Be maximum age of 35 years on 31 December 2018;
  • Not take up other assignments during the period of his/her fellowship;
  • Not hold Chinese citizenship;
  • Applicants for doctoral study should also:
  • Meet the admission criteria for international students of UCAS/USTC
  • Hold a master degree before the beginning of the fall semester: 1 September, 2019.
  • Provide evidence that he/she will return to their home country on completion of their studies in China according to CAS-TWAS agreement.
  • Provide proof of knowledge of English or Chinese language.
Number of Awardees: 200

Value of Fellowship: 
  • Thanks to generous contribution of CAS, fellowship awardees will receive a monthly stipend (to cover accommodation and other living expenses, local travel expenses and health insurance) of RMB 7,000 or RMB 8,000 from CAS through UCAS/USTC, depending on whether he/she has passed the qualification test arranged by UCAS/USTC for all doctoral candidates after admission. All awardees will also be provided tuition and application fee waivers.
  • Under the terms of the CAS-TWAS agreement, travel from their home countries to China will be provided to the fellowship awardees in order to begin the fellowship in China (one trip only per student/scholar). TWAS will select 80 awardees from developing countries to support their international travel, while CAS will support the other 120. Visa fee will also be covered (once only per awardee) as a lump sum of USD 65 after all the awardees are on site in China.
Duration of Fellowship: Up to 4 years

How to Apply:
  •  It is important to go through the Application Process on the Fellowship Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
  • Goodluck

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

How a Bad Environment Impacts Children’s Health

Cesar Chelala

Millions of children die every year as a result of environment-related diseases. Their deaths could be prevented by using low-cost and sustainable tools and strategies for improving the environment. In some countries, more than one-third of the disease burden could be prevented by environmental changes. According to a WHO study carried out in 23 countries, more than 10 percent of deaths are due to unsafe water and indoor air pollution, particularly from solid fuel used for cooking.
Children make up almost half the population of developing countries. Most of the deaths are among children under five and are attributable mainly to intestinal and respiratory infections. People living in industrialized countries are also affected by environmental factors such as pollution, occupational factors, ultraviolet radiation, and climate and ecosystem changes.
The integrity of the global environment is being increasingly compromised by the deterioration of the atmospheric ozone layer and an ever-higher concentration of gases responsible for the greenhouse effect. To the degree that these factors intensify, the health of populations will be seriously affected.
Environmental factors affect children’s health from the time of conception and intra-uterine development through infancy and adolescence. These factors can even exert an influence prior to conception since both ovules and sperm can be damaged by radiation and chemical contaminants.
It has been widely demonstrated that children are more susceptible than adults to environmental factors because, among other reasons, they are still growing and their immune systems and detoxification mechanisms are not yet fully developed.
Interventions both at the community and the national level can significantly improve the environment, including the promotion of safe-water treatment and storage, and the reduction of air pollution. The last measure by itself could save almost a million lives a year.
A series of measures being taken at the local level are having a significant impact on improving the environment. For example, in an overcrowded and unsanitary inner-city building housing several hundred people in South Africa, conventional environmental health control measures had failed. So, a democratically elected tenants committee initiated a series of measures to deal with the main problems affecting the building and its inhabitants. This project has laid the foundation for a participatory way of dealing with environmental problems in inner-city buildings.
In Cairo, Egypt, Dr. Laila Iskandar Kamel has implemented innovative social and environmental projects working with garbage collectors or Zabbaleen. These projects have helped garbage collectors break the cycle of exploitation and receive proper compensation for their work. In addition, she has organized girls from the community in reviving the most ancient of Egyptian crafts, weaving on a handloom using discarded cotton remnants and using the profits for improving their education and providing them with a livelihood.
In Qatar, fewer natural resources, climate change and the quality of the air are serious challenges faced by the authorities. The Ministry of Environment has taken a series of measures to improve the environment. Among those measures, creating awareness in the population, particularly among the mothers, is an important task. At the same time, a new school curriculum has been completed, placing emphasis on environmental issues.
In the countries in the Americas, an outstanding series of environmental activities are carried out by Ecoclubs, nongovernmental organizations made up basically of children and adolescents who coordinate their activities through several community institutions.
In Ecuador, the city of Loja was afflicted with dumping yards in inhabited areas, which led to outbreaks of infections and contagious diseases. Through an intensive sensitization and education campaign in which community members played a key role in establishing a sanitary landfill and a means for properly disposing of recyclable materials, there was a manifest improvement in the quality of life for Loja residents.
Children, in particular, increased their awareness about the environment and their role in improving it. The planning, design, monitoring, and management of the physical environment have proven to be an ideal terrain for children’s inputs and participation.
Such initiatives are taking place worldwide with the aim of improving the environment and, as a result, people’s health. More actions should be carried out in the main cities worldwide to protect all people, but particularly the most vulnerable. To curb pollution is expensive. More expensive, however, is the price paid in children’s lives.

Allowing Asbestos to Continue Killing

Jamie McConnell

The town of Libby is a striking and tragic example of corporate irresponsibility, weak regulation and the deadly effects of asbestos exposure. And it’s not just Libby. Nationally, the epidemic of deaths from asbestos exposure shows no sign of slowing down — it’s estimated that nearly 40,000 people die from asbestos exposure each year in the USA alone.
Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and experts agree that no amount of use of the toxin is safe. The European Union already prohibits its use, and despite this ominous classification, the United States is woefully lagging behind in the banning of asbestos.
Asbestos-related deaths in the United States demonstrate how our regulatory system for managing chemicals in the U.S. — known as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — has failed to protect the public. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to ban asbestos in 1980s, but despite the overwhelming evidence of its deadliness, a court ruled in 1991 that the EPA failed to clear all the hurdles under this law.
When Congress passed bipartisan legislation in 2016 strengthening TSCA, many thought it would pave the way to banning asbestos use in the U.S. In fact, that was the intention under the newly strengthened TSCA and the accompanying regulations written by the Obama administration.
Under the Trump administration, the EPA issued a significant new use rule (SNUR) which opens the door to allowing old uses of asbestos to return to commerce. Given the scientific community’s consensus that no amount of use of asbestos is safe, allowing these old deadly uses to resume will surely mean more lives lost. And the sad reality is that if imports of the toxin are not banned, manufacturers will continue to use it.
What’s even more frightening is that we don’t have a clear picture of how much asbestos is entering the United States because manufacturers are not required to report this information to the EPA. In an effort to change this, a petition was recently submitted to the agency by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and co-signed by Montana-based Women’s Voices for the Earth.
The petition asks the EPA to use their new authority under TSCA to require importers of asbestos-containing materials to report the quantity of the toxin and the types of products it’s found in. Without this information, we have no idea who is importing the chemical or where it’s being used, making it very difficult to limit exposure or even assess the risk posed to workers, who are often disproportionately impacted, and the public. Of course, the end goal isn’t just to secure our right to know where it’s being used — it is to ban asbestos.
The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2017 (SB 2072) has been introduced in Congress that would give the EPA the authority to ban asbestos. U.S. Sen. Jon Tester is an original co-sponsor of the bill. U.S. Sen. Steve Daines has not signed on as a co-sponsor.
The people of Libby are living out a horrible tragedy, and they deserve for it to mean something more. They deserve for it to result in a change that will protect others from enduring the same illness and loss. We cannot simply let the town be a cautionary tale of what happens when regulations don’t go far enough to protect public health, even when there is clear evidence of danger. We need to act. We need our leaders to act and finally ban the import and use of this insidious toxin.

Reality of Israeli outreach to Arabs

Aijaz Zaka Syed

There are no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, theorised William Clay, only permanent interests. The principle perhaps best applies to the current geopolitical situation of the Middle East.
Having lived in the region for so long, one has seen one’s fair share of upheavals — coups and revolutions and wars and conflicts. One has had a ringside view of history, as it were, of the region that by design or by accident has been home to most of the world’s worst conflicts since the World War II, including the Arab-Israeli one — the world’s longest running one.
Lately, there are signs that even this bloodiest and most intractable of conflicts may be drawing to a close. Or is it?Oman stunned people around the world last week by releasing the images of a beaming Netanyahu holding hands with Sultan Qaboos. The news of the Israeli leader’s Muscat visit was released only after he had been safely back in Tel Aviv.
“These were important talks, both for the state of Israel and very important talks for Israel’s security,” Netanyahu told his cabinet. “There will be more.” He emphasised that the visit had been the result of “extensive contacts” between the two sides and had taken place at the invitation of Muscat.
Speakinglater at a GCC security summit in Manama, Bahrain, foreign minister Yusuf Bin Alawi stressed that Oman is not mediating between the Palestinians and Israelis but only “offering ideas” to help the two sides to come together. More importantly, Alawi called for “accepting Israel” by the Arabs arguing: “Israel is a state present in the region, and we all understand this. The world is also aware of this fact. Maybe it is time for Israel to be treated the same (as others states) and also bear the same obligations.”
Interestingly, Bahrain, a close ally of Saudi Arabia and the United States, came out in strong support of engagement with Israel. In fact, it was Bahrain that first reached out to Israel and is said to enjoy informal ties with Tel Aviv. Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir, however, reaffirmed Riyadh’s traditional stance that the Palestine-Israel peace process remains key to normalising relations with Israel.
Yet, without a doubt,the Middle East is undergoing a great churn and a realignment of forces like never before. Even as Netanyahu had been holding talks in Oman, Israel’s culture and sports minister Miri Regev was next door in Abu Dhabi with a delegation to take part in a judo tournament.
As Associated Press put it, “It was a scene unthinkable just weeks ago: an Israeli cabinet minister, tears of joy filling her eyes, proudly singing her country’s national anthem at a sports event in the heart of the Arab world. The spectacle of Miri Regev singing “Ha Tikva”, which describes the Jewish yearning for a homeland in Zion, was just one in a series of taboo-busting public appearances by Israeli officials in Gulf Arab states that have thrust the once-secret back channels of outreach into public view.”
Known for her strong views on the Arabs, Regev later visited Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in a red abaya and white headscarf. A day later, Israeli’s communication minister was also headed to the UAE to take part in a security conference. Besides, Israel’s transportation minister Yisrael Katzis scheduled to visit Oman this week for a transportation conference where he will present his plan for a possible rail link connecting the Holy Land with the wider region.
These are remarkable developments in a region where Israel’s very name was, not long ago, taboo. Whenever it came up in the context of the Mideast conflict, it understandably evoked strong emotions. Clearly, winds of change are sweeping West Asia although the issue still cannot be openly discussed in the region’s state-controlled media.
Some ‘smart alecks’ in the region have been quick to link Netanyahu’s visit to Iran, suggesting Muscat may be trying for peace between Iran and Israel-United States.After all, Oman, which unlike other Arab states has maintained good relations with Iran, had played a crucial role in opening channels of communication between Tehran and Washington under Barack Obama. These parleys eventually led to the Iran nuclear accord with the West.
This theory doesn’t carry much weight though given the flurry of visits by Israeli officials to the region and the growing isolation of the Palestinians. The dispossessed Palestinians fear that the Trump administration is pushing the Arabs to embrace Israel and force on them what is being hyped as “the deal of the century.”
Clearly, the key to the change of mood in the region is the Iran factor.  The relentless media blitz by Israel and its powerful friends in US has managed to paint Iran as the clear and present danger to the world peace as well as the safety and security of the Middle East. Tehran finds itself totally isolated in the neighbourhood.
The new punitive sanctions by the Trump administration could force many buyers of Iranian oil to beat a hasty retreat.  Of course, Iran is not blameless. Its hegemonic ambitions and growing interference in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, which see its forces and proxies pitted against the Arab armies, have divided the whole region and are forcing the Arab states into Israel’s welcoming arms.
After decades of fighting and living with Israel, the Middle East’s only nuclear weapons state, and viewing it as their mortal enemy, the Arabs now see Iran, and not Israel, as their arch enemy. For which, Iran has to blame no one but itself. It is a classic case of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. This is a stupendous victory for Israel’s aggressive foreign policy and Machiavellian realpolitik that it has managed to present Iran as the source of all evil while masking its own destructive role in the region.
Notwithstanding its genocidal war on the Palestinians and occupation of Arab lands, from Egypt to Lebanon and Jordan to Syria and notwithstanding its deadly pile of nukes pointed at Arab capitals, Israel is telling the Arabs that she is their best friend and the Shia Iran is their worst and common enemy. If you think that is a cruel joke and paradox, well, it probably is.
The Arab-Israel détente clearly has the blessings of the US administration. Trump continues to hold out the grand promise of the “deal of the century” that would once and for all settle the Palestinian question, perhaps by banishing the rest of them from Gaza and the West Bank for good. The Palestinians continue to get killed and persecuted in their own land while the blessed international community with its fine institutions stands and stares.
Now who wouldn’t want peace in the Middle East and world at large? God knows enough blood has been spilt in the Holy Land. But can peace be brought about through coercion and use of force without Israel ending its subjugation of Palestinians and ceding a single inch of their land? How long will such peace last if the historic injustices at the heart of this conflict remain unaddressed?
If Israel and its powerful friends indeed want peace, the Arab peace plan remains the best solution yet. It’s worth recalling that the late Saudi King Abdullah had made a historic offer to Israel promising peace and full normalisation of ties by Arab states for complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and a just settlement of the Palestinian refugees. The Arab League endorsed the Saudi initiative at its 2002 and 2007 summits.
But Israel has never been interested in finding peace or sincerely resolving this conflict. That would mean giving up the Palestinian and Arab land that it stole in successive wars. This Israeli “outreach” to the Arabs is really about itperpetuating its hegemony and paving the way for the so-called greater Israel.

British prime minister tries to minimise cabinet rebellion against draft Brexit agreement

Robert Stevens 

The European Union (EU) and Prime Minister Theresa May’s negotiating team announced a draft agreement yesterday on the text specifying terms for the UK’s withdrawal from the 28-nation bloc.
The announcement of the 400-plus-page Withdrawal Agreement and Outline Political Declaration Tuesday afternoon saw key Cabinet ministers called into Downing Street by May for one-to-one discussions, ahead of this afternoon’s Cabinet meeting. Other ministers were invited to a secure reading room in the Cabinet Office to study the agreement. Business groups will also be briefed on the agreed text today.
May’s aim is to minimise the numbers supporting a rejection of her proposals, with the Financial Times declaring today’s meeting to be the “most dangerous moment of her premiership.”
Brussels refers to the agreement only as a “stable text.” According to reports, the main contentious issue in negotiations continued to be the future status of the Irish border and what mechanism would be able to terminate any “backstop” put in place to keep Northern Ireland and the UK in a temporary post-Brexit Custom’s Union.
Only if May can secure agreement among her ministers and wider parliamentary party can an agreement be finalised between the EU and UK at a European council summit later this month. That deal then requires the consent of MPs in the UK Parliament, with a vote set to be held in mid-December.
Even though a draft text is agreed, May’s government faces an ongoing crisis that could possibly lead to her removal as party leader, a second referendum or a snap general election.
May has faced escalating opposition from both the hard-Brexit and Remain wings of her divided party. This week’s events were trailed by last Friday’s resignation of pro-Remain Transport Minister Jo Johnson, who declared that the UK was “on the brink of the greatest crisis” since the Second World War and that the choice of May’s plan or a no-deal Brexit was a “failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis.”
Johnson came out in support of a second referendum “People’s Vote” on EU membership. Speaking to BBC Radio 4, Johnson said other Tory MPs should follow his lead rather than “exit the EU on this extraordinarily hopeless basis.”
The other main resignations from May’s Cabinet have been among its hard Brexit wing, including Johnson’s brother and former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, and former Brexit Minister David Davis. It is suggested that up to four Remain-supporting ministers are also considering their position.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Tory’s 60-strong European Research Group (ERG) hard Brexit faction, said the deal was a “failure to deliver on Brexit” that moved the UK “from being a vassal to being a slave” and he would vote against it.
In addition, the agreement was reached without May’s coalition partners, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) signing off on it. May relies on the DUP’s 10 MPs to prop up her minority government. The DUP may reject the agreement based on its declared “red lines”—including the duration of any backstop—with DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds, saying if the deal is “as we are hearing, then we couldn’t possibly vote for it.”
It is unclear what the agreement’s provisions are regarding how any backstop agreement can be terminated. The EU reportedly rejected May’s proposal that there be independent arbitration over ending the backstop, with the EU demanding the European Court of Justice (ECJ) make the decision. If this is the case, it could solidify support for her hard Brexit wing and DUP.
May’s argument for loyalty will be to warn Cabinet ministers and other potential rebels that agreeing her deal is the only way to avoid worse options—for Remainers this is a hard-Brexit, for Brexiteers a second referendum that could be lost, for both factions a snap general election and the election of a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.
Even as news of an agreement with the EU broke, the Labour Party put forward a motion demanding the publication of the government’s legal advice over Brexit—a demand supported by the DUP and the ERG. May was forced to buckle after Labour refused to drop the motion, which then passed without a vote. The legal advice contains 5,000 documents, with Cabinet Office minister David Lidington telling Parliament that Attorney General Geoffrey Cox would make a statement to MPs on the advice and take questions ahead of the final parliamentary vote on any Brexit deal.
All the main opposition parties—Labour, Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru—are set to oppose the proposed deal. On Tuesday evening they sent a joint letter to May demanding a “meaningful vote” on the deal that allows amendments to be tabled. Corbyn said the agreement “is unlikely to be a good deal for the country” and if it didn’t meet Labour’s six tests—which include the UK having the “exact same benefits” as full membership of the Single Market and Customs Union—“then we will vote against it.”
Corbyn also faces the threat of internal rebellion by the Blairites, who are as opposed as the Tories to a snap general election and are insisting that Corbyn abide by his conference pledge to support a second referendum—if his preferred option of a “meaningful vote” on the Brexit deal precipitating a general election fails to materialise.
Asked by German news magazine Der Spiegel last weekend , “If you could stop Brexit, would you?” Corbyn replied, “We can’t stop it. The referendum took place. Article 50 has been triggered. What we can do is recognize the reasons why people voted Leave.”
This unleashed a series of denunciations by leading Blairites for his retreat from the policy agreed at party conference.
Corbyn was immediately contradicted by his Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry and then by Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer, who told Sky News, “Brexit can be stopped. … Decision one is on the deal; decision two is—if the deal goes down—should there be a general election? And decision three is—if there’s no general election—all options must be on the table, including the option of a public vote.”
So acute is the crisis facing May’s government that sections of the ruling class and the state apparatus are factoring in the possibility that a general election might be unavoidable and that a Corbyn government is becoming a distinct possibility.
In an extraordinary development, Corbyn was called in for discussions last week with Alex Younger, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, reportedly on the implications of a possible snap election in the event of the failure of Brexit negotiations. Corbyn was also reportedly recently briefed by Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, MI5, on “the facts of life” regarding the struggle against “terrorism” and “extremism.” This is a major shift in attitude to Corbyn, who although, as opposition leader, he is a member of the Privy Council that advises the queen, was initially denied access to critical intelligence briefings normally granted to those in his position.
The Daily Telegraph reported the meeting with Younger at MI6’s London HQ as an “acquaintance session.” A Whitehall source said, “The feeling was that the time had come for Mr. Corbyn to become acquainted with the workings of the intelligence establishment.”
That these meetings were only divulged through media reports and not by Corbyn is the clearest warning of the class character of a government he would lead. Under conditions in which British imperialism is entering its most turbulent crisis in peacetime and amid reports of the armed forces preparing for the crisis resulting from a forced exit from the EU, Corbyn is demonstrating his political loyalties are to British imperialism and not to the working class who are being targeted for state conspiracies and repression.

Macron and Facebook announce joint social media censorship plan in France

Alex Lantier 

On Monday, less than a week after he provoked disgust among working people in France and beyond, by praising France’s Nazi-collaborationist dictator, Philippe Pétain, French President Emmanuel Macron held meetings with Facebook to plan the censoring of social media in France.
At an official Forum for the Governance of the Internet at UNESCO in Paris, Macron argued that the world is on the brink of catastrophe due to the exercise of free speech on the internet. While the internet was initially a “fantastic opportunity,” he declared, now “it is also starting to be described as a threat to our democratic societies.”
Macron denounced “anonymity” online, warning that the “internet is being used in our democracies by totalitarian regimes to destabilize us.” He called on France to find a Third Way between a supposedly unregulated “California internet” and the heavily censored “Chinese internet.”
As a result, for six months starting at the beginning of 2019, French officials are to operate a joint program with Facebook giving them access to the tools that Facebook uses to censor “racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic or sexist” speech. Macron added, “This is a first. It is a very innovative experimental method which illustrates the cooperative methods I support.”
This program is a fundamental assault on democratic rights. The target of Macron’s internet censorship campaign is not the threat posed by foreign totalitarian enemies or far-right hate speech, but domestic left-wing political opposition in general, and the World Socialist Web Site in particular.
Macron’s presentation is a pack of lies from start to finish, aiming to provide pseudo-democratic cover for the building of a regime of police-state censorship. This process is well underway in both Europe and the United States, where the major tech firms have thousands of employees working on censoring the internet. The “California internet” Macron held up as a terrible model of free speech is, in fact, run by a handful of powerful corporations implementing mass censorship.
Facebook, Macron said, “will soon host a delegation of French regulators tasked, together with Facebook experts, with making precise, concrete joint recommendations on the struggle against hateful and offensive speech.”
A dozen anonymous individuals, working either for Facebook or the French government, will apparently run this censorship program, without public oversight or reporting of what content they are deleting from social media. Their power to eliminate content that they claim someone might construe as “hateful and offensive” amounts to a license to delete virtually any political content. This constitutes a blatant attack on freedom of expression.
Le Monde reported that the French presidency had also contacted Google, asking for similar access to the tools Google uses to censor internet search results. The Elysée palace has stated that this is a way for tech firms to “show whether or not firms are acting in good faith and making the necessary efforts” to remove content the French state objects to. Google has until now refused to develop a collaboration with the French state censors.
Macron was undeterred, however. “There will inevitably be more regulation in the future,” he declared at the Monday Forum, adding: “It is not the big firms’ job to fix doctrine about hate or free speech … But we must escape the black-and-white dichotomy between editors of content (with strong legal responsibility) and firms hosting content (like YouTube or Facebook). The big firms must not be exonerated from all responsibility. These platforms must accept reinforced obligations, because they are accelerators of content.”
The attempt to pass off censorship as a defense against foreign totalitarian enemies—echoing Charles de Gaulle’s denunciation of masses of striking communist workers as tools of the Kremlin during the May–June 1968 general strike, 50 years ago—is a political fraud. So are the attempts by Macron, who recently hailed Pétain the genocidal anti-Semite, to portray his censorship as being driven with deep concern about the struggle against racism.
Both in Europe and in the United States, where mass censorship on Facebook and Google began last year, the target is growing political opposition in the international working class to policies of austerity and militarism that have been implemented over decades.
During a congressional hearing calling for internet censorship last year, former FBI official Clint Watts declared: “Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America. ...Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced...”
It is widely known in official circles in France that censorship targets left-wing opposition. In January 2018, Pierre Rimbert wrote in the well-known monthly Le Monde diplomatique on Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s promise to demote Russian state media in search results. Noting the WSWS’s analyses of this censorship’s impact on readership of anti-war web sites, he asked whether internet censorship is “killing pluralism in the name of better informing the public.”
He wrote: “How to separate the wheat from the chaff? ‘In a statement issued on April 25, Ben Gomes, the company’s vice president for engineering, stated that Google’s update of its search engine would block access to “offensive” sites, while working to surface more “authoritative content,”’ write Andre Damon and David North of the World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org, August 2, 2017). Using an internet tracking firm, the Trotskyist site measured the effect of new algorithms that, by default, see the dominant media as reliable and the alternative press as suspect. ‘A massive loss of readership observed by socialist, anti-war and progressive web sites over the past three months has been caused by a cumulative 45 percent decrease in traffic from Google searches.’”
This censorship is being continually escalated. Coincidentally or otherwise, as Macron announced his Facebook censorship plan on Monday, Facebook was removing a WSWS article from social media, claiming it violated “community standards.”
Macron is launching his censorship program as his approval ratings collapse to a historic low of 21 percent. Universally reviled in the working class as the “president of the rich,” his government is on high alert in the face of a planned mass protest and blockade of French cities on November 17 by truck and car drivers protesting a regressive proposed gasoline tax. Fifty years after the May–June 1968 general strike, France and Europe are on the brink of a revolutionary explosion.
Under these conditions, sections of the media are demanding that the state censor expressions of opposition to Macron. In one remarkable article, La Voix du Nord denounced its own readers, boasting that it was censoring their online comments about its coverage of Macron.
“Thus under each article on his trip commemorating World War I,” it wrote, “we have deleted dozens of comments and insults against this president you say is ‘indifferent to the people’ and ‘only helping the rich.’ … The level of violence in comments on the president is unprecedented. Each of his actions provokes hundreds of comments on our social networks, calls for hate and violence. And let us not forget the particularly violent and sexist comments that followed the publication of the article on the death of Brigitte Macron’s elder brother.”
Criticisms of Macron and similar governments are not the expression of dangerous foreign totalitarian subversion, but of growing, legitimate social anger in the working class. To the extent that the French state sees as its goal the suppression of social anger and the class struggle through such means as censorship and states of emergency, it will be treading a path returning to the type of regime overseen by Macron’s military hero, Philippe Pétain.