12 Dec 2018

General Motors could shut more plants in US, threatening more than 6,000 jobs

Jerry White

Two weeks after the announcement by General Motors that it plans to close five factories in the US and Canada and wipe out nearly 15,000 hourly and white-collar jobs by early next year, industry analysts are warning that GM could shut several more assembly plants.
According to a Detroit Free Press article Monday, two assembly plants in Michigan—Lake Orion, north of Detroit, and Lansing Grand River, along with the Bowling Green, Kentucky, Assembly Plant and the Fairfax Assembly in Kansas City, Kansas—could be targeted for closure because they are running well under full capacity. The factories currently employ 6,238 production workers.
“Hourly workers at four more General Motors factories have reason to worry,” the Free Press wrote. “Industry experts and some in the UAW warn that the factories need more vehicles to build or they could face a similar fate as the three assembly plants GM has said it will idle next year: Detroit-Hamtramck, Lordstown in Ohio and Oshawa in Ontario, plus two U.S. transmission plants.”
On November 26, GM announced the closure of the five plants. CEO Mary Barra said the $6.5 billion in cost savings “will increase the long-term profit and cash generation potential of the company.” The company’s stocks shot up as high as 7.8 percent after the announcement.
GM officials not only defended the previous job cutting announcement but made clear they were prepared to make even more savage moves. “We believe the recent actions move us in the right direction, and we will continue to monitor the market/consumer trends and adjust accordingly,” Kimberly Carpenter, GM spokeswoman, told the Free Press. “As always, our intent is to work with the UAW constructively to address our business challenges in a way that keeps the company competitive in these changing market conditions.”
As of December 2018, the Free Press reported, GM has four of 12 plants, Ford has three of nine plants, and Fiat Chrysler has two of six plants operating below recommended capacity.
“All three—GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler—likely need to further reduce plant capacity in North America,” Jon Gabrielsen, a market economist who advises automakers and auto suppliers, told the Free Press. “If they talk about keeping one plant open, the companies will have to find another plant to close in North America.”
GM’s job cuts are part of a restructuring of the global auto industry in the face of slowing sales in North America and China and profit losses in Europe and South America. Ford is soon expected to release its own job-cutting plan, which could wipe out as many as 25,000 jobs, largely in Europe. In January, Ford and VW are expected to make a major announcement involving increased integration of their production facilities, which could mark the beginning of a new wave of consolidations.
The new threats are meant to ratchet up pressure on 156,000 GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler workers whose labor agreements expire on September 13, 2019. After decades of wage and benefit concessions imposed by the United Auto Workers union in the name of “saving” jobs, workers are determined to recoup lost income now that the US automakers have made almost eight straight years of large profits.
Kristin Dziczek of the corporate-funded Center of Automotive Research recently told the industry publication Automotive News that GM’s plant closings “might actually help the membership focus on jobs and survival more than getting more, more and more in terms of raises, benefits and bonuses.”
As it has done in one contract negotiation after another, the United Auto Workers hopes to use the job cut threats to dragoon workers into accepting labor agreements that boost corporate profits and funnel more money to the UAW itself. A significant portion of what has been robbed from autoworkers over the last 40 years has found its way into the more than $1 billion in assets controlled by the UAW in the form of payments recycled through joint labor-management “training centers,” shares in corporate stock and outright bribes.
The Detroit News reported Monday that federal prosecutors may be close to indicting Norwood Jewell, the UAW vice president who oversaw negotiations with Fiat Chrysler in 2015. The contracts pushed through over mass opposition retained the hated two-tier wage system and sharply expanded the number of low-paid, part-time temporary workers.
Jewell has long been suspected of being the unnamed top UAW official known as “UAW-3” in the corruption case, which involved the payment of millions of dollars in bribes to UAW officials by Fiat Chrysler executives.
Sources told the News that Jewell illegally used funds from the UAW-Chrysler National Training Center to pay for more than $10,000 worth of golf resort accommodations in Palm Springs, California, and Disney World tickets. Jewell, who abruptly retired in January after the News linked him to the investigation and his home was searched by federal agents, has been identified as the high-ranking union leader who received approximately $50,000 worth of lavish gifts and benefits from Fiat Chrysler executives.
“The gifts include an Italian shotgun and a $30,000 party that featured strolling models who lit labor leaders’ cigars, all paid for with Fiat Chrysler cash that was supposed to be spent training blue-collar workers,” the News reported.
With anger against the threatened closings erupting against autoworkers, the UAW is working with the Trump administration and various Ohio and Michigan Democrats to blame the job cuts on workers in Mexico, China and even Canada. “GM is a major importer of their own brands from China, Canada and Mexico now sold in the United States,” complained UAW President Gary Jones in The Hill. He urged politicians who have handed billions in tax cuts to GM to “support taxes and trade laws that reward US investment and hold companies accountable for their actions.”
While the UAW is adamantly opposed to any industrial action by workers to stop the plant closings, the Free Press cited the remarks of Marick Masters, a business professor at Wayne State University, who warned that workers might break free from the constraints of the unions: “Look at the wildcat strikes that occurred among teachers in West Virginia and other states. There’s a growing militancy among some workers and people who have reached perhaps the tipping point. People take extreme action when they feel there’s no alternative.”
Ten years after the global financial crash, there are growing signs of working class opposition and anger throughout the US and internationally. The high point is the mass “yellow vest” protests in France against Emmanuel Macron, the “president of the rich.”
The escalating threats of plant closures and layoffs underscores the critical importance of the emergency meeting called by the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter on Sunday to oppose GM plant closings.
The meeting, which included GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler workers from throughout the Midwest, unanimously endorsed a resolution to fight for the establishment of rank-and-file committees, independent of the UAW, the Canadian Unifor union and other unions, in all the affected workplaces, factories and neighborhoods, to oppose the plant closures.
The resolution said these committees should advance the interests of workers against corporate management and mobilize workers, based on their own demands, including abolishing the two-tier wage system and fighting for industrial democracy. Rejecting the toxic nationalism of the UAW and other unions, the resolution calls for a fight for “the unity of American workers with our class brothers and sisters in Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world.”

11 Dec 2018

TRi Facts “Election fact-checking and verification” 2019 Workshop for Nigerian Journalists

Application Deadline: 28th December 2018.

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: In January 2019, TRi Facts will be facilitating a fact-checking training workshop for mid-career journalists in Nigeria: Lagos, Ibadan, Port Harcourt and Enugu. The workshop takes standard fact-checking methodology, demonstrated using political and election-specific examples, and integrates it with best-practice lessons on political and election reporting, from interview techniques through to ethics and safety, and includes animated discussions around accuracy, responsibility, and bias in political coverage.

Type: Workshop

Selection Criteria: You will need the following:
  • Be prepared to commit yourself to a two day training workshop.
  • Champion fact-checkers within your organisation and partner organisations.
  • Commit to produce fact-checking reports (on a regular basis)
Number of Awards: Twenty journalists in each city will be accepted on this programme

Value of Award: All expenses including lodging and meals related to participation in the training programme will be covered by the organiser. This funding does not cover salaries, each successful delegate will receive $30,00. There is no payment for submission of fact-checking reports.
On completion of the programmes, TRi Facts will provide:
  • A certificate of completion.
  • An opportunity to have your fact-checking reports distributed via Africa Check’s channels should they meet certain standards.
How to Apply: 
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Tanzanian-German Centre for Eastern African Legal Studies (TGCL) Scholarships 2019/2020 for East African Students

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2019

Eligible Countries: East African Community Partner States (Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda)

To be taken at (country): University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Field of Study: Law

About the Award: The TGCL, a think tank on East African Community law, is a cooperation project of the University of Dar es Salaam and the University of Bayreuth in Germany. It is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office through the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Structured LLM and PhD study programmes at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, are addressed to aspiring young East African lawyers, qualifying them for leading positions in the region.
The LLM candidates will pursue a coursework and a dissertation programme on Regional Integration and East African Community Law. The programme takes one year of fulltime attendance.
PhD students are required to write a comprehensive PhD thesis within three years of fulltime attendance.
The TGCL will offer seminars and workshops on academic research methodology and professional leadership skills for its students, accompanied by an introduction to German Law and the Law of the European Union.
Additionally, interdisciplinary seminars and a German language course are part of the programme.
On successful completion of the programme, the students will obtain a law degree from the University of Dar es Salaam and an additional TGCL Certificate.

Type: PhD, Masters

Eligibility: Applications are invited especially from candidates from the East African Community Partner States (i.e. Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda).
The formal minimum requirements for admission to the LLM and PhD programmes are:
  • for the LLM programme: a Bachelor’s degree in law (LLB) with a minimum GPA of 3.0 or its equivalent from a recognised higher learning institutions.
  • for the PhD programme: an excellent LLM degree from a recognised institution
The language of instruction in the School of Law is English. Those who are not conversant with it should not apply.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships are granted only to applicants from EAC countries and will cover:
  • the university fees for the LLM/PhD programme
  • a reasonable health insurance
  • an annual stipend of 2,400 EUR for Tanzanians and of 3,000 EUR for non-Tanzanians
  • a housing allowance of 30 EUR per month
  • a once-off research grant of 460 EUR for LLM and 920 EUR for PhD
Duration of Scholarship: 
  • LLM: 1 Year
  • PhD: 3 Years
How to Apply: The applicant must register online through the TGCL website and submit the following documents electronically:
  1. a signed curriculum vitae with clear evidence of periods of legal and other relevant education, training and practical experience. It is compulsory to use the Europass CV template (http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu).
  2. one page letter of motivation
  3. certified photocopies of all relevant certificates (birth certificate, school leaving certificates, academic transcripts, certificates of legal or other professional education, including provisional results for applicants who are in the final year of their LLB studies); in the case of documents not in English an official translation should be attached
  4. a passport picture
  5. a release letter from your employer (if you are employed) – a proposal of the intended research (for LLM candidates: 1,500 words; for PhD candidates: 3,000 words) – see annexed guidelines
  6. for PhD candidates: an electronic copy of your LLM dissertation
Apply here


Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

IIEP-UNESCO 2019/2020 Short Course and Training Programmes for Education Managers (Funded)

Application Deadline: 8th January 2019

About the Award: Designed to bolster the individual capacities of educational planners and managers, our programmes contribute to the institutional capacity that ministries of education require to carry out education sector analyses and plans that reflect both national priorities and their commitments to Sustainable Development Goal 4.

All of the programmes described below are offered in English and French with simultaneous translation during the face-to-face courses. Participants can also pursue our courses in a modularized way, meaning that they can, for example take the Education Sector Planning course first, and complete the ATP later.

2019 SPECIALIZED COURSES PROGRAMME (SCP)
From April to May 2019, IIEP will offer six two-week courses at IIEP in Paris, France. Each of the courses cover a specific area, such as teacher management and quantitative methods for monitoring and evaluating the quality of education. Participants must successfully complete three of these short courses if they are studying for the ATP, but these courses are also open to others who want to enhance their skills in a particular thematic area. Development partner staff often join Ministry staff on these short courses.

Key features of the SCP:
  • Intensive courses that last two-weeks,
  • Focus is on a specialized topic in education sector analysis or management,
  • Stimulating learning activities, including group work and practical exercises,
  • Successful course completion is recognised as part of the ATP.
THE 2019-2020 EDUCATION SECTOR PLANNING (ESP) COURSE
This course combines 12 weeks of online learning and a 13-week residential training phase at IIEP. Providing participants with the fundamentals of educational planning, it covers areas such as an education sector analysis/diagnosis, plan preparation, and the implementation and monitoring of an education sector plan. The course begins in September 2019 with an online phase in-country and finishes in March 2020 in Paris, France. The ESP can count towards completion of the ATP one-year programme in educational planning and management.

Key features of the ESP:
  • 12 weeks online and 13 weeks at IIEP in Paris,
  • Covers main areas of planning from sector analysis/diagnosis, plan preparation, to monitoring and evaluation,
  • Group and individual course work and field visits in France and in a neighbouring country,
  • IIEP International Certificate of Advanced Studies in Education Sector Planning given upon successful completion.
THE 2019-2020 ADVANCED TRAINING PROGRAMME
This year will mark the 55th session of the Advanced Training Programme, the flagship one-year programme offered by IIEP-UNESCO in educational planning and management. This programme includes the ESP course and the SCP, as well as a tutored project that participants complete in their home countries. An intensive and practice-oriented course, the ATP prepares its graduates to enhance their performance and future careers as education planners and managers.

Key features of the ATP:
  • Three months online learning, followed by six months in Paris and a project completed in the participant’s country of residence to ensure the relevance of the course to the participants and their organisations,
  • Develops practical and theoretical skills in educational planning and management, as well as leadership skills,
  • Covers all facets of educational planning and management, from education policy analysis to monitoring and evaluation,
  • Includes a study visit in France and a neighbouring country to learn about their education systems,
  • IIEP Master’s equivalent level certificate awarded upon successful completion.
Type: Short Course, Training

Eligibility: Participants at IIEP come from all parts of the world (however, they must be proficient in either English or French). Here are some of the professional backgrounds of previous participants:
  • Educational planners and managers involved in policy formulation and implementation;
  • Other officials from education ministries;
  • Professionals from other governmental bodies in charge of education matters;
  • Education specialists who wish to strengthen their knowledge and expertise in specific areas;
  • Education officers involved in analysis, design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of education policies and programmes at different levels of government;
  • Technical officers specialized in research, planning, statistics, management, human resources, assessment, curriculum, and teacher professional development;
  • Professionals developing or managing educational programmes and projects in other types of organizations, including development partners and NGOs;
  • Holders of a first degree, or equivalent qualification.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: UNESCO member states may submit a request for funding from the UNESCO participation programme through the UNESCO National Commission. The procedure and schedule for the submission of funding requests are available at the UNESCO web site.

Duration of Programme: Programmes vary in length from our two-week specialized courses to the Master’s level equivalent Advanced Training Programme (ATP), which takes one year to complete, including six month’s residential training in Paris.

How to Apply: Interested applicants must apply online. For a complete application, applicants must upload the following documents:
  • The Authorization of Participation form, duly completed and signed/stamped by your employer and, if possible, your UNESCO National Commission representative. (You can download the form from the ‘Practical Information’ section of the application form.)
  • A scanned copy of the name and date page of your passport.
  • An Organizational chart of your Ministry or organization (please indicate exactly where you fit within the structure with an X or other mark).
  • Scanned copies of diplomas, degrees, and other relevant training certificates.
  • A language proficiency certificate, if your first language is neither English nor French.
  • GOODLUCK!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

HEINEKEN International Graduate Programme 2019 for Graduates Worldwide

Application Deadline: 10th February 2019

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Mostly Amsterdam, The Netherlands

About the Award: You will begin the journey at our Head Office in Amsterdam where you will be introduced to the HEINEKEN history, products and values, and start meeting the people that make the company great!With three one-year assignments you will have challenging and contrasting learning experiences within a Function. Every year, you explore a new country, start a new job, and learn a different culture, professionally and personally. This will test your learning agility and provide you with unforgettable experiences.

Fields of Employment:  
Marketing & Sales
Finance
Procurement
Human Resources
Supply Chain


Type: Internships/Jobs

Eligibility: We are looking for learning agile graduates that show us where we should go next. You are an ideal candidate if you are self-sufficient, aspirational, open to feedback and bold enough to take ownership wherever you are. If you value passion for quality, enjoyment of life and respect for people and for our planet, then you can have great success here.
To apply for this programme, you should at least:
  • Have a degree or will graduate by September 2019 – preferably a Masters degree
  • Have affinity with Finance, and a degree in Finance, Economics, Business or any similar field
  • Have no more than 2 years of professional work experience in February 2019 (voluntary and internships do not count)
  • Be at least fluent in English – preferably multilingual
  • Have the ambition to have an international career at HEINEKEN together with a genuine interest in other cultures – preferably already lived abroad
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: People are in the heart of our company. Next to meaningful work, we believe it is important that you are satisfied with your remuneration, and that it motivates you in relation to your development and performance.
  • Salary according to Dutch market conditions, plus additional allowances
  • Accommodation
  • Private health insurance
  • Flights and Immigration support
  • 30 leave days per assignment, excluding national holiday
How to Apply: Apply for the distinct positions on the Program Webpage (see Link below).

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Resistance is Not Terrorism

Nino Pagliccia

Resistance is not terrorism. And yet we do have resistance against oppressing rightwing neoliberal policies, and we do have spreading terrorism; but those words should never be associated in a causal relationship. If anything resistance is self-defense against warfare and terrorism!
Let me explain.
Why do we have resistance?
Today we live in a continuous state of warfare at different levels of intensity. The bully U.S. Empire keeps busy maintaining that level of aggression by using huge amounts of resources taken away from uninformed USAmericans and others.
We have quite a wide range of “conflictive relationships” masterminded by the U.S. government.
It’s interesting to see the corresponding proliferation of terminology associated with different types of warfare that we have come to use in describing those conflicts.
These are the tools of warfare we hear about today. We have:
Undeclared wars. And here we have to be careful how we use the term “war”. There is no war in There is a war onSyria. Semantic is important here.
New Cold War. I don’t know what’s new about it. It’s still the same permanent threat of war that the “Old” Cold War was.
Infowar. The production of false news with media participation in order to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of a government by demonizing it.
Economic war. This is the one that is caused through sanctions and blockades.
Incitation to commit political crimes. For example, the life attempt against Maduro and other high-ranking officials last August 4 in Venezuela.
Incitation to mutiny. Repeated calls to the military to overthrow a government.
Hybrid war or color revolutions. How colorful we have become!
Coups d’état. We still have those…with a soft touch now.
Now we also have Soft Coups. These are the ones that have been at play in Latin America in the last few years. They oppress and kill people all the same.
We even misuse the law to make war. It’s called Lawfare.
This is quite a repertoire of acts of war that can be used in any combination or mix!
All of these actions are a form of warfare, and all have embedded an element of illegality. They are not used as legitimate self-defense. They are used to subvert democracy.
They extend the notion of weapons to situations where everything can be weaponized with total disregard to legality, morality, humanity and ethical considerations.
Take for instance the term “humanitarian crisis” whose real meaning has been devalued to be used as infowar to justify a military intervention. This is currently the weapon of choice against Venezuela.
The U.S. has used all of these actions for regime change at one time or another, in some place or another; namely in Latin America and more intensely today in Venezuela, knowing very well that any of those tools of war constitute acts of terrorism.
Paradoxically, earlier this month, we have learned that the Trump administration is considering adding Venezuela to the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
The idea that Venezuela is a state that sponsors terrorism is bizarre. Even a U.S. official admitted that it would be very difficult to provide any proof that Venezuela sponsors terrorism. That’s because it doesn’t!
But the U.S. uses the arrogance of its so-called doctrine of exceptionalism to make such claims.
Notice the outrageous irony.
+ The U.S. government actually creates international terrorism. There is ample evidence of that, especially in the Middle East. 
+ But the U.S. accuses Venezuela of being a State that sponsors terrorism.
+ There is not a shred of evidence that Venezuela supports terrorism.
+ There is only a small proportion of the rightwing Venezuelan opposition terrorists that support U.S. terrorism even on their own country; and that collective self-destructive behaviour is a typical trademark of terrorism.
On the contrary, the Maduro government has made public calls for peace and dialogue even while the guarimbas were carried out by the rightwing terrorists in Venezuela in 2014 and 2017 when they literally terrorized the population.
Venezuela has been the victim of terrorism and is resisting in order to defend its sovereignty and self-determination.
We claim that we have a right to resist against unlawful attacks, but why do we say that resistance is not terrorism. For that we need to understand what terrorism is.
Terrorism
Terrorism is the ultimate destructive tool to be used against another nation or people. The U.S. is using it widely, not only in the Middle East but also in Latin America and other regions. The goal is always the same: illegal intervention for regime change. Just recently, during a meeting with visiting Nicolas Maduro in Moscow, Vladimir Putin stated, “Of course, we condemn any action that is clearly of a terrorist nature, any attempt to change the situation with the help of force.” 
We usually think of terrorism as indiscriminate bombing of public places by suicidal extremists. That’s the image we are given by the mainstream media; so when people hear that “Venezuela supports terrorism” they are immediately led to make the association that Venezuela supports those violent actions. The truth is that Venezuela does not engage in any kind of terrorism.
That image, however, is only true with the proviso that often the U.S. is fully responsible of facilitating or condoning those terrorist actions, and even guilty of indiscriminate bombings from the safety of fast planes or drones, which can also constitutes war crimes. Venezuela condemns those actions.
But what is terrorism really?
Title 18 of the United States Code regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure defines international terrorism against U.S. nationals. It says in part:
The term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that:
(A) Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State…
(B) Appear to be intended to
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Is the definition different if it’s not against “U.S. nationals”? Only through the lens of exceptionalism can the U.S. acknowledge terrorism when it is inflicted on U.S. nationals but not on other citizens.
The U.S. government has rejected many other definitions of terrorism because they all seem to suggest that it is involved in those actions.
Venezuela is very clear about what constitutes unlawful “violent acts dangerous to human life”, “coercion”, and “affect the conduct of a government”. This is a paragraph from a Venezuela Report of last July:
The policy of imposing unilateral coercive measures, known as “sanctions” … violates the Charter of the United Nations, and conceals an aggressive model of intervention…  Beyond the rhetoric that justifies it in the name of “democracy”, sanctions are an instrument of war, designed to make people suffer in order to bend sovereign States.” Compare to the U.S. definition of terrorism in Title 18.
Of course it is not only about sanctions or blockades. The life attempt against Maduro and other high-ranking officials is also a gross act of terrorism.
Yes. Even by its own definition some reported actions by the U.S. government could be construed as international terrorism practiced on other nations and nationals.
When we speak of the U.S. government we do not exclude other governments in the use and support of terrorism. Many countries have some kind of definition of terrorism. They all coincide on the use of “coercion for political purpose”. 
Finally, let’s consider the definition given by NATO, and we all know which governments those are.
For NATO terrorism is “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives“. 
When Trump threatens Venezuela with a military invasion, what part of the definition of terrorism does he not understand?
Conclusion
To conclude I want to emphasize that there is nothing in the presence of currently increasing warfare, and the general notion of terrorism to which I have referred that says that resistance is terrorism.
I repeat. Resistance is not terrorism. If anything resistance is self-defense against warfare and terrorism!
A final point I want to emphasize is the need to have a strong, united and informed voice to denounce all actions of warfare and terrorism as the only effective way to stop them. We need to be prepared to counter misinformation and disinformation with sound arguments and analysis.
We have to counter rhetoric with information, facts and, yes, resistance.

AFRICOM: A Neocolonial Occupation Force?

Eric Draitser

Amid the George HW Bush imperial death-orgy, the endless saga of Midtown Mussolini’s daily news cycle, the seemingly unprecedented political upsurge in France, and countless other show-stopping news stories, you likely missed three very sad, yet revealing, incidents out of the Sahel region of West-Central Africa.
First, on November 18th, a massive offensive against a Nigerian military base by a faction of the Boko Haram terror group known as the Islamic State West Africa (ISWAP) killed upwards of 100 soldiers. The surprise attack came at a time when Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, who famously (and repeatedly) has declared victory against Boko Haram and terrorism, has faced a crisis of legitimacy, falling approval ratings, and an impending election in early 2019.
Just days later, on November 22nd, while most Americans were gathering with family and eating turkey on Thanksgiving, a contingent of about 50 armed militants kidnapped at least 15 girls in Niger, just outside a town in the Diffa region, near the border with Nigeria. While Boko Haram did not officially claim responsibility, many have attributed the action to the terror group, or one of its factions, given their propensity to use kidnappings for propaganda and fundraising.
And on the very same day, also in Diffa near the Niger-Nigeria border, suspected Boko Haram militants killed seven employees of Foraco, a French well drilling and mining company.
This spate of deadly, and rather brazen, attacks on civilians along the Niger-Nigeria border paints a troubling picture of the continued instability of the region, and give the lie to the idea that counter-terrorism operations, ongoing for a number of years now, have put Boko Haram and other terror groups on the back foot.
This reality is undoubtedly a political liability for Nigerian President Buhari who was elected on the promise of stamping out terrorism and bringing stability and the rule of law to Nigeria. Of course, a number of uncomfortable questions can and should be asked of Buhari, his top military commanders, and other bureaucrats in his administration.
But perhaps the more salient questions should be posed, not to Nigeria’s government, but to the US Government itself, and specifically its African Command (AFRICOM). For it is Washington, not Abuja, that has poured billions of dollars into counter-terrorism and surveillance in the Sahel and West Africa. Considering the laundry list of attacks and killings, one could naturally ask the question: What exactly is the US doing over there, if not counter-terrorism?
Nigeria, Niger, and AFRICOM
These most recent incidents paint a worrying portrait of the on-the-ground reality in the region where terror groups not only continue to exist, but seemingly are thriving. Lucrative trade in illicit goods, drugs, human trafficking, and more has continued to line the pockets of these militant organizations. But the very fact that these killings are continuing calls into question the efficacy of, and agenda behind, the US AFRICOM force.
As the Washington Post reported back in 2013, the US has chosen Agadez, Niger as the site of a massive new drone facility that will act as a “strategic foothold” in West Africa, specifically with regard to the stated mission of surveillance of terrorist networks. And the US has been flying drones from the facility for more than five years.
However, as The Intercept’s Nick Turse has reported, what was originally intended to be a relatively small facility hosting a few US drones and military advisers has ballooned into a more than $100 million investment that will be one of the US’s most costly foreign military construction projects. And instead of simply housing a handful of Predator drones, the facility will be the base for MQ-9 Reaper drones before the end of next year. Naturally, it’s unclear just how many drones are already flying out of the facility, though knowledgeable observers assume a significant number already are.
This base, which will act as a hub of the broader AFRICOM drone surveillance network sprawling over much of the African continent, is just a short flight from where these latest horrific incidents have taken place. And yet, it seems the US either was unable or unwilling to do anything to stop them. Even with the most advanced surveillance and communications equipment, somehow groups of dozens or hundreds of fighters are moving into towns conducting mass kidnappings, pillage, and worse all under the nose of Washington.
And beyond the Agadez base, the US has a military presence in both Niger and Nigeria, with both countries routinely hosting US soldiers and military advisers, often with the specific intent of assisting local forces in the fight against Boko Haram and other terrorist groups. An ambush attack against 4 US soldiers in Niger has recently brought the issue into the headlines as Washington considers reducing the number of ground operations its soldiers directly participate in.
It should also be noted that the US operates a number of other clandestine surveillance hubs throughout the continent, at least one of which is in relatively close proximity to the area where the attacks took place. As the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock reported in 2012:
“A key hub of the U.S. spying network can be found in Ouagadougou, the…capital of Burkina Faso… Under a classified surveillance program code-named Creek Sand, dozens of U.S. personnel and contractors have come to Ouagadougou in recent years to establish a small air base on the military side of the international airport. The unarmed U.S. spy planes fly hundreds of miles north to Mali, Mauritania and the Sahara.”
Moreover, AFRICOM leads annual, large-scale military exercises throughout the region, as well as focusing on broad strategic initiatives that embed US military forces into the military command structures of these countries.
A Little History
It should be noted that the US has been involved in the Sahel region going back to the early years of the George W. Bush administration, even before the establishment of AFRICOM, which was later greatly expanded by the Obama administration.
After 9/11, the United States began to grow its military footprint on the African continent under the guise of a ‘War on Terror’, selling this notion to a United States gripped with fear of terrorism. With programs such as the Pan-Sahel Initiative, later broadened into the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative, Washington managed to provide military and financial assistance to compliant countries in North Africa – a policy whose practical application meant that the US military became the dominant force in the Sahel region, supplying the human and material resources for which the governments of the region were starved. Naturally, this meant an implicit subservience to US military command.
And with the establishment of AFRICOM, these relationships were further cemented such that today we see annual, massive military exercises such as Exercise Flintlock which brings together numerous African countries under the auspices of US military leadership. While this year marked the first time that the more than 20 nations’ militaries were led by African forces, it remains US military at the head of the table.
Any guesses where Flintlock 2018 took place? That’s right, Niger.
It’s the Resources, Stupid
President Obama was not the architect of AFRICOM, which was established in 2007 under Bush, but he was perhaps its greatest champion, greatly expanding its scope and funding.
Obama grandly proclaimed in 2014:
“Today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized Al Qaeda leadership. Instead, it comes from decentralized Al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate…We need a strategy that matches this diffuse threat; one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military thin, or stir up local resentments.”
As with all things Obama, the truth and disinformation so seamlessly blend together that it can be difficult to parse one from the other. While no doubt there is truth in what he stated, the underlying subtext is much more interesting to consider. For while Obama and his cohorts would endlessly wax poetic about security and stability, the true mission of AFRICOM is neocolonial in nature.
Yes, it must be said that in fact AFRICOM is an occupying force that in no way functions to guarantee the security of African people (see Libya, among others), but rather to guarantee the free flow of resources out of Africa and into the Global North, particularly former colonial powers like France and Britain, and of course the US.
In case there’s any doubt, consider the following statements from Vice-Admiral Robert Moeller, military deputy to former commander of AFRICOM General William ‘Kip’ Ward, who told an AFRICOM conference in 2008 that AFRICOM’s goal was “protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.” Furthermore, Moeller wrote in 2010, “Let there be no mistake. AFRICOM’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests.”
So, if we strip away the flowery rhetoric about stability and security, both, of course, vital to resource extraction and export, it becomes clear that it is, in fact, natural resources that drive the US strategic interest in Africa, along with countering the growing Chinese footprint on the continent.
The last decade has seen major oil discoveries throughout the Lake Chad Basin which have transformed how the states of West Africa view their economic future. At the heart of the basin is Lake Chad, surrounded by the countries of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Niger.  According to a 2010 assessment from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Chad Basin has “estimated mean volumes of 2.32 billion barrels of oil, 14.65 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 391 million barrels of natural gas liquids.”  The potential size of these resources has attracted the attention of political and business leaders, both in the region and internationally.
Those oil reserves have gained the attention of each of the Lake Chad littoral states, and led to something of a scramble among them to siphon off as much oil from their neighbors as possible. Of course, it’s not only oil and gas that are of interest, especially since the US has become a net exporter of oil.
But for France, the former colonial power in the region, which still maintains a large military presence in the Sahel under the auspices of Operation Barkhane, oil remains an essential priority in Africa.
As a top oil executive in Chad told Nigerian daily This Day that, “Currently, oil from Lake Chad being drilled by the Republic of Chad is…shipped through tankers to the international refineries at the Port of Le Havre in France.”
And in Niger, a country rich in mineral deposits such as uranium which are vital to France’s vast nuclear energy sector, France remains the dominant economic player. As Think Africa Press reported in 2014:
“France currently sources over 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy and is dependent on Niger for much of its immediate and future uranium supply. This dependence could grow even further when production at the recently-discovered Imouraren uranium deposit is up and running in 2015. The mine is set to produce 5,000 tonnes of uranium per year and would help make Niger the second-largest uranium producer in the world. Areva, which is 87 percent owned by the French state and holds a majority share in three out of the four uranium mining companies operating in Niger, is funding the new mine.”
And oh, by the way, Niger’s president Mahamadou Issoufou is a former employee of Areva, the French company that dominates the uranium trade in Africa.
Perhaps then we should return our thinking to the recent attack that killed seven employees of the French drilling company Foraco. Was this part of the broader efforts by French capitalists to continue extracting uranium and/or other minerals for shipment back to the “mother country”? One has to wonder, considering Foraco does not confine itself solely to drilling wells for water.
Is the US surveillance architecture so brittle and inept that it simply missed the movement of hundreds of members of the very organizations Washington is allegedly fighting in the region? Is it simply that the US is unable to effectively spy on this area until its massive Agadez base is complete? Is it that these terror groups have grown in sophistication such that they are able to elude the most advanced military and spying capabilities in the world?
The answers to these questions might take some time to fully emerge. But what we do know is that US military in Africa is effectively an occupation and resource extraction force that uses local militaries as proxies for its own agenda. The terror groups operating in the region have made untold millions and committed countless atrocities right under the noses of the purportedly benevolent American military forces.
So, if counter-terrorism is really what the US is interested in in the Sahel and West Africa, then the AFRICOM mission is an abject failure. Of course, seen as a neocolonial occupying force utilizing both hard and soft power to entrench US hegemony and guarantee the free flow of resources from Africa, it is a rousing success.

Peace is possible between India and Pakistan

Pamela Chatterjee

People choose various methods of resistance when dealing with ideological issues – from outright belligerence and violence to democratic collectivism. It depends on their perspective,  beliefs, or sometimes there is just a selfish agenda.
In the long run such methods cannot provide solutions for serious issues which hang on for years, like an incurable ailment which drains the human condition.
Let us deal specifically with the impasse facing India and Pakistan, which has been an ‘ailment’ ever since we parted company after Independence in 1947.
Times have changed in these past 75 years and today, there are many players in this global world, each intent on the benefit to be gained for their own turf , without much consideration for moral issues. We need to solve our problems by narrowing our canvas to negotiate directly as neighbours. Sabre rattling, surgical strikes, killing each others’ soldiers , sometimes barbarically, terrorism; or indeed military hardware (supplied to both sides), is not is not going to frighten either side or solve any problems. It will only fan the flames in both countries and weaken us both.   Also, make us more vulnerable to those with commercial interests, for the sale of the latest ‘killer equipment’ in the international market.
Let us look at the commonalities and strengths of both India and Pakistan and see what is possible for us both, to lead us gradually to non-violent action, to live as good neighbours:
Both countries share so much ..a long common history, tradition, language, after all we were one country, not so long ago. This background has solid foundations, and the cracks and harsh breaks which have emerged in the comparatively short span of less than 75 years, are repairable and in time will not be discernible.
Political parties have their own agenda and often the larger issues in a country, are postponed or forgotten in their own battles to win at any cost. However, there is sympathy and yearning for peace within the rank and file of people, in both countries. People in different stratas of society, be they Intellectuals, professionals, shopkeepers, or people on the street,  speak with such warmth and friendship, eager to learn as to what is really happening ‘there’ – across the barrier. Visitors from both countries are assured of a warm welcome whenever they come to either country.
What then can be done to build a bridge between us both? Importantly there is the legacy of non-violence passed on by leaders of both countries which beckon towards a solution. Gandhiji and and his revered friend Abdul Ghaffar Khan have left a strong inheritance, which is warmly accepted by many thinking people, especially the young. But apart from protest and solidarity  marches, they are thwarted by taking desired action in the thorny situation that exists in both countries.
We have to remember that satyagraha and non-violence were major factors which led to Independence from British rule. It could have been in a less violent way, if more people subscribed to non-violent beliefs. And this was a much more difficult problem to dislodge the  British, with their sprawling empire, at the time – than the settlement now, between us two neighbours.
The road to Gandhi ji’s approach will require patience and persistence. At the time it was the recognition of his stature in India and abroad,  as an outstanding man of moral, innovative ideas and action, which made non-violent action possible. But the legacy is very much there for us both and we can use this effective tool today, to build peace and firm friendship between us.
A strong,united India and Pakistan can deal with terrorists and others stirred up by bellicose speeches from both sides by politicians and unthinking people. And this unity will enable us to deal on an equal footing with other nations and deter interference from countries who have their own agendas.
With no takers in our two countries for ‘killer hardware’, the money saved will be channelized for our economic benefit. ‘Garibi hatao’ will become a reality in this sub-continent.  And with better opportunities, better nourishment, the intellectual acumen latent in our people will flower,for the benefit of people in both our countries, and elsewhere in the world.