22 May 2019

Torture report reveals German authorities’ brutal methods during deportations

Marianne Arens 

In the first quarter of 2019, more than 5,600 people were deported from Germany. According to warnings from refugee workers, a collective deportation to Afghanistan could take place again next week. The brutal methods used by the police are evident in the recent report of the European Anti-Torture Committee.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) is a body of the Council of Europe composed of elected independent experts, including doctors and lawyers, but also police officers.
In a May 9 report, the committee presents the observations made by three of its staff members during a deportation flight from Munich to Afghanistan on August 14, 2018, involving 46 Afghans between the ages of 18 and 40, of whom 21 had previously been held in detention pending deportation. The charter flight from Munich to Kabul was guarded by more than 100 police officers, i.e., more than two per deported person.
The CPT team observed the arrival and flight preparation at Munich Airport, the boarding process, the six-hour flight and the handover of those affected in Kabul. The methods and processes witnessed are shocking.
The report says, “In the course of the return flight on 14 August 2018, coercive measures were applied by the Federal Police to two returnees who attempted to forcefully resist their return.” One of the two, who refused to sit on the plane, was particularly mistreated.
As the report describes in officialese, the individual became “agitated, started shouting and hitting out in all directions, and attempted to stand up. The two escorts seated on either side of him attempted to keep him seated by holding his arms; they were supported by a back-up team of four escorts, three of whom took up positions behind his seat. One of these escort officers put his arm around the returnee’s neck from behind and used his other hand to pull the returnee’s nose upwards thus enabling his colleague to insert a bite protection into the returnee’s mouth.”
Shortly thereafter, another policeman pulled “the returnee’s head down onto an adjacent seat and placing his knee on the returnee’s head in order to exert pressure and gain compliance while the returnee’s hands were tied behind his back with a Velcro strap. Another escort officer applied pressure with his thumb to the returnee’s temple. A second Velcro strap was applied below the returnee’s knees to tie his legs. A helmet was placed on the returnee’s head, additional Velcro straps were applied to his arms and legs … A sixth escort officer knelt on the returnee’s knees and upper legs, using his weight to keep the returnee seated. After some 15 minutes, this sixth escort officer gripped the returnee’s genitals with his left hand and repeatedly squeezed them for prolonged periods to gain the returnee’s compliance to calm down.”
Violence was also used against a second Afghan man. The report states he had “attempted to self-harm and commit suicide on the day of the return operation, by cutting the underside of the left forearm and by swallowing medication. He was treated at a local hospital,” whereupon he was handcuffed and dragged off to be deported.
During the transport to the airport, he is said to have “attempted to self-harm again, including by re-opening his wounds.” During the “full physical search” in the terminal he became seriously agitated. “Further, the wounds on his left forearm had re-opened, requiring the medical doctor to dress them.” On arrival in Kabul, he was “immobilised and carried out of the aircraft by a team of up to seven escort officers.”
As the report shows, deportations are being enforced using major force, coercive measures such as handcuffs, hand and foot restraints and “body cuffs.” These are people who are obviously already in a terrible mental condition.
The brutal way they are arrested undoubtedly contributes to their trauma. It is common practice for the police to violently drag people out of their beds at night, tear them out of their usual environment and deport them while they are completely unprepared.
The 25 Afghans, who had remained free until their deportation, did not learn about their impending repatriation until the day the police “individually apprehended [them] at their places of residence.”
The report says, “Usually, the pick-up occurred in the early morning and was carried out by one or more police patrols consisting of two police officers. Some returnees told the delegation that they were not given sufficient time to prepare for their removal while others were picked up during the night. For instance, several persons complained that they could not collect all their personal belongings and documents; another person could not inform his employer about his situation.”
One of those affected had already received notice of deportation five years earlier, in September 2013. Although his entire life situation had changed since then, he was detained without warning and deported. The report only makes a passing reference to this particularly scandalous case.
Before the flight, the anti-torture committee was also able to witness the preparation, pick-up and transport of six prisoners from the Eichstätt facility in Bavaria. Conditions in this facility, which has only recently been turned into a detention centre, appear to be worse than in prison. As reported, the men there did not even have one hour of outdoor exercise per day. All six Afghans were only informed of their imminent deportation just prior to their departure.
One of the six complained to the committee that he had not been given the opportunity to contact a lawyer throughout his detention, and he had been forbidden to make phone calls at all. Others said that they had no opportunity to inform relatives or others about their arrival in Afghanistan. The Delegation learned from several “returnees” that they had “not been able to access their bank account to collect their savings and had not been informed on how they could subsequently access these funds.”
The collection, transportation to Munich, the searches and the hours-long wait can only be described as torture. According to the report, “Upon their arrival at Munich Airport, all returnees were initially taken to a secured parking area, where they had to wait for up to several hours inside the transport vehicles,” some of them were permanently tied up. “Most detainees were not provided with food or water.” These were men who had been “apprehended in the early morning but had not received any food and water since.”
The medical examination is obviously a farce. Theoretically, a person who has a “life-threatening or serious illness” cannot be deported. Prior to deportation, a medical check-up is required to rule out signs of health problems or risks such as “acute injury, contagious disease or suicide risk.” As the present cases show, the state authorities simply ignore this.
While an acutely suicidal person was returned to the psychiatric hospital from which she should never have been taken, three more vulnerable people were forced onto the flight. All three were said to have “attempted suicide or threatened suicide in the days before or on the day of the deportation.”
Another man from the Büren detention centre in North Rhine-Westphalia was considered fit to travel, although he had a “compressed fracture of a lumbar vertebra as a result of a fall from a significant height, when he attempted to jump out of the window to escape police at the time of his apprehension.” His lumbar vertebra had been provisionally treated in a hospital and he survived the flight only by lying down and in great pain. While his medical record notes he would “need a further medical consultation in order to remove the stitches and, later on, the internal treatment,” it is doubtful whether this will be possible for him in Afghanistan.
Again, in principle, the authorities are obliged to allow a doctor on the spot check whether those being deported are fit to travel. However, the Commission’s findings suggest that there were no independent local physicians on hand and that the areas used for the medical examination were inadequately equipped.
The conditions are said to be “not conducive to establishing a proper patient-doctor relationship.” The police assigned to the “returnees” (up to three officers per person!) were present throughout the medical examinations, and the doctors were employees of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). The medical examination took place “in two areas within the departure hall, which were visually separated from the view of other persons by temporary partition panels.” The areas were “inadequately equipped: they contained no examination bed or wash basin and only had a chair and a high desk.”
It is clear from the report that the deportation practice of the BAMF and the German government is in direct contradiction to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines. In particular, “UNHCR considers that, given the current security, human rights and humanitarian situation, the possibility for persecuted groups of persons to move to another safe region within Afghanistan (i.e., an internal flight alternative) is generally not available in Kabul.”
However, the anti-torture experts are not concerned with condemning the deportations themselves. As they write, the main purpose of their visit was “to examine the treatment of foreign nationals during a removal operation by air.” Their report is sympathetic and full of understanding for the “difficult” situation of the German government and the authorities and police. It is extremely reserved and written in an almost servile tone.
The report’s authors emphasize several times that the cooperation of the Federal Police and the German authorities was “excellent” and that the police had treated the returnee “professionally and respectfully.” Improvements are urged only in very gentle, weak expressions, “In a more general perspective, it would be desirable...,” etc.
Nowhere does this Anti-Torture Commission use the term “torture” to refer to processes such as impairing breathing or squeezing the genitals. Nevertheless, the report fills every reader with horror.
The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) rejects this shameful treatment of refugees with disgust. It concerns people who have come to Germany because they are seeking protection from war and persecution, the products, above all, of Great Power intervention. The methods used today against refugees and immigrants will be used tomorrow against all workers.
The SGP demands the end to deportations and the closure of all deportation and detention centres. In its manifesto for the European elections—“Against nationalism and war! For socialism!”—the SGP explains, “We defend the right to asylum and the right of all workers to live and work in the country of their choice. The working class cannot allow itself to be divided. To defend their own rights, workers must show solidarity with refugees and carry out a common struggle against exploitation and war.”

Pentagon threatens Europe over EU army plans

Alex Lantier 

On May 1, the US Department of Defense sent a letter to the European Union warning that plans for an independent EU army could lead to a collapse in the NATO alliance between the United States and the EU powers. The letter, sent by the US undersecretaries for defense Ellen Lord and Andrea Thompson to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, was leaked to the Spanish daily El Pais.
El Pais reported on it on May 13, as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived uninvited at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels to demand EU support for US war moves against Iran.
“The United States is deeply concerned by the approval of rules for the European Defense Fund and the general conditions of PESCO,” the letter states, referring to the EU army’s technical name, the Permanent Structured Cooperation. The EU army, the letter added, is leading to “a dramatic step back in three decades of growing integration of the trans-Atlantic defense industry.” It warned of the danger of “unnecessary competition between NATO and the EU.”
The “very harsh” letter, El Pais reported, “is full of more or less veiled threats of possible political or commercial retaliation if Brussels maintains its intentions to develop European weapons projects without consulting with outside countries, like the United States.”
The Pentagon letter objects to provisions in the European Defense Fund mandating that European firms control the technology employed in European weapons systems, and threatens to take similar measures to exclude European firms from Pentagon weapons contracts. It states, “It is clear that similar reciprocally imposed US restrictions would not be welcomed by our European partners and allies, and we would not relish having to consider them in the future.”
Referring to the conflicts that erupted when European powers led by Berlin and Paris opposed the illegal 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the letter states that the current EU plans “could not only hurt the constructive relationship between NATO and the EU, but could also potentially revive the tense discussions that dominated our contacts 15 years ago on European defense initiatives.”
The seriousness with which threats of a breakdown of the US-European alliance are taken in ruling circles in Europe was reflected in the publication this week of a study by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank in London. The report, titled “Defending Europe: scenario-based capability requirements for NATO’s European members,” estimated the costs to Europe to rebuild NATO’s military capacity if the United States abandoned the alliance. The document called for a massive $110 billion naval build-up and $357 billion to prepare for war with Russia.
The publication of these documents point to the advanced state of collapse of alliances and arrangements that have governed the international relations of world capitalism for decades. It puts paid to the European imperialist powers’ attempts to present their plans for a major escalation of their military spending and operations as a supplement intended to aid NATO. The Pentagon views these plans as a threat to develop the EU as a rival to the US-led NATO alliance, founded in 1949 after two world wars between the United States and Germany.
The strategic aims underlying the deployment of US warships and troops for war with Iran, which Washington is justifying with unsubstantiated and non-credible allegations of an Iranian military threat to the United States, go well beyond that oil-rich region. Washington in engaged in a ferocious military campaign not only to defend its fading military hegemony in the Middle East and Eurasia. One of its main aims is to stamp out the danger of a potential challenge from its great power rivals, including its nominal European allies.
The massive military build-up underway in Europe, as the EU powers pour billions of euros into their militaries and wage bloody wars of plunder such as the Franco-German occupation of Mali, underscore the class nature of these conflicts. They are bitter struggles between rival imperialist powers over the spoils to be obtained from the world economy, amid growing working class opposition to war and the austerity measures used to finance the military build-ups.
Washington viewed the temporary alliance between Berlin, Paris and Moscow at the UN in opposition to the illegal 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as a serious threat. Now that Brexit has deprived London of its ability to veto plans for an EU army on Washington’s behalf, these conflicts have vastly escalated. Under cover of an agreement of all the NATO powers to boost military spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product, strategic and commercial rivalries continue to rise between Washington and the EU powers.
On May 13, US Senators Ted Cruz and Jeanne Shaheen introduced bipartisan legislation to sanction European and Russian firms working on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline linking Russia and Germany. Using against Europe methods Washington previously used to target Iran and Russia, the bill would ban travel and financial transactions involving employees and physical assets of firms building the pipeline, which Trump denounced last year. Firms targeted could include Germany’s BASF, British-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, and France’s ENGIE.
Tensions are growing as well over EU relations with China, after Italy formally signed in March a memorandum of understanding endorsing Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a vast Eurasian infrastructure plan, over US objections. Since then, Washington has threatened Germany and Britain with a suspension of intelligence cooperation for allowing the Chinese firm Huawei to participate in building their telecommunications network.
Bitter conflict has above all been provoked by the US campaign against Iran since the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear treaty and reimposed US sanctions, which cut across multi-billion-dollar deals signed in Iran by European oil and industrial firms.
Last week, after visiting Britain to demand London’s support for Washington against Iran, Pompeo abruptly cancelled a visit to Berlin, citing “pressing issues,” and flying to Baghdad instead. There, he promoted US oil deals and demanded that the Iraqi puppet state set up after the 2003 war protect US interests from alleged Iranian threats. Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote on Pompeo’s snub to Berlin that “much of that which for a long time was lauded as the German-American friendship now lies in pieces.”
Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron complained of the US torpedoing of the Iranian nuclear deal. At an EU summit last week in Romania, Macron said, “Firstly, Iran did not withdraw from this deal. Secondly, if Iran withdraws from this deal, it will be the responsibility of the United States.”
And yesterday, Spain withdrew its frigate Méndez Núñez from the US-led naval battle group anchored by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, which is sailing to the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran. Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles blandly stated: “If the North American government intends for the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to go to a certain zone for a certain mission that it never agreed with Spain, we are provisionally leaving the battle group.”
Despite taking a move indicating real fears that the naval battle group will launch military action against Iran, Madrid sought to downplay the decision and mask its significance to the public. Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said there had been “no formal complaint” from Madrid to Washington over this event, adding, “It is not something to get too worked up about.”

Japan’s North Korea Reset

Sandip Kumar Mishra

On 3 May 2019, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced his readiness to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un 'without conditions' to 'end the long-running mistrust between their countries’, as reported by Japanese media. On 6 May 2019, he conveyed a similar message to the US during his telephonic conversation with President Donald Trump. This is an important reset in Japan’s approach towards North Korea, which earlier displayed an inflexible, hard-line policy. It seems that Abe is interested in making a course correction in his North Korea policy, which is a welcome sign for regional peace and stability.
Earlier, Abe linked any progress related to North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens and the country's denuclearisation with the possibility of summit meets with Kim, while arguing for a tough policy towards it. This approach led to Japan's isolation in the several developments that have taken place in East Asia over the past roughly two years. Since early 2018, three summit meetings have been held between North and South Korea, two between North Korea and the US, three between North Korea and China, four meets between South Korea and the US, and even one summit meet between Russia and North Korea. More meetings between the US-South Korea, North Korea-South Korea, and the US-North Korea are expected. These developments in regional politics indicate Japan's growing irrelevance in the process, which undoubtedly contributed to Japan's discomfort and its recent reorientation of policy. Japan, for its part, had previously reached out to the US and expressed willingness to be part of the evolving scenario with regard to North Korea, but its singular insistence on the abduction issue made it impossible for the US to bring it on board.
Abe had no option but to review and revise his approach amidst this growing isolation. The change was first visible when, in the United Nations General Assembly in September 2018, Abe spoke about being "ready to break the shell of mutual distrust with North Korea" and "meet face to face with Chairman Kim Jong-un." He made several gestures to convey to North Korea Japan's readiness to deal with it directly. Even though Japan extended sanctions against North Korea for another two years on 9 April 2019, the changed Japanese posture was underlined again in the Japanese Diplomatic Blue Book released on 23 April 2019. The document removed references to applying"‘maximum pressure" on North Korea, which has been a constant feature for almost a decade. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that it has been done because of "significant developments" that have taken place on with regard to the North Korean nuclear issue, such as the two summits between the US and North Korea. It is also important to keep in mind that in March 2019, in another significant step, Japan did not propose a resolution condemning North Korea at the United Nations Human Rights Council, which it has been doing continuously since 2007.
Thus, it may be concluded that over the past few months, Shinzo Abe has moving towards demonstrating a more pragmatic and conciliatory posture vis-à-vis North Korea. However, Japan must be prepared to sustain this new attempt at engagement for a considerable period of time to harness results, as in the short-run, there could be dissatisfactory responses from North Korea. For example, North has tested short-range missiles on 4 May and 9 May 2019, after a long period of moratorium. Despite this, the US and South Korea have been cautious in their reactions in the understanding that  the process of denuclearisation and engagement with North Korea will not be linear. This is a fact Japan also must acknowledge.  
There are a few acknowledgements, in fact, that would be useful to keep in mind. First, patience and consistency in approach by keeping an eye on the bigger picture will certainly help Japan. Second, Japan is expected to bring on board more positive agenda items as well as instil trust in the process to help carve a security contributor role for Tokyo, for which it already has the capacity and resources required. Third, Japan has to reset its relations with other countries in the region and otherwise, such as China, Russia, and South Korea. To evolve a long-term constructive approach towards North Korea, more frequent and in-depth coordination with these countries is important.
Finally, although it is premature to conclude how serious Japan is about the changes to its North Korea policy, and whether it is in fact ready to make the necessary re-adjustments to its regional policy approach, these recent developments are still a positive development that must be highlighted, and appreciated.  

Prosecuting the Islamic State: The Case for a Hybrid Tribunal

Bashir Ali Abbas


Following the defeat of the so-called Islamic State (IS) at Baghuz, Syria, thousands of IS fighters are now in custody, leading to an international debate on whether they should face local or international prosecution. The IS has been accused of torture, slavery, rape, attacks on people, hors de combat and, inter alia, the use of human shields, all of which constitute war crimes and ‘crimes against humanity’. With both international and domestic trials facing multiple impediments, prosecution of the captured jihadists in a ‘hybrid’ tribunal appears as a feasible recourse.

International or Local Trials?The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—in de facto control of North Eastern Syria—have cited the lack of required legal infrastructure and resources to prosecute captive IS fighters and have called for an international tribunal, the urgency of which is fueled by the Turkish threat to the SDFFrench efforts to prosecute IS fighters in Iraqi courts notwithstanding, European countries in general have refused to let jihadists of European origin return to their home countries—contrary to what the US has been advocating for—thus closing the door to trials in their courts. While Sweden has called for an international tribunal, Syria itself has rejected any international judicial mechanism that “conflicts” with their national judiciary’s powers.

Non-Viability of International TrialsTraditionally, such disputes are referred to supranational courts. However, in this case, this avenue faces roadblocks. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to try war crimes and the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction depends on either states being parties to the Rome Statute (which Syria and Iraq are not) or the UN Security Council (UNSC) referring the case to the Court (which was blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes). Additionally, international courts are criticised for being removed from the cultural and legal expectations of the region in which the crimes were committed and because they impede victims from being able to participate in and observe the trials.

This has been a fundamental criticism of specially established tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). For transitional justice to be effective, the region’s cultures and practices have to be retained and reflected in any trial. However, due to international involvement in the fight against IS and affiliated jihadists, international supervision of their prosecution, is necessary.

Non-Viability of Domestic TrialsProsecution in domestic courts too faces immense challenges. The prospect of trying the IS in Iraq for crimes committed in Syria is hindered by Iraqi law which prohibits prosecution for extraterritorial crimes without the Minister of Justice’s consent. Even for crimes committed in Iraq, the trials have been closely observed and heavily criticised by Humans Rights Watch for applying “deeply flawed” laws, using torture to incite confessions and deaths in custody. The insistence on capital punishment has also fettered European support for Iraqi trials. The 2017 Iraqi assurance to try jihadists for crimes against Yazidis, under a Judicial Investigation Board, also remains largely unfulfilled. Trials in Northeastern Syria, in makeshift courts established by the SDF, have neither any defence lawyers nor any mechanism to appeal against a decision, and the courts themselves lack international recognition. Furthermore, with a political solution being sought in Syria, any purely local judicial process runs the risk of being politically influenced.

Prospects for a Hybrid TribunalThis raises the prospects for a hybrid tribunal—a court which reconciles municipal and international law and resembles an international court set up within the domestic judicial apparatus. In this instance, the area of the commission of crimes calls for a domestic trial, but the foreign origin of many of the accused—approximated at 49 different nationalities—and the commission of grave breaches of international law call for an international trial. A potential hybrid court for Syria and Iraq could follow a number of established precedents set by the erstwhile tribunals of Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor. The Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) statute covered grave breaches of established principles of international law and included crimes under the Iraqi Criminal Code. Drafted together by Iraqi lawyers and coalition jurists for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, it ensured prosecution for “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes” while retaining the region’s laws. The IHT also prosecuted for extraterritorial crimes, circumventing the obstacle posed by purely domestic law. In Kosovo, domestic law was reformed to accord with ‘international standards’ and the Sierra Leone Special Court ensured a mix of domestic and international judges in both the trials and appellate chambers, similar to the East Timorese setup. Such mixed benches—if well balanced—better shield judges from political influence, compared to purely domestic or international setups. It also counters the criticism faced by the hybrid Cambodia Tribunal where judges were “perceived as serving the interests of political parties” as there were more local judges on the bench.

Fundamentally, such a proposal would have a better chance of breaking the UNSC veto deadlock than any other, as it would complement the domestic judicial system rather than “conflict” with it, while prosecuting IS fighters, which too ensures that Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty is respected and upheld. Due to the crux of the dispute having always remained in Syria and Iraq, the regional location of such a tribunal would not only ensure that victims are able to participate in and observe the proceedings but would also reduce logistical obstacles. Hybrid courts also enable reduced operational costs than international courts. For instance, the operational cost of the Sierra Leone Court was much lower than those of the ICTY and ICTR. With the pressing need to divert resources towards reconstruction efforts in the region, this tips the scale largely in favour of a hybrid court.

Thus, with the region gradually moving from a state of conflict to post-conflict, and with the need for efficient transitional justice, the establishment of a hybrid court is an option that must be explored as it faces lesser hindrances compared to other mechanisms and suits the situation optimally.

Pulwama, Balakot, and the Future: How the Chips Stack Up

Manpreet Sethi

For the time being, the India-Pakistan crisis triggered by the terrorist strike against the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) convoy in February in Pulwama appears to have stabilised. However, India must have no delusions that such acts of terrorism will not recur. Pakistan has long believed that terrorism is too low cost a tool to keep India unsettled. Therefore, the only way India can hope to change Pakistan's propensity to use the abundantly available and cheaply trained terrorists is by raising the costs across all spectrum – economic, diplomatic, political, and military, especially to the Pakistan armed forces and intelligence establishment.
Raising costs cannot be a one-action exercise. It has to traverse a number of steps across a range of realms in a sustained manner over time to have an impact. The Indian air strikes at Balakot, as also the surgical action across the border in 2016 in response to the terrorist strike in Uri, managed to impose costs on Pakistan's military in terms of loss of face. In both cases, the armed forces were not able to ‘save’ their country from border incursions that targeted terrorist training or launch camps. In both instances, the armed forces were left red-faced and it was a chip off their credibility.
At the same time, India’s ability to undertake precision strikes enabled by accurate intelligence was a demonstration of its capability and resolve to not let acts of provocation go unpunished. The exposure of Pakistan’s support for terrorism also imposed a significant diplomatic cost on the country since no major country except China opted to stand up for it. On the other hand, Indian air action across the border, though unprecedented and fraught with the risk of escalation, was nevertheless seen as justified by most political leaders across world capitals.
The ensuing period of crisis since the short exchange of air strikes by both sides has also imposed a heavy economic burden on Pakistan. Not only are the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) provisions ever more stringently being demanded, the sources of financial and military aid, which were once plentiful from the US, have also dried up. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan comes with many strings, and the apparently easy loans from China are a cause for concern for right thinking Pakistanis. Meanwhile, the instability generated by military actions has also vitiated the domestic Pakistani environment for investments, even as the prolonged closure of air space has had its own repercussions.
The costs of the strategy of supporting terrorist organisations can also be felt in the security situation within the country. The jihadi blow-back on Pakistani society has been well-recognised, including by the country's military officials. It may be recalled that former Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) Gen Kayani had even called terrorism the biggest threat facing the country. An unstable security situation caused by the frequent terrorist strikes against their own targets in Pakistan has caused religious, social, and economic wounds that fester, much like what Pakistan hoped to do by its thousand cuts strategy against India.
So, what may have once seemed like a low cost strategy may not be so any longer if the country critically examines its current situation. It can only be hoped that at least a few people with influence in the military and civilian administration can force the country to look in the mirror and see it for what has come to pass. The Pakistani passport is viewed with suspicion across the world, its citizens are denied access to opportunities of education and jobs abroad, the economy is faring well below its potential, and the socio-economic indicators are dismal. However, these are issues for Pakistan to think about and remedy, if it so desires.
Meanwhile, how should India prepare itself for possible future acts of terrorism from across the border? Firstly, India must accelerate the process of equipping itself with the right military instruments that can enable calibrated use of force when the situation so demands. Besides conventional modernisation, special emphasis will need to be placed on the special forces and air power to mount operations that are capable of quick escalation and de-escalation. Secondly, a very high level of importance needs to be placed on intelligence gathering that utlises all possible instruments and assets in space or on the ground. Only this can enable the right choice of targets for precise action with zero collateral damage. International and national legitimacy for actions will rely on this heavily. 

Thirdly, India will have to continue to impose opportunity-based costs on Pakistan and especially its military in order to keep chipping away at its credibility in the eyes of its people. Pressure at the LoC will have to be maintained to make Pakistan's military suffer losses of men and material since these are far more difficult to replace than terrorists. Lastly, it is critical to forge and show political consensus on policy towards Pakistan. A united front would significantly strengthen the force of all actions. Every effort must be made by the government and the opposition parties to do or say nothing that weakens the cause of imposing costs on Pakistan, especially not in moments of crisis.

15 May 2019

FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship 2019/2020 for International Postgraduate Students

Application Deadline: 30th June 2019 at 5:59 PM ET

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (University): Any university accredited by the national or international body approved for that purpose in the country where the university is situated.

About the Award: FINCAD established the annual FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship to encourage and support outstanding women in the field of finance, particularly relating to the use of derivatives in capital markets and/or financial risk management, and give them an opportunity to cultivate their skills and knowledge.

Type: Masters/PhD Degree

Eligibility: 
  • The scholarship is open to women of any age and citizenship who are studying Finance in an accredited graduate-level program.
  • The scholarship will be awarded to a deserving applicant who is enrolled in a post-graduate program with an emphasis on finance, particularly relating to the use of derivatives in capital markets and/or financial risk management. If your field of study does not meet that description, DO NOT APPLY.
  • Applications and all supporting documents, except university transcripts must be in English.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Programme: The FINCAD Women in Finance Scholarship is an award of US$20,000 to support graduate-level studies.

How to Apply: It is important to go through the application procedure and visit the Programme Webpage (link below) before applying for this scholarship.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Zayed Future Energy Prize of US$3 million for Entrepreneurs 2019

Application Deadline: 30th May 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries in The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia

To be taken at (country): United Arab Emirates

Categories of the Prize: The Zayed Future Energy Prize awards 5 categories:
  • Health
  • Food
  • Energy
  • Water
  • Global High Schools (1 award for each of the below regions)
    • The Americas, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia
About the Award: The Prize fund comes from the Abu Dhabi Government as a way to honour and continue the legacy of the late founding father of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s renewable energy company, manages the Zayed Future Energy Prize. A dedicated team works on the Prize all year round.
This annual award celebrates achievements that reflect impact, innovation, long-term vision and leadership in renewable energy and sustainability. You are invited to be a part of this vision and commitment to finding solutions that will meet the challenges of climate change, energy security and the environment.

Offered Since: 2008

Eligibility: The Zayed Future Energy Prize is open to all entrants other than:  (a) board members and employees of Masdar; and  (b) anyone who has been involved in organising, promoting or judging the Prize.

Selection Criteria: The Prize criteria for all categories are: Innovation, Impact, Leadership and Long-Term Vision.

Number of Awardees: several

Value of Awards: The total Prize fund is US $3 million, distributed as such:
  • Health  – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
  • Food      – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
  • Energy  – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
  • Water   – US$ 600,000 (Six hundred thousand dollars)
  • Global High Schools   – US$ 600,000 – Total value (Six hundred thousand dollars)
    • Divided amongst 6 Global High Schools in 6 different regions, awarding each up to US$100,000 (One hundred thousand dollars)
    • The Americas
    • Europe & Central Asia
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
    • East Asia & Pacific
    • South Asia
    • MENA
How to Apply: 
Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Abu Dhabi Government


Important Notes: The submission should be sufficiently detailed and clear to enable the judges to analyse properly and to form a view on all elements of the submission and the nominee.

Would you like to become one of the next Faces2Hearts vloggers?

Application Deadline: 27 May, 2019.

Successful applications require the following:
- 1 minute video produced by you. You must speak while facing the camera (even if only briefly for all our shy travelers)
-  Short description of why do you believe in the power of storytelling
Whatever it is, we want to see your storytelling skills in action!

Faces2hearts is a vlogging project powered by the European Union, which takes young people to some of the most remote places on earth to report on EU development projects that are changing people’s lives for the better.
In 2018, the first Faces2hearts experience took four young bloggers on a 5-month journey across 29 countries in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. The second edition starts in 2019 and will take 20 vloggers to Argentina, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Jamaica, Myanmar, Namibia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Sierra Leone and The Gambia.
Faces2Hearts is organised by the European Commission Department for International Cooperation and Development. Its main mission is to help end poverty and to create a safer, fairer and more prosperous world for all.

APPLY NOW

Neurotoxic Organophosphate Chemicals in Your Mobile, Tablet, Laptop, Sofa, and Even Bed!

Georgina Downs

Some people may have never heard the word ‘organophosphates’ to know what they are and what they do. Others may have only heard of organophosphates in relation to nerve agent chemical attacks – such as the one in Tokyo in 1995 where sarin was released on three lines of the Tokyo subway during rush hour, killing 12 people, severely injuring 50 (some of whom later died), and causing vision problems for nearly 1,000 others.
All those who have suffered the adverse effects of organophosphates (OPs) from sheep dipping, agricultural pesticide spraying, contaminated air on planes, among other sources, will of course know only too well the health damage and devastation these chemicals cause.
Organophosphate chemicals are in fact among some of the most toxic in the world.
Indeed a brief glimpse into the history of organophosphates shows the true and deliberate toxic purpose of these chemicals. In 1937 the first OP compounds were synthesized by a group of German chemists. These very potent compounds were originally developed as ‘nerve gas’ chemical warfare agents for potential use during World War II.
After the war, in search of new outlets, these highly toxic compounds were then remanufactured as agricultural insecticides, and organophosphate pesticides continue to be used in many countries around the world.
“Deadly Poison”
OPs are cholinesterase inhibitors. They are highly toxic by all routes of exposure. Symptoms of OP poisoning include headaches, blurred vision, giddiness, pain, weakness, numbness, damage to memory, slurred speech, chest tightness, loss of coordination, uncontrolled urination, seizures, coma, and death due to respiratory failure and/or cardiac arrest.
Repeated or prolonged exposure to OPs may result in the same effects as acute exposure.
A Working Party in 1951 – that had been set up by the then UK Government – recommended that the container labels of organophosphate pesticides should be required to show the words “Deadly Poison” in large, clear type, along with a concise statement of the dangers and precautions to be taken, and antidotes where known.
There is no doubt that some OPs when mixed together can result in increased toxicity and synergistic effects. For example, the synergistic effects of mixtures of anticholinesterase pesticides have been described in the medical literature for over 50 years.
I have spent a number of decades researching the organophosphate group of chemicals, along with many other neurotoxic agricultural pesticides that have been permitted for over three quarters of a century – under successive UK Government sanction – to be sprayed on crop fields all over the UK, and with no protection at all for rural residents and communities.
Organophosphates contained in everyday products
However, there are even less well known uses of organophosphates, such as the widespread use of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in everyday products and devices, which    is – as with agricultural pesticide use – yet another astonishing public health scandal.
OPFRs have been increasingly used over the last few decades in countless products including electronic equipment such as laptops, tablets, mobile phones, TV’s, washing machines – indeed it is hard to think of any electronic equipment that doesn’t contain these highly toxic chemicals. Even many electrical cables also contain them!
They are also found in furnishings such as sofas and mattresses, carpets, curtains, building insulations, amongst many other consumer and domestic products. In fact the full list of items that these chemicals are contained in may never really be known such is the secrecy and lack of publicly available information surrounding their use in such everyday products.
It is not only that exposure to individual organophosphate flame retardants in products poses a health risk, but the fact that people will inevitably be exposed to cocktails of OPFRs, as well as other harmful chemicals, contained in such consumer products, in their air and surrounding environment (particularly if also living in the locality of pesticide sprayed crops)
Devices such as mobile phones and tablets are now part and parcel of everyday life for many, particularly the young who are more vulnerable to such exposures because their bodies cannot efficiently detoxify chemicals, as their organs are still growing and developing. Also when children are exposed at such a young age to such chemicals they will obviously have a longer lifetime to develop long-term effects after any exposure.
Blissfully unaware
The majority of the population will no doubt be blissfully unaware of the presence of such toxic OP chemicals in their everyday domestic products and devices. I know I most certainly was until the events of August 2009 which is when I first found out about it to my great cost.
In August 2009 I was exposed via various routes (in particular eyes, inhalation, dermal) to an organophosphate flame retardant – triaryl phosphate ester, containing triisopropylated phenyl phosphate and triphenyl phosphate – that volatilised from a faulty (and severely overheating) laptop. It was deemed a relatively high level exposure considering that an OP breakdown product was still found in my body fat almost 3 months later in blood and fat tests that were taken at a medical and scientific laboratory at the end of October 2009.
The extensive and subsequently confirmed impacts on my eyes as a result of the exposure causing pain in the eyes, light sensitivity, acute problems with glare, dry eyes, significant disturbances in the field of vision (which is like looking through debris with how many black lines etc. there are), have been permanent ever since. Also, at the time and for a few weeks after the exposure I also had pinpoint pupils (which is a common feature of OP poisoning).
When I was trying to find out at the time what had happened to my eyes I asked the laptop manufacturer (Dell) to send me the material data sheet for the organophosphate flame retardant involved. I was met with the usual “commercial confidentiality” line but persevered to try and access this vital information.
Toxic to eyes, central nervous system, liver, kidney and linked to cancer!
When I eventually obtained it – after 8 weeks or so of dogged persistence on my part – I was truly shocked to see the clear warnings that the target organ for the OP flame retardant was the eyes, in addition to the central nervous system. Further, that it is a liver and kidney toxin and there is even a line at the bottom of the data sheet relating to cancer also! In addition the data sheet clearly includes “heat” in the “conditions to avoid”. Yet laptops are products that – even when they are not faulty – will notoriously get hot and overheat in many cases.
There is no doubt that most people will not be aware that such eye toxic organophosphorus chemicals are used in electronic products that are specifically designed to be used only inches away from someone’s eyes!  Yet, as said, many electronic products and devices manufactured over the last few decades now contain organophosphate flame retardants.
If someone like me who has spent a number of decades researching the organophosphate group of chemicals – and who only weeks before the incident had written a document detailing the extensive evidence of the damage OP pesticides can cause to human health – had no idea they were present in laptops and other electronic equipment until after my eyes had been affected and I started to investigate exactly what had happened to them, then it is highly unlikely that members of the public in general will know about this issue.
Pre-existing adverse health impacts from agricultural pesticides, including OPs
I have already had over 34 years of exposure to the innumerable cocktails of agricultural pesticides sprayed in the locality of my home and garden and that included organophosphates. Previous blood and fat sample results in 2004 had found a number of different agricultural pesticide groups in my body including organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, organochlorines, amongst others. Such pesticide groups individually are known to be neurotoxic and capable of damaging the central nervous system, as well as other systems within the body, even before considering the enhanced toxicity and synergistic effects of such mixtures of these synthetic chemicals.
Following the blood and fat results in 2004, my chronic neurological symptoms of many years (including headaches, dizziness, giddiness, as well as periods of high speed rotational vertigo with a complete loss of all balance and co-ordination, tinnitus, memory and concentration problems, numbness and tingling, amongst various other symptoms) were confirmed by experts as being neurological damage and injury as a result of exposure to all the neurotoxic pesticides sprayed for decades in my locality.
Previous scans also confirmed that I have osteoporosis with a high risk of fracture. There have been a number of studies that have found that pesticides – in particular organophosphates – can cause impacts on bones leading to osteoporosis. (Eg. see one such study published in 1999 in the Lancet, “Reduced bone formationafter exposure to organophosphates,”  by JE Compston, S Vedi, AB Stephen, S Bord, AR Lyons, SJ Hodges, BE Scammell).
However, the one area in which I had not had any long term impacts from agricultural pesticides was the eyes, as I had only ever had acute short-term effects on the eyes following crop spraying exposures such as burning and bloodshot eyes. Therefore to have suffered long term impacts on my eyes from exposure to OPs from a different source – and when I didn’t even know anything about OP flame retardants until after the impacts – was extremely difficult and distressing, especially as the effects on my eyes has also drastically changed my appearance over the last 10 years as a result of having to wear dark glasses due to the light sensitivity and acute problems with glare, particularly in relation to UV light.
UK Environmental Audit Committee inquiry
I have not previously spoken publicly about what happened to my eyes, but decided to at this time after seeing an inquiry being undertaken by the Environmental Audit Committee called Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life”, and which has a specific focus on flame retardants.
This has given me the opportunity to be able to say something on this subject now in order to highlight the risks of the presence of organophosphate flame retardants in countless everyday domestic products including electronic equipment, furnishings, among other items
As said, the fact that toxic chemicals known to be harmful to the eyes are put in products that are specifically designed to be used right next to someone’s eyes is just outrageous.
Further, OPFRs are often odourless which takes away the clear warning mechanism, as when a strong chemical odour is detected it raises awareness of a likely chemical release, but in the total absence of it someone may not realise the symptoms being suffered are as a result of exposure to a such a chemical, as was the situation in my own specific case.
Obviously the fundamental point is that these highly toxic chemicals should not be present in such products in the first place, irrespective as to whether there is odour or not!
Virtually zero traceability
One article on organophosphate flame retardants points out that more needs to be disclosed about where and in what quantities such flame retardants are being used. It goes on to state that manufacturers don’t make that information publicly available and that they may not even know themselves as they buy things to meet certain flammability standards not necessarily knowing what chemicals are used to meet those standards.
I can vouch that this is absolutely the case here in the UK also and is often compounded by the fact that manufacturers of computers, washing machines, and other electronic equipment can often use parts produced by other companies within such products. This means there is virtually zero traceability for knowing what chemicals are contained in those parts if the manufacturers of a particular product don’t even know!
For example, when I was previously researching about certain electronic equipment and what chemicals were involved in the manufacture of them, I was often told by manufacturers that they would not know when it came to the specific parts that were included within the product as they came from other manufacturers and were then just inserted in. The lack of traceability of all the chemicals contained in products is thus truly shocking!
Following the impacts on my eyes from exposure to the OP flame retardantin August 2009, my eyes would be affected and made worse by any subsequent OPFR exposure. I was therefore conscious to try and ensure that I did not purchase products containing OPFRs.
False claims that products are ‘chemical free’
However, this is easier said than done as firstly so much electronic equipment does contain OPFRs and secondly because manufacturers can deny using these chemicals and can claim they are chemical free even when they are not. For example,I remember when I was trying to find a washing machine that did not contain OP flame retardants. One manufacturer repeatedly insisted that not only did it not contain OPFRs but that it didn’t contain any flame retardants at all! Although I was dubious at such a claim, considering the amount of times they insisted this was the case and also considering – at the time – that I was new to my research in this area then I reluctantly accepted what they told me. I purchased said washing machine and on the first run through, and on a hot wash of 900as it advised to do (and which results in even further volatilisation of any impregnated chemicals), my eyes were so badly affected by it that I had to stay out of the room that the washing machine was in. My eyes continued to be made worse each time the washing machine was used and so I started to question the manufacturer again about whether it contained OP flame retardants as I strongly suspected it did considering the worsening of my eye symptoms when in use.
After attempting to fob me off multiple times by either denying OP flame retardants were present in the washing machine and/or not replying at all, I eventually after 5 or so months of persevering received correspondence confirming that the washing machine did indeed contain organophosphate flame retardants! It is wholly unacceptable that members of the public, especially those who already have a history of chemical exposure and related adverse health impacts, are not provided with the correct information on what chemicals are present in any given product prior to the purchase of such a product.
Full disclosure
There is a notable comparison to be made here. If this had been a peanut or other food allergy where something had been said to not contain something that greatly affected the consumer and then it turned out that it did, there would be some sort of action taken to enforce food retailers to inform customers of the contents of any food produce before purchase, (or at least that was the intention of something that was going through the UK Parliament recently following the high profile deaths of a number of allergy sufferers).
Obviously we are talking here about exposure to neurotoxic chemicals and yet manufacturers of electronic equipment are not only misinforming customers about what such products contain as my experiences show, but when adverse effects are reported it then takes many months to obtain the vital chemical information, if actually able to access it at all!
For example, the representative of the washing machine manufacturers also said – in the same letter that confirmed that the washing machine did indeed contain organophosphate flame retardants -that the company “cannot make a complete list of all chemicals available for you”nor provide me with any specific written documentation, “as you may appreciate the details which we hold are of commercial sensitivity and therefore the discussion would need to be held face to face as we would not agree to publish this information.”
As said earlier, the full list of chemicals contained in any one product, let alone all the products that such chemicals are contained in, may never really be known if the secrecy and lack of publicly available information continues. The business and industry mantra of “commercial confidentiality” or “commercial sensitivity” simply has no place when it comes to the use of such harmful chemicals in our everyday products and everyday life.
Action on flame retardants
There is a considerable body of scientific evidence to support action on the widespread and increasing use of, not only organophosphate flame retardants, but all synthetic chemical flame retardants, for the protection of human health and the environment.
The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) inquiry examining this issue has received evidence from others to show examples of non-chemical alternatives to chemical flame retardants.
Further, the presence of synthetic chemical flame retardants not only does not of course prevent fires from occurring, it can actually greatly increase the toxicity of such fires.
Here’s hoping the current EAC inquiry will lead to more awareness on flame retardants – and their increasing use in our everyday lives – as it is such a vitally important public health issue.
To see Georgina’s written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry see here
The first part of the submission is specifically on the widespread use of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in everyday products. The second part of the submission contains a short overview to update on the latest developments regarding the adverse health impacts of agricultural pesticides on rural residents and communities, the continued lack of action by the UK Government on this public health scandal and the measures that are needed to finally provide the high level of protection for rural citizens, including the crucial NC10 amendment.