22 Jan 2020

Mass protests escalate in Iraq and Lebanon

Bill Van Auken

Iraq and Lebanon have been rocked once again by mass protests and violent repression under conditions in which discredited caretaker governments in both countries have failed to meet any of the social and political demands made by hundreds of thousands who have taken to the streets.
The resurgence of the street demonstrations, which broke out in both countries last October, followed a lull in the wake of the US drone missile assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani on January 3 at Baghdad’s international airport and the mass outpouring throughout the region against the American war crime.
An injured protester receives first aid during clashes between security forces and anti-government protesters in central Baghdad, Iraq on Monday (AP Photo - Khalid Mohammed)
At least five demonstrators were reported killed in the course of protests that swept Baghdad and other cities on Monday as security forces fired live rounds into the crowds. In Baghdad, three people died from wounds suffered in the protests, two from gunshots and a third who had been felled by a tear gas canister fired directly at his head. A fourth demonstrator was shot to death by police in the central Iraqi city of Karbala, southwest of Baghdad, and a fifth was killed in the northeastern city of Baqubah.
Two policemen were also reported killed in the southern city of Basra, the center of the country’s oil industry, when a panicked motorist trying to flee the scene of a violent confrontation drove his car into them.
The brutal repression of the Iraqi demonstrations has seen more than 500 killed since October 1 and another 25,000 wounded.
Beginning on Sunday and continuing into Monday, protesters sought to block the main highways and bridges in Baghdad and the south of the country with barricades and burning tires.
“We blocked the road to demand our rights... the rights of young people to get a job,” one of the protesters in the Iraqi capital told Al Jazeera.
Another protester denounced the violent repression, telling the news agency, “For months no one listened to our demands. They are killing us. It’s just bloodshed.”
The government, headed by Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, who resigned two months ago but has stayed on as a caretaker with the Iraqi parliament still unable to choose a successor, has taken a hard line against the renewed protests, describing those blocking highways as “outlaws.” The spokesman for the commander of the Iraqi armed forces, Adel Karim Khalaf, said that security forces had “absolute authority” to repress such protests.
Iraq’s mass demonstrations grew out of earlier scattered actions by university graduates protesting the lack of jobs under conditions of a more than 25 percent unemployment rate for younger workers. Repression of the initial protests led to their mushrooming into a generalized uprising against the conditions of poverty, the failure of essential social services and the endemic corruption in the sectarian-based regime created by the American military occupation that began with the criminal US invasion of 2003.
Popular anger has been driven by the glaring social inequality in a country that boasts the third largest oil exports in the world, bringing in over $1 trillion in revenue since 2005. These vast resources have flowed into the coffers of foreign corporations and banks, along with Baghdad’s politically connected oligarchy, while seven million of Iraq’s 38 million people live below the poverty line, and 53 percent are vulnerable to food insecurity.
Similar social and political contradictions have motivated the mass protests in Lebanon, which also resurged over the weekend, with at least 540 people wounded in violent clashes between demonstrators and security forces in Beirut over the weekend.
While the media focused on an alleged shift toward violence by protesters, the Lebanese government turned Beirut into an armed camp, ringing the parliament building with razor wire and deploying heavily armed elite US-trained special operations troops, including some carrying rocket launchers. There were reports of snipers deployed on rooftops and government thugs throwing rocks from nearby buildings into the crowds below. Security forces fired rubber bullets and tear gas canisters directly at the demonstrators. Police went so far as pursuing people and attacking them inside hospitals and mosques.
The weekend’s protests came in response to a call for a “week of rage” over the government’s failure to meet any of the demonstrators’ demands or to create an acceptable replacement to the regime headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a political stooge of Saudi Arabia, who resigned last year in the face of mass opposition.
Driving the protests are the country’s deteriorating economic and social conditions, as Lebanon faces its worst crisis since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war.
The Lebanese protests have been accompanied by attacks on some 300 banks and ATMs across the country. The banks have become the target of public ire. People have seen their savings destroyed as the value of the Lebanese currency has been cut in half over the past three months. Meanwhile, the banks have imposed limits on how much money depositors can withdraw in an attempt to prevent financial collapse. These restrictions are waived for the wealthy and politically connected, but enforced on the broad masses of the population.
Bank workers have remained on an extended strike, in part over concerns for their own safety.
The devaluation of the Lebanese pound has led to the soaring of imported food prices, together with the near halving of real wages. The country’s minimum wage, which was the equivalent of $450 a month, is now barely $270. The World Bank has warned that continuing devaluations will lead to the rise of the portion of Lebanon’s population living in poverty from one-third to one-half.
In many industries, employers have stopped paying salaries, leading to strikes. Hospitals have run out of essential medicines, and gasoline is being rationed.
Lebanon’s mass protests were triggered on October 17 of last year after the government announced a tax on popular messaging applications, including WhatsApp. The action triggered a mass revolt against all of the austerity measures imposed over the previous period, together with the conditions of growing poverty and unemployment, crumbling infrastructure and social services, and rampant corruption. As in Iraq, the driving force behind the demonstrators’ anger was the ever widening social inequality that constitutes the essential feature of Lebanese society.
The latest upsurge has been further fueled by the announcement that Lebanon’s outgoing foreign minister, Gebran Bassil, is to attend this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to speak on “unrest in the Arab world.” Bassil is President Michel Aoun’s son-in-law. An online petition has called for the Forum to rescind his invitation, declaring that he should not be invited to “speak on behalf of a nation that has rejected him and accuses him of flagrant corruption.”
As in Iraq, a caretaker administration headed by President Aoun has proven unable to cobble together a new government since Hariri resigned on October 29. Hezbollah, together with its fellow Shiite movement Amal and other allies, holds a majority in parliament and appears poised to put together a cabinet led by the former education minister and professor at the American University of Beirut.
While the demonstrations have advanced the demand for a government of “independent technocrats,” the bourgeois order, set up along sectarian lines in the wake of the country’s civil war, is incapable of jumping out of its skin.
Whatever government is formed by the existing bourgeois parties in Lebanon will be tasked with the speedy implementation of a sweeping agenda of additional austerity measures in order to meet the demands of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and major power creditors in return for a “rescue package” of $11 billion pledged at an international conference last year. Most of this money will go to meet debt obligations to the international banks. As early as 2016, interest payments on the country’s debt consumed fully half of the Lebanese budget.
Hezbollah, which is aligned with Iran, had initially taken a hostile stance toward the demonstrations, suggesting that they were being fostered by Washington, Saudi Arabia and Israel to further imperialist interests in the region. On several occasions the Shiite movement staged counterdemonstrations, clashing with protesters.
More recently, however, Hezbollah has sent its representatives to meet with protest leaders, expressing agreement with their demands and offering them support, undoubtedly with the hope of quelling the mass upheavals.
Social tensions within both Iraq and Lebanon have been exacerbated by US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the region and roll back Iran’s influence by means of crippling economic sanctions and criminal military violence. Washington and its regional allies are undoubtedly attempting to manipulate these tensions to further their regional aims. Tehran has responded by supporting repression on the part of both the Iraqi and Lebanese governments in an attempt to defend the influence of the Shiite sectarian movements with which it is allied.
Iraqi protesters have expressed hostility to the prospect of the country being turned into a battlefield for a US-Iranian war. Washington, meanwhile, has rejected the Iraqi government’s demand that it withdraw the 5,000 to 6,000 US troops that are deployed in Iraq.
In both Iraq and Lebanon, the popular protests have expressed a mass rejection of sectarian politics, making clear that in both countries, as all over the world, the decisive dividing line is class, not religion, ethnicity or nationality.
The demands of the masses of Lebanese and Iraqi workers and youth, like those of workers who have risen in revolt by their millions across the planet, cannot be resolved outside of the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the building of socialism on a world scale.

20 Jan 2020

Dag Hammarskjöld Journalism Fellowships 2020 at United Nations Assembly for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 6th March, 2020.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries:
  • Developing nations of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • For 2020 only, the Fund will not accept applications from the countries of the 2019 fellows – Egypt, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zimbabwe – in an effort to rotate recipient countries.
To be taken at (country): New York, USA

Area of Interest: Journalism

About Fellowship: The Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists accepts applications from journalists of the developing nations of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean to cover the United Nations General Assembly beginning in September each year. The fellowships offer a unique opportunity for promising young journalists from developing countries to see the United Nations at work and to report on its proceedings for news media in their
home countries.

Offered Since: 1961

Type: Professional Fellowship

Eligibility: The Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists fellowships are open to individuals who:
  • Are native to one of the mainly developing countries of Africa, Asia (including Pacific Island nations), Latin America and the Caribbean. For 2019 only, the Fund will not accept applications from the countries of the 2018 fellows – Argentina, India, Kenya and Yemen – in an effort to rotate recipient countries.
  • Currently live in and write for media in a developing country.
  • Are between the ages of 25 and 35.
  • Have a very good command of the English language since United Nations press conferences and many documents are in English only.
  • Are currently employed as professional journalists for print, television, radio or internet media organizations.  Both full-time and freelance journalists are invited to apply.
  • Have approval from their media organizations to spend up to three months in New York reporting from the United Nations.
  • Receive a commitment from their media organizations that the reports they file during the term of the Fellowship will be used and that they will continue to be paid for their services.
Number of Fellowships: not specified

Value of Fellowship: The Fund will provide: round-trip airfare to New York; accommodations; health insurance for the duration of the fellowship, and a daily allowance to cover food and other necessities. The Fund will not be responsible for other expenses of a personal nature, such as telephone calls.

Duration of Fellowship: first three months of the General Assembly session

How to Apply: 
  • CLICK HERE for the application in Word format
  • CLICK HERE for the application in PDF format (requires Adobe Reader, free download)
You MUST ALSO INCLUDE ALL necessary documentation as outlined in the Eligibility and Documentation Requirements with your application.
An originally completed AND signed application, along with all six (6) of the Documentation Requirements, should be sent by postal or courier service (such as DHL, FedEx, Airborne) to:
Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists
512 Northampton Street, No. 124A
Edwardsville, PA 18704 USA



Visit the Fellowship Webpage for Details

Swedish Institute Management Programme (SIMP) Africa 2020 for Young African Leaders

Application Deadline: 20th February, 2020

Eligible Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

To be taken at (country): Sweden and selected countries in Africa

About the Award: Sweden is considered to be one of the leading countries in sustainable business practice. Swedish companies play a prominent role in finding new, innovative ways to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns into their core business models. But the challenges are global and we have a common need for sustainable development.
The programme curriculum revolves around advanced business-related problem solving, seminars and meetings with front figures in the commercial, political and cultural fields, as well as on-site company visits. By providing the platform for knowledge sharing, experience exchange and quality networking, the programme aims to challenge traditional approaches, reinforce professional skills, deepen cross-cultural perspectives and unite the participants in a long-lasting and active global network.
The programme, spread over seven months, comprises three weeks of intensive training divided into an introductory kick-off at the Swedish Embassy in each country, a two week module in Sweden and a concluding five day module in Africa.

Type: Training

Eligibility: To apply to SIMP Africa you have to:
  • aspire to make sustainability an integral part of your business strategy
  • be in a leading position within trade, industry or the public sector
  • have mandate to influence the business strategy for your organisation
  • be between 25-45 years old (born 1975 – 1995)
  • have a good working knowledge of both written and spoken English
  • be a citizen and resident of Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda or Zambia
  • be can take part in all parts of the programme
  • be willing to forward competences and knowledge you gain from the programme
Selection: The applications will be evaluated according to the following selection criteria:
  • The relevance and quality of personal motivation and commitment, and the applicant’s answers in the application form.
  • An assessment of the CV
  • The general qualifications of the applicant
The Swedish Institute will make its decision taking into account the recommendations of the selection committee as well as the candidates’ general suitability for the programme. We are striving for as much diversity as possible in the group in order to maximise the exchange of experience between the participants, which means the distribution of candidates from each country will differ.
Out of all applicants, a number of shortlisted candidates will be called for interviews as a second step in the selection process. The interviews will be conducted by Business Sweden. The 25 selected applicants will be contacted by e-mail and offered a place in SIMP Africa 2019.

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Program: 
Costs covered and arranged by Swedish Institute
  • Training and content
  • Accommodation, food and domestic transport during the programme
  • Flight tickets to and from Sweden
  • Insurance covering acute illness and accident when in Sweden
Costs covered and arranged by you
  • Flight tickets to and from the kick-off and module 2
  • Visas costs, when necessary, to all programme modules
  • Occasional meals
  • Occasional airport transfers
  • Insurance when modules are held outside of Sweden
Duration of Program: 3 weeks

Module 1, 3 days in one of the selected countries in Africa, 3 – 5 June 2020 
You are introduced to the programme curriculum and topics of focus. Regional business cases creates the framework for your learning.


Module 2, 2 weeks in Sweden, 12 – 24 October 2020
You deep dive into how sustainble business contributes to innovation, production and increased trust in business on the global market. You explore topics such as leadership, stake-holder engagement, climate change and company visits. You also have a chance to initiate your own business case and receive coaching and peer-feedback.


Module 3, 1 week in one of the selected countries in Africa,  February 2021
The focus is on reconnection with the network and harvesting learnings from module 1. You have the opportunity to visit and analyse a real business case.

All parts of the programme are mandatory. The programme is intense and includes evening activities.

How to Apply: Create your application online in the application portal.
A complete application consists of all the information in the Program Webpage (see Link below)


Visit Program Webpage for details

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Doctoral Scholarship Program 2019 for Students from Developing Countries

Application Deadlines: Applications will be accepted no later than:
  • diploma / magister / state examination: by the end of 6th semester
  • Bachelor/ undergraduate programmes: until 3 semesters before finishing the standard period of study (if 6 semesters by the end  of 3rd semester; if 7 semesters by the end  of 4rd semester)
  • postgraduate/ Master programmes: by the end of 1st semester
  • duration of application process:
    4-7 months
Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Students from Developing Countries already studying in Germany.

About the Award: The promotion of young talent has been one of the founding principles of the FES.
At the time when Friedrich Ebert was elected as the first president of the Weimar Republic, it was almost impossible for talented children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds to study at universities or take part in research programmes. With the foundation of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in 1925, the first scholarships were awarded to particularly talented young individuals from a working class milieu who were taking an active part in the young democracy of the Weimar Republic.
To address social disadvantages by supporting students who actively work for freedom, justice and social cohesion in their commitment to social democracy, or will do so in future, continues to be one of the aims of the FES.

Type: Doctoral

Eligibility: The FES can only award scholarships to applicants from abroad who have already enrolled in a German university or have a supervisor for their doctoral studies.
    • For the FES, service to the common good deserves recognition. It is therefore not only the applicants’ academic achievement but their social and political involvement and personal attitudes that play an important part in the selection process.
  • The FES also supports foreign applicants who are already studying, or doing their postgraduate studies, in Germany at the time of application. Up to 40 students from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe may qualify for the scholarship programme every year with the exception of those who are already receiving some support from public sources.
  • Students are expected to be living in Germany before they apply and have to provide proof of an adequate command of the German language by submitting a language proficiency certificate ( C 1, TestDAF)
  • Since foreign scholarship holders will receive an extensive social and political side programme, German language proficiency is crucial even when the study programme itself (M/B) is carried out in English.
  • We do not support foreign students from Western European countries at present, but only those from the developing countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe.
  • At the time of application, foreign students should be able to submit proof of their initial academic achievements/marks with the exception of those enrolled in Master or other postgraduate programmes.
Selection Criteria: The FES supports
  • all academic subjects
  • students from public or state-approved universities and from universities of applied sciences/polytechnical colleges (FH)
  • postgraduate programmes (PhD)
The FES does not support
  • second degree courses
  • study visits outside Germany
  • final phases of academic studies
  • postgraduate courses in medicine
Number of Awards: This year, about 2.700 students and postgraduates will receive a grant from FES.

Value of Award: Foreign scholarship holders receive:
  • 650 € per month (basic scholarship programme) / 1000 € per month (graduate scholarship programme)
  • 276 € of family allowance, if applicable
  • refund of health care costs
  • any income exceeding 400 € per month will be credited against the scholarship.
Expectations: FES expects scholarship holders:
  • to participate in extra-curricular seminars and activities of FES campus groups on a regular basis
  • to achieve above-average results in their degree courses
  • to continue and intensify their socio-political commitment.
At the end of each term, a semester report has to be submitted to FES which describes the scholarship holder’s current academic performance and his/her social engagement.

How to Apply: 
    • Please use the “Online-Bewerbung” on the Internet – in German only!supplementary sheet
    • Individual interviews: In a second step, selected candidates will be invited to two individual interviews. The first interview will be conducted by one of the lecturers from the FES, and the second interview by one of the members of the FES scholarship committee (AWA). Two reports are written on the basis of these interviews and presented to the AWA.
    • Discussion and final decision by the AWA: The AWA will eventually make a final decision about your application. The AWA is an independent body composed of university lecturers as well as other persons from the fields of science, politics, art and media. The committee meets at least three times a year. The AWA will discuss every application at great length and then make the final decision.
  • Written notification: You will be notified of the AWA’s decision.
Visit the Program Webpage for Details


Award Providers: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES)

A Note on Carlos Ghosn and Global Capitalism

Charles Andrews

The boss of world car maker Nissan  — arrested and under intense surveillance around his luxury mansion, and charged with gorging himself with about $140 million of unauthorized pay — makes a daring escape from under the nose of Japanese authorities and across half the world. It will take months for details of how Carlos Ghosn ran away to become public, and probably years to verify which of them are true and which are diversionary stories. However, the lessons about global capitalism are already plain to see.
* Ghosn rose up the managerial ladder at vehicle maker Renault in France by showing his mettle as a ruthless exploiter of labor. His nickname, Le Cost Killer, was well earned. At the Renault factory in Flins, workers must stay at their station the entire eight-hour shift with two ten-minute toilet breaks. They burst into tears because they cannot help wetting their clothes. Nearly half the workers are on temporary contracts that run one to three months.
* When Japanese car maker Nissan was on the verge of financial collapse in 1999, it formed a loose alliance with Renault and received an investment. Renault obtained about 40 percent of Nissan — and installed Ghosn as the boss. It was a major break for Japanese industry to accept a foreigner as chief. Ghosn laid off 20,000 and closed factories, which got the profits flowing again.
* Several years ago Ghosn began to push for a complete merger of Nissan and Renault in a consolidating global industry. But the exploiters could not agree how to divide the profits. Nissan generates most of them, but high Japanese executives and Japan Capital in general feel that Renault wants too big a share.
* When Ghosn kept up the merger drive, he was arrested and charged with plundering Nissan of undeclared money, putting luxury mansions in Japan, France, and Brazil on the corporate tab, and hiding a murky deal with Saudi businessmen. As Ghosn notes with vigor today, he is a victim of selective prosecution: executives in Japan do this stuff all the time.
* Unable to squeeze Ghosn to leave the scene quietly, the Japanese government released him on bail after four months in jail, re-arrested him last April, and largely confined him to his mansion. Ghosn could not have a phone or use the Internet, and his wife could not visit him. Ghosn’s trial was to begin in April 2020 but then was put off to autumn 2020 or even into 2021.
* Ghosn had enough. With his wealth and global connections, he put together a bold plot. Somehow Ghosn left his house despite 24-hour surveillance by several cameras. He took a private jet to Istanbul (chartered under a false name), changed to another private jet without going through Turkish arrival and departure clearances, and flew to Beirut, Lebanon, the city where he grew up and where he apparently enjoys government protection and presidential affection.
While the press debates the inhumane procedures of Japanese courts and confinement versus the illegal flight of Ghosn, it gives little attention to the fact that the Ghosn-Nissan-Renault affair is a clash among thieves over the profits sweated from hundreds of thousands of workers. For twenty years the press adored Ghosn for his talents at exploitation.
The escape drama underlines that the globalization of corporations, production, and supply chains does not create a unified capitalist class. Just the opposite, the battle of capitalist interests becomes global, too.
Despite intellectuals who chatter about the surpassing of national sovereignty, state power remains more important than ever. Ghosn found refuge in Lebanon. Japan and Lebanon have no extradition treaty. State boundaries define limits of coercive state power, a reality that currently infuriates Japanese authorities.
Incidentally, the detail about workers forced to urinate in their pants was published by a mainstream newspaper in Japan almost a year ago, when the capitalist media there were in the process of removing Ghosn’s crown.
Hollywood will most likely make a suspense thriller about Carlos Ghosn’s escape. The movie might portray the contention between capitalists, but it will hardly underline the fact that it is all a fight over the spoils of exploitation. The Godfather is a brilliant epic showing that the mafia reproduces big business in miniature, but the first part in particular hides what the mafia is about: it extorts small businesses, preys upon working people susceptible to the vain hope of gambling and the doomed refuge of drugs, and hires out thugs to employers when workers want to unionize.
There is no greater drama than socialist revolution. Hollywood has yet to make a movie about how Lenin got out of tsarist-imposed exile in neutral Switzerland during the First World War and traveled with associates in a special closed train to Russia shortly after the revolution of 1917 began. History will tuck Carlos Ghosn away in a footnote — and see new triumphs on the path that Lenin took.

Western ‘Political Correctness’ Does Not Make All People Equal

Andre Vltchek

In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one’s sexual orientation; who has sex with whom, and how.Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex, and who does not want to belong to any ‘traditional’ gender bracket.
Thinking about ‘it’, writing about it, doing it, is considered “progressive”; cutting edge. Entire novels are being commissioned and then subsidized, as far away as in the Asia Pacific.  Western organizations and NGOs (so-called “non-government organizations”, but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.
These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new types of combinations that many people never even heard about, or imagined could exist.
Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers “ladies, gentlemen and children”, anymore, in order“not to offend” those who do not want to be any of the above.
Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly, many times, that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even “left-wing’.
This is a discussion which is clearly encouraged, even invented by the Western regime: a safe discussion which is aimed at diverting dialogue from topics such as the fact that even in the West, a great number of people are living in fear and misery, and that the majority of neo-colonies of North America and Europe are once again being totally, shamelessly exploited.
Talking about poverty and exploitation, about military coups triggered by Washington are rarely spoken about. Such discussions are even being portrayed as old-fashioned, if not regressive.
Hype is, these days, all about the interaction of penises, of vaginas, or about the lack of such interactions. It is about one’s “identity” and about the right to change one’s gender. What you do with your private parts is much more important than billions of people who are forced to live in filthy slums. Surgery that is aimed at changing one’s gender is more newsworthy than the “regime changes” and consequent destruction of millions of human lives.
Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism.What should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention.
Don’t think that it is all a coincidence. It is clearly designed this way. Like the enormous flood of free pornography did not come from out of the blue. The hidden message is clear: watch as much free porn as you can in your free time, watch football, enjoy booze, and put your sexual identity at the very center of your existence.
Then, define all those who disagree with these sorts of lifestyles as ‘intolerant’, ‘backward’, and even ‘oppressive’.
Why is all this happening? Why are Western countries so obsessed with “sexual identities”?
The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless “rights”, have hardly any time left to think about the rest of the world.
And vice versa: those who are passionately fighting for a better world, building people-oriented societies, sacrificing their own comfort and personal benefits; those individuals often have no time, or very little time, to think about the nuances of their sexuality. For them, sexuality is simply part of their life; often powerful and important, but it is definitely not their center of gravity, not their very essence.
And precisely this kind of optimistic, unselfish mindset is extremely dangerous for the survival of Western regimes, and the Empire itself.
*
I am all for people to have their right to choose how they want to express themselves sexually. As long as it is done discreetly, and without forcing anyone into anything.
But I am strongly against the so-called sexual identity monopolizing political narrative of entire nations.
There are much more important issues that Western societies should be concerned with, and obviously are not.
And the Empire knows it, and precisely for that reason it does everything possible to elevate sex and sexuality into something tremendously important, glorified, as well as untouchable. Terms and definitions then get confused: centering people’s identity around their genitals, gets defined as “their identity”. Their struggle for sexual rights is now being defined as “progressive”, even, bizarrely as left-wing.
It is, of course, an absolute nonsense.The fight for sexual rights is the fight for sexual rights: it is not right, or left.
There is absolutely no guarantee that a man who undergoes gender-changing surgery, would gain a deep interest in the US-triggered coup in Bolivia, or in the tremendous torment, inflicted by the West, on the people of Syria or Afghanistan.
I have discussed this issue, in depth, with my friends and relatives who happen to be professional psychiatrists and psychologists: Jung, who attacked Western imperialism as a clinical disease (pathology), has been criticized and discredited by almost all Western schools. While the self-centered Freud, has been glorified to this very day. He became untouchable in Europe and North America. We are all encourage to see ourselves through his eyes.
We are supposed to think and analyze the world in a Freudian way. To say “penis” or “vagina”, or to show them, and especially change them, is supposed to send a shiver up our backs, to make us feel heroic, progressive.
While the Empire murders millions of people worldwide. While British and North American children are suffering from hunger, while NATO is bringing our planet closer and closer to the next huge war which our humanity may not survive, people inhabiting the Empire are encouraged to think, to write and to fight for totally different issues than those that could save our humanity.
*
I have to report that, after working in some 160 countries of the world, on all continents, the issues that I am addressing above, are prevalent only in the West. Well, also in countries and territories that have been deeply indoctrinated by the West, like Argentina and Hong Kong, to give just two examples. Which makes one wonder what is really going on?
I am not talking about people being born gay or lesbian and then getting discriminated against (such discrimination should be, of course, confronted), or forced by brutal family practices (like I witnessed in Samoa) to unwillingly change their sexual identity. I am fully, and determinedly supporting people to have their rights, to practice what they feel like, and to be fully protected by the law.
I am addressing here this totally wild obsession with the topic. I am talking about forcing people in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and some European countries, to accept as essential a dialogue, which is absolutely irrelevant to more than 99% of the population on our planet. It is not about LGBT anymore. This is now about something absolutely else; about color shades, about nuances, about details: while the entire world is burning; in flames.
Can we please talk, finally about Hong Kong, Iraq, Bolivia, North Korea?
And as a writer, as a novelist, I reserve my right to create, to write as I want to! If I want to say,” ladies, gentlemen and children”, you can all stop reading me, but I will write it precisely as I want. You can go and read the latest generation of politically correct scribes. Although you know as well as I do, that you will never find any great literature created by them.
The Empire makes sure that many essential topics, including those like whether the world should continue to live under the boot of savage capitalism or whether it should be selecting socialism, hardly ever get discussed on the television screens, and on the front pages of the internet.
Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the U.K. and the U.S., than whether Western imperialism should be stopped, once and forever.
But remember: We will all burn if we burn. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, trans-gender individuals, even those whose sexual orientation I still do not understand. If there is a Third World War, we will all be fried.
Therefore, I suggest that we first try to disarm the Empire, stop savage capitalism, give freedom and the right to choose their destiny to all nations of the world, and then… Only then, shall we make sure that we supportal the people of countless sexual orientation, that our humanity has.
But first things first, please!
Unfortunately, the majority of people do not have the capacity to fight on various fronts, for numerous causes. And they often choose to struggle for the issues that are extremely close to their waist.

Guantánamo’s Indelible Legacy

 Karen J. Greenberg & Joshua L. Dratel

In January 2002, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility in Cuba opened its gates for the first 20 detainees of the war on terror. Within 100 days300 of them would arrive, often hooded and in those infamous orange jumpsuits, and that would just be the beginning. At its height, the population would rise to nearly 800 prisoners from 59 countries. Eighteen years later, it still holds 40 prisoners, most of whom will undoubtedly remain there without charges or trial for the rest of their lives. (That’s likely true even of the five who have been cleared for release for more than a decade.) In 2013, journalist Carol Rosenberg astutely labeled themforever prisoners.” And those detainees are hardly the only enduring legacy of Guantánamo Bay. Thanks to that prison camp, we as a country have come to understand aspects of both the law and policy in new ways that might prove to be “forever changes.”
Here are eight ways in which the toxic policies of that offshore facility have contaminated American institutions, as well as our laws and customs, in the years since 2002.
1)  Indefinite detention: The first item on any list of Guantánamo’s offspring would have to be the category “indefinite detention.” In the context of U.S. law, until that long-ago January, the very notion was both foreign and forbidden. Detention without charge or trial was, in fact, precluded by the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process, a reality that had been honored since the founding of the republic. Though the detainees there were eventually granted access to lawyers and the right to have their cases reviewed, for only a handful of them has that right of being charged or released been realized.
The indefinite detention that began at Guantánamo Bay has now spawned its mirror image in the camps for undocumented immigrants (and their children) along the U.S. Mexican border. Even the optics there are proving to be carbon copies of Guantánamo: the open-air wire cages, the armed guards, and the physical abuse of migrants and asylum seekers, both adults and children. At Guantánamo Bay, the government didn’t distinguish between juveniles and adults until years after the facility had opened, another example of a policy Gitmo brought into existence that was previously inconceivable in the U.S. legal system. In some ways, in fact, the situation at the border may be even worse, as the detained there are kept in unsanitary conditions without sufficient access to doctors.
And here’s another way the border is one-upping Guantánamo. The government was required to give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its wartime detention facilities, so the health and medical conditions at Gitmo were monitored and kept to a relatively decent standard once those initial three months of open-air cages ended. In the border detention centers, however, tots have been left in soiled diapers, housed along with their mothers and fathers in bitterly cold, jail-like conditions, and denied adequate medical attention, including vaccines.
2)  A new legal language for the purpose of bypassing the law: From the very start, Guantánamo challenged the normal language of law and democracy. The detainees there could not be called prisoners as they would then have been considered “prisoners of war” and so subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The cages and later prefab prison complexes (transported from Indiana) could not be labeled “prisons” for the same reason. So the government invented a new term, enemy combatant,” derived from “unlawful enemy belligerent,” that did have legal standing. The point, of course, was to create a whole new legal category that, like the offshore prison itself, would be immune to existing laws, American or international, pertaining to prisoners of war.
This evasion of the law has not only persisted to this day, but has crept into other areas of Washington’s foreign policy. Recently, for instance, Trump administration lawyers invoked the term “enemy combatant” to justify the drone killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani in Iraq. Meanwhile, at the border, asylum seekers have been transformed into “illegal immigrants” and, on that basis, denied essential rights.
3)  Legal cover: While a new language was being institutionalized, the Department of Justice offered its own version of legal cover. Its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was enlisted to provide often-secret legal justifications for the policies underlying what was then being called the Global War on Terror. The OLC would, in fact, devise farfetched rationales for many previously outlawed policies of that war, most notoriously the CIA’s torture and interrogation programs whose “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used at the Agency’s black sites (or secret prisons) around the world upon a number of high-profile detainees later sent to Guantánamo.
Before 9/11, few outsiders even knew of the existence of the Office of Legal Counsel. In the years since, however, it’s become the White House’s go-to department for contorted, often secret legal “opinions” meant to justify previously questionable or unauthorized executive actions. Notoriously, OLC memos justified “targeted killings” by drone of key figures in terror groups, including an American citizen. Recently, for instance, that office has been used to explain away a number of things, including why a sitting president cannot be indicted (see: former special counsel Robert Mueller) or the granting of absolute immunity to White House officials so they can defy subpoenas to testify before Congress (see: House impeachment hearings). And as any OLC memos can be kept secret, who’s to know, for instance, whether or not similar legal memos were written to cover acts like the recent killing of Major General Suleimani?
4)  The sidelining and removal of professionals: From its inception, Guantánamo’s supervisors shoved aside any professionals or government officials who stood in their way. Notably, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed individuals to run Guantánamo who would report directly to him rather than go through any pre-existing chain of command. In that way, he effectively removed those who would contradict his orders or the policies put in place under his command, including, for instance, that prisoners on hunger strikes should be force-fed.
In the Trump era, this dislike of professionals has spread through many agencies and departments of the government. The twist now is that those professionals are often leaving by choice. The State Department, for instance, has dwindled steadily in size since Donald Trump took office, as those disagreeing with administration policies have simply quit or retired in significant numbers. Similarly, at the Pentagon, in a steady drumbeat, officials have resigned or been fired due to policy disagreements.
5) The use of the military for detention operations: In the fall of 2002, General Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command, complained to Rumsfeld that his troops were being wasted on detainee operations. Hundreds of prisoners had been captured in the invasion of Afghanistan that began in October 2001 and Army personnel were being asked to serve as guards in the detention centers set up at the new American military bases in that country. Though many of those detainees would subsequently be transferred to Guantánamo, the military was not off the hook. A joint task force of all four of its branches would be deployed to Guantánamo to serve as guards for the arriving detainees. Some of them insisted that it was not a task they were prepared for, that their previous service as guards at military brigs for service personnel who had broken the law was hardly proper preparation for guarding prisoners from the battlefield. But to no avail.
Today, that military has been deployed in a similar fashion to the southern border in support of detention operations there, a steady presence of more than 5,000 troops since the early days of the Trump presidency, including active-duty military personnel and the National Guard. Under U.S. law, the military is not authorized to carry out domestic law enforcement. A letter from 30 members of Congress to Pentagon Principal Deputy Inspector General Glenn Fine made the point: “The military should have no role in enforcing domestic law, which is why Trump’s troop deployment to the southern border risks eroding the laws and norms that have kept the military and domestic law enforcement separate.” Fine is now conducting a review of that deployment, but who knows when (or even if) it will see the light of day.
6) Secrecy and the withholding of information: When it came to Guantánamo, Pentagon officials discussing the number of detainees there would usually offer only approximations, rather than specific numbers, just as they would generally not mention the names of the prisoners. Journalists were normally kept from the facility and photographs forbidden. Meanwhile, a blanket of secrecy shrouded the prior treatment of those detainees, many of whom had been subjected to abuse and torture at the black sites where they were held before being transported to Gitmo.
Today, on the border, the policy towards journalists, infamously dubbed “the enemies of the people” by this president, has been distinctly Gitmo-ish. Information has been withheld and efforts have been made to keep both journalists and photographers from border detention camps. Journalistic Freedom of Information Act requests have often been the singular means by which the public has gotten some insight into government border policies. Even members of Congress have been denied access to the detention facilities, while the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency has failed to keep records that would enable migrant families to reunite or let any oversight agency accurately determine the number of detainees, particularly children, being held.
In the theater of war, similar secrecy persists. Just this month, for example, the administration refused to present Congress (no less the public) with evidence of its assertion that the Iranian major general it assassinated by drone posed an imminent threat to the United States and its interests.
7) Disregard for international law and treaties: In characterizing the Geneva Convention as quaint and “obsolete” as part of its justification for the detention and treatment of prisoners in the war on terror, President George W. Bush’s administration began to steadily eat away at Washington’s adherence to international treaties and conventions to which it had previously been both a signatory and a principal moral force. What followed, for instance, was a contravention of the Convention Against Torture, both in the CIA’s global torture program and in Washington’s toleration of the mistreatment of detainees it rendered to other countries.
The lack of respect for treaty obligations and for the sanctity of international cooperation in matters affecting world peace, health, and harmony has only spread in these years with Trump administration decisions to withdraw from agreements and treaties of various sorts. These included: the Paris climate accord, the nuclear agreement with Iran, and Cold War-era nuclear arms treaties with Russia (the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement last year and, more recently, the ignoring of warnings from the Russians that there will not be sufficient time to negotiate the renewal of the essential New Start nuclear arms limitation agreement that will lapse in 2021). As a result, the world has become a more dangerous and unpredictable place.
8) Lack of accountability: Although some of the newly legalized policies of the Bush era, including the use of torture, were ended by the Obama administration, there has been no appetite for holding government officials responsible for illegal and unconstitutional conduct. As President Obama so classically put it when it came to taking action to hold individuals accountable for the CIA’s torture program, it was time “to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
Today, Donald Trump and his team expect a similar kind of Gitmo-style impunity for themselves. As he’s said many times, “I can do whatever I want as president.” The withholding of military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to get information on rival Joe Biden (and his son) is but one example of the license he’s taken. A sense of immunity from the law is deeply entrenched in this administration (as the refusal of his key officials to testify before the House of Representatives has shown).
It’s worth noting that the House impeachment of the president was a rare step forward when it comes to holding officials accountable for violations of the law in this era (though conviction in the Senate is essentially unimaginable). Whether such accountability will ever take hold in the context of global policy — in the killing of Suleimani, in the separation of children from their families at the border, or in the context of election interference — remains to be seen. At the moment, it seems unlikely indeed. After all, we still live in the Guantánamo era.
The toll of the war on terror in terms of lives and treasure has been well documented. It has cost American taxpayers at least $6.4 trillion (and probably far more than that), while resulting in the deaths of up to 500,000 people, nearly half of whom are estimated to have been civilians (a number that doesn’t include indirect deaths from disease, starvation and other war-related causes). Meanwhile, a new Gitmo-ized narrative for the law and national security policy has come into being.
The irony is unmistakable. The Guantánamo Bay detention facility was purposely established outside the U.S. so that it would not be subject to the country’s normal laws and policies. As many warned at the time, the notion that it would remain separate and anomalous was sure to be illusory. And indeed that has proved to be so.
Instead of remaining an offshore anomaly, Guantánamo has moved incrementally onshore and that is undeniably its indelible legacy.

Tesla under investigation by US government for defect that caused over 100 crashes

Jessica Goldstein

Electric car maker Tesla is facing a potential government investigation into consumer complaints of a defect which causes the sudden unintended acceleration of all three of its available vehicle models, the years 2012-19 Model S and 2018-19 Model 3 sedans, and the 2016-19 Model X SUV.
The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHSTA), a government organization under the US Department of Transportation (DOT), said Friday that it is currently reviewing the allegations brought forth by a petition that cites 127 complaints against Tesla with claims of 110 crashes and 52 injuries. The petition was received by the NHSTA Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) by email on December 19.
If granted, the NHTSA will investigate about 500,000 Tesla vehicles over the alleged defect. The NHSTA is already investigating three December crashes involving Tesla vehicles which killed three people in California, Connecticut and Indiana, which may or may not be related to the acceleration defect.
The December 29 crash in Indiana is the 14th crash that the NHSTA’s crash investigation team is investigating in relation to what it suspects to be the use of Tesla’s Autopilot driverless technology. According to Tesla, Autopilot “enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically within its lane,” although “features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
According the Reuters and Fox News, the complaints made to the agency allege that the sudden acceleration occurred in a number of situations which could potentially cause serious harm to drivers, passengers and property, including while in traffic and while attempting to park in a garage or at a curb.
Tesla is also reportedly under investigation by the agency for its decision to issue a software update for 2,000 vehicles rather than to recall them after reports that the vehicles had a possible battery defect that could start fires.
Shares of Tesla’s stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) reached an all-time high of over $537 per share on January 14 and have continued to hover above $500 per share in spite of the safety allegations. Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the auto company, has a personal net worth of nearly $30 billion and is currently the 40th richest person on earth according to Forbes’ 2019 billionaires list.
Tesla is the world’s largest producer of electric vehicles by units sold and is a major investor in autonomous vehicle technology. Industry-wide, billions have been invested in electric and autonomous vehicles, which require less labor to produce and which are expected to dominate the world auto market by mid-century. Daimler’s chief executive recently called electric vehicles the greatest revolution in the industry since Henry Ford’s introduction of the assembly line a century ago.
In spite of its “independent” status, Tesla has become something of the standard-bearer for electric vehicle technology in the United States. The major US-based automakers are in danger of falling behind foreign rivals in the emerging electric vehicle market because they have predominantly relied upon sales from high-priced, low gas mileage trucks and SUVs. By far the largest market for electric vehicles at present is China, where they are heavily subsidized.
Tesla’s financial growth is based, in large part, on its low labor and production costs in comparison to its competitors across the automotive industry worldwide. Tesla was ranked, along with fellow high-tech giant Amazon, among the 12 most dangerous workplaces in the US according to the National Council for Occupational Health and Safety (COSH) 2018 annual report, “The Dirty Dozen 2018: Employers Who Put Workers and Communities at Risk.” COSH reported that recorded injuries for workers at Tesla, Inc. were 31 percent higher than the rest of the auto manufacturing industry in 2015 and 2016.
Severe injuries are a normal part of a day’s work at a Tesla plant, and workers often work 60 to 70 hours per week with mandatory overtime. Workers are paid as little as $16-$21 per hour, while the cars they create sell for between $35,000 and $81,000, depending on the model.
Across the automotive industry, the relentless drive for increasing profit as demand dips in spite of stagnant or falling sales has increased the pressure on manufacturers to lower production costs and cut corners, resulting in defective products but also unsafe conditions for workers and attacks on wages and jobs.
Ford Motors recently came under fire for covering up a defect with its DPS6 transmission, which it introduced in an attempt to meet new federal gas economy standards. The defect caused unexpected acceleration and sometimes loss of power in its Focus and Fiesta models, leading to numerous crashes and injuries. Engineers were aware of the problems before the new transmission was launched, but company management decided to cover up the problems and put the transmission on the market.
In 2014, General Motors was revealed to have covered up an ignition switch defect which led to the recall of 2.6 million vehicles, which could have accidentally jarred out of the “run” position, shutting off the engine, power steering and power brakes, and disabling the airbag system, putting drivers and passengers at serious risk for death and injury.
The subordination of the health and safety of humans and the environment is international in scope. From 2015 to 2018, German-based automaker Volkswagen was engulfed in an emissions scandal stemming from its sale of 1.2 million vehicles with software which cheated laboratory emissions tests on several of its models, including its luxury Audi and Porsche lines.
Inevitably, such scandals involve the complicity of the government, which subordinates public safety and the environment to corporate profits. The US Department of Transportation is currently headed by Elaine Chao, a right-wing Republican appointed by US President Donald Trump who is currently overseeing Trump’s plan to cut the agency’s vehicle safety budget by 40 percent. Before serving as the Secretary of Transportation under Trump, Chao was appointed as US Secretary of Labor under Republican President George W. Bush from 2001-2009 and oversaw the attacks on jobs which paved the way for the Obama administration’s restructuring of the US economy and mass layoffs in the years following the Wall Street crash of 2008.

Russian Duma approves new prime minister

Clara Weiss

On Thursday, January 16, the Russian Duma (parliament) unanimously confirmed President Vladimir Putin’s nominee for prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin. Mishutin was nominated by Putin a day earlier, hours after the entire Russian government resigned following the president’s state of the nation address. In his annual address, Putin announced he is seeking changes to the country’s constitution.
In Thursday’s vote, 383 deputies voted for Mishustin and 41 abstained. No one voted against the candidate. In contrast, during the balloting for former Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev in 2018 there were 56 no votes. The same was true for Vladimir Putin in 2008. Mishustin is set to announce a new cabinet by Tuesday.
In an interview with Russian state television, Medvedev stated that he and his government had resigned because “such enormous tasks were outlined for the renewal of the political system” that the “president, in order to undertake all of these decisions, has to be entirely free in order to discuss and undertake them, without [being disturbed by] any other factors.”
In his address to the Duma, Mishustin emphasized that his government’s primary goal would be to realize the “program of social justice” that had been laid down by Putin in his state of the nation address last Wednesday. Under conditions of staggering social inequality, Putin made a number of social promises, including the introduction of free hot meals for elementary school children and an increase in the number of kindergarten spots. These measures are window-dressing for what will be an intensified assault on the living standards of the working class.
Putin and sections of the Russian oligarchy regard Mishustin as better equipped than former Prime Minister Medvedev to carry out massive attacks on the working class. He is also seen as a figure who can facilitate a closing of ranks in the ruling class. Medvedev was often described as a weakling and a “lame duck” in the Russian and international press.
The business daily Vedomosti, the Russian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal, praised Mishustin as an efficient manager who stands above different “political and business groupings” and “works well” with the so-called siloviki, a term which encompasses the police, secret services, the military and paramilitary structures of the Interior Ministry. Other outlets and leading politicians have issued similar praise for Mishustin, whose name, up until Wednesday, was virtually unknown in the general population.
Alexei Kudrin, one of Putin’s closest and most long-standing allies, fully endorsed Mishustin, stating that he “understands better [than Medvedev] the situation in business circles, he can balance the interests of business and the state.” Kudrin and his think tank, the Center for Strategic Studies, effectively authored the widely hated pension reform of 2018, which raised the retirement age for men and women by five years in 2019, robbing millions virtually overnight of substantial portions of their pensions.
Kudrin and Mishustin have worked together since at least 1998. From 2008 to 2010 Mishustin was the president of the investment company UFG Asset Management. From 2010 to 2017, he headed the Federal Tax Service, leading efforts to centralize and digitize the taxation system and cutting the number of annual tax audits of business by the agency by seven times: from 75,500 in 2011 to 10,900 in 2018.
Immediately after his confirmation as prime minister, Mishustin declared that he would not roll back the pension reform or consider lowering the income tax for poor people. Real incomes for the vast majority of Russians, above all those with low earnings, have declined for five years in a row. The government has simultaneously enacted dramatic cuts in healthcare and education. The price for food items has increased, on average, 50-80 percent between 2015 and 2019. One in eight Russians now officially live in “extreme poverty,” that is on less than $150 a month. Meanwhile, Russia’s oligarchs increased their personal wealth by 21 percent in 2019 alone.
With the Mishustin government and the constitutional changes proposed by Putin, the oligarchy is responding above all to the international resurgence of the class struggle as well as the escalation of the imperialist war drive. They represent an escalation of authoritarian rule and an attempt to create the basis for a closing of ranks by the oligarchy against the working class.
While the concrete significance of several of the constitutional changes that Putin proposed remain unclear, some of the proposals are aimed at better suppressing and mediating growing divisions within the ruling class, especially between Moscow and the regional elites.
Putin demanded that regional prosecutors be appointed by the Federal Council, and not, as is currently the case, through consultation with regional parliaments. “We cannot have some kind of home-bred legality in this or that region,” Putin stressed.
At the same time, he called for a strengthening of the role of the State Council, which he currently heads, and of regional governors within the Council. The State Council was created in 2000 in an effort to bring the regional governors under much tighter control from Moscow. In his speech to the parliament, Mishustin repeated several times that his government would put a strong emphasis on close collaboration with the regions.
Since the dissolution of the USSR by the Stalinist bureaucracy in 1991 and the restoration of capitalism, there have been significant separatist and regionalist tendencies within the ruling class and sections of the upper middle class. The Russian Federation encompasses 85 regions. While the richest oil producing regions and Moscow have a GDP that is close or even higher than that of the US, the GDP of many others is on the level of countries like Honduras.
Regionalist tendencies were pronounced in the 1990s as aspiring oligarchs and regional elites vied for the control over the resources of the former Soviet Union. In 1997, about half of the 44,000 laws passed by regional authorities did not conform to federal law. The curtailment of the power of regional elites and authorities and their subordination to Moscow was a priority for Putin since the start of his first presidency in 2000. In recent years, tensions between Moscow and regional elites have increased again. Putin has fired and replaced dozens of regional governors within the past three years. With the full support of Washington, the liberal opposition has been deliberately encouraging regionalist and separatist sentiments among local elites and sections of the upper middle class.
Other constitutional changes proposed by Putin in his recent address aim to further whip up Russian nationalism. They represent a direct attack on the democratic rights of the working class. The Kremlin wishes to ban dual citizenship for all those holding or running for office on a regional or a federal level. In addition, it seeks to raise the minimum residency requirement for presidential candidates from 10 to 25 years. Such laws can and will not only be used against members of the right-wing liberal opposition, but any opponent of the government.
Emboldened by these proposals, the far-right Orthodox group Sorok Sorokov launched a barely veiled anti-Semitic campaign against Ivan Urgant, a popular talk show host who holds Russian and Israeli citizenship, last Wednesday. The group demands that Urgant be deprived of his Russian citizenship for allegedly “offending Christian values” because of jokes about Jesus Christ in a show from January 7. They advocate a general ban on dual citizenship.