29 Jan 2020

#MeToo accusations and identity politics circulate around 2020 Grammy Awards

Matthew Brennan

The 62nd annual Grammy Awards ceremony was held on Sunday in Los Angeles. The event, hosted by the Recording Academy, is the most prominent such ceremony in the music business in the US. Grammys are handed out to musicians, singers, producers, engineers and songwriters. The live broadcast generally draws about 20 million television viewers on average, though that number represents a sharp decline from peak viewership in the 1970s and ’80s.
This year’s event was held in an atmosphere of squalid #MeToo-style accusations and infighting among the Recording Academy’s top officials, and amid a strenuous overall effort to orient the event (and the music world) toward identity politics.
On January 16, Deborah Dugan, the president and CEO of the Recording Academy, was placed on “administrative leave” in the face of undisclosed allegations of “misconduct” toward another female employee. A week later Dugan filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Academy, alleging sexual harassment by the organization’s chief legal counsel Joel Katz, and multiple claims of corruption against the organization, including the rigging of the voting process for award nominations. Dugan’s claim also asserts that she was informed by the Board of Trustees that Neil Portnow, whom she replaced as CEO in 2018, was previously accused of rape by an unnamed female artist.
Several additional claims and counterclaims have since emerged. Dugan’s complaint includes an outline of “gender discrimination” against her and other women, a “culture” of racial discrimination and inappropriate influence on various nominations.
Struggles over money and powerful positions appear to loom large, according to the initial reports. The unnamed woman accusing Dugan of “abuse”—a former assistant to Portnow—was allegedly dismissed in November 2019. Dugan claims the woman was pressured by the Academy Board to help bring her down, after she began challenging the “male-dominated leadership.” Dugan claims the actions against her escalated after she refused to hire Portnow as a consultant for $750,000 a year and when she attempted to challenge the exorbitant $250,000 retainer fees for figures like Katz.
The Academy Board, on the other hand, alleges that Dugan demanded $22 million as a buyout in return for stepping down after the claims of alleged “bullying” were raised. The Portnow rape allegation—which he has denied in a statement, and in regard to which no charges have been brought—was apparently made known to Dugan before she agreed to become CEO and President, and she did not raise anything about it until this past week.
At least a half dozen accusations of various kinds are raised in Dugan’s complaint to the EEOC. All sides thus far deny the allegations of the various forms of “misconduct” they are alleged to have committed.
Much of the rotten character of the #MeToo campaign—which has nothing to do with the conditions of working women and involves the jockeying for power and money within upper-middle-class layers—emerges in the sordid infighting.
Portnow came under fire by artists and activist groups when he responded to complaints of a lack of female winners and presenters at the 2018 Grammy awards by asserting that “women need to step up.” He was eventually forced to resign, and Dugan was brought on in early 2019.
The Academy created a task force in 2018 to take up the complaints, headed by Tina Tchen, a former chief of staff to Michelle Obama and organizer of the #MeToo-based Time’s Up legal fund. (Obama, incidentally, won for Best Spoken Word Album this year for her audio biography Becoming. She was also part of the opening ceremony in 2019). The task force concluded that there was an “overwhelming lack of diversity and inclusion” in the membership, among other things, prescribed “solutions” which are now being implemented in the gender-themed ceremonies, performances and positions. The subsequent two Grammy Award shows have been largely dominated by a focus on gender, race, sexual orientation and careerism.
As for the actual 2020 Grammys, it largely continued along self-absorbed lines. Very little of the outside world, or even the sordid infighting among the Academy’s executives, interfered with the evening. As we pointed out last year, one quickly gets the sense there is a lot of money at risk if one sticks one’s neck out. The proceedings have a great deal to do with self-promotion, which in part may explain why fewer and fewer people tune in.
The Grammys have always been considered a marketing tool for the large music recording firms. Currently, about 90 percent of the music market is controlled by four major companies—Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner Music and the EMI Group. Most of the artists up for the 84 awards on Sunday are connected to one of these companies, or one of their subsidiaries. Winners can count on lucrative record deals, advanced promotion and so forth.
Sunday’s event was again hosted by singer-pianist Alicia Keys, a talented musician, but selected no doubt for her general complacency, as well as her fealty to the music industry and the Democratic Party.
Alicia Keys at the Women’s March in 2017
Her opening monologue—setting the tone for the evening—was tedious and bland, careful not to address anything too serious, unquestioning in regard to identity politics and mixing in lavish praise of the audience. Additional comments and musical pieces throughout the evening by Keys continued in this general vein.
“We want to be respected, and safe, in our diversity,” she opened. “We want to be shifting to realness and inclusivity. So tonight, we want to celebrate the people. The artists that put themselves on the line and share their truth with us.” Later, in the closest she got to political commentary, she opined that should Donald Trump be impeached, he would be best replaced by rapper Cardi B, whose biggest single, “Bodak Yellow,” as we remarked in 2017, is a vulgar and anti-social “feminist anthem.”
Needless to say, virtually no “truthful” or “real”—and certainly no oppositional—moments emerged over the next three hours.
Billie Eilish in 2017 [Credit: Justin Higuchi]
The main winner of the evening was 18-year-old artist Billie Eilish. With her producer brother Finneas O’Connell, they won Album of the Year (When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?), Record of the Year, Best New Artist, Best Pop Vocal Album, Producer of the Year and Song of the Year for “Bad Guy.”
The music of Eilish is unusual, largely centered on minimal electronic production and influenced by something called ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response). The latter emphasizes subtle, whisper-like vocals and other similar forms of auditory stimuli. Eilish’s music has a broad appeal among young people.
But whatever invigorating qualities may exist in Eilish’s music, the lyrics and outlook are quite limited and bleak. The hit song “Bad Guy,” for instance, is slight stuff. “I’m that bad type/ Make your mama sad type/ Make your girlfriend mad tight/ Might seduce your dad type/ I’m the bad guy, duh” goes the refrain. The songs tend to be very dark and ironic, accompanied by videos that are unsettling. This was the best popular music had to offer, according to the Grammys.
Very little of the music of the other winners rises above expressions of well-worn and relatively trite sentiments. Winners such as Anderson.Paak (Best R&B Album), Little Nas X (Best Pop Duo for “Old Town Road”), Tyler the Creator (Best Rap Album for Igor), Cage the Elephant (Best Rock Album for Social Cues), Vampire Weekend (Best Alternative Music Album), or Lizzo (Best Urban Contemporary Album)—to name just a few of the better known winners—produced little of lasting substance last year.
Lizzo in 2018 [Credit: Andy Witchger]
Much of it is a slightly new approach to tired old material and themes: money worship, “self-empowerment” and “self-care,” but also self-loathing, ironic sentiment, relationship woes and so forth. There are always a few exceptions, but they are few and far between, and generally buried in the proceedings.
None of the great issues driving events and dominating the thinking of millions of people—endless war and the threat of wider wars, vast social inequality, the specter of fascism and a pervasive social crisis—were on display in the music or referred to in the speeches on Sunday. Anyone dropped into the event by time machine to learn something about the world in early 2020 would gain little more than a sense of the personal satisfaction of the award recipients at winning, along with the sadness generated by the death of basketball star Kobe Bryant.
The lack of anything genuinely moving or oppositional at the event was not because of a lack of talent or serious artistic ability of those in attendance. There were certainly many talented figures, young and old, at the ceremony or in the nominations—among them Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, John Prine, Bonnie Raitt, Elvis Costello, Brandi Carlile, Willie Nelson and dozens of others, including some of the winners.
Where artists focused more on honoring other artists or individuals, their sincerity and commitment were evident. Tributes to Prince, John Prine and Bryant were highlights in this regard.
But all told, it was a largely forgettable event.

The sudden death of basketball great Kobe Bryant produces shock and tributes worldwide

Alan Gilman

National Basketball Association (NBA) star Kobe Bryant, his 13-year old daughter Gianna, the pilot, and six other passengers were killed Sunday morning in a helicopter crash just north of Los Angeles.
The 41-year-old Bryant was taking his daughter and a teammate to a girls basketball tournament in Thousand Oaks, which is about 80 miles from Bryant’s home in Newport Beach, California. His home is about 45 miles south of Los Angeles and Bryant would often travel by helicopter because of the notorious traffic congestion in southern California.
Kobe Bryant [Credit: Keith Allison]
The cause of the crash has not yet been determined, but it occurred in an area where the visibility was so poor, due to fog, that the Los Angeles police and county sheriff’s departments had grounded their helicopters. The National Transportation Safety Board began an investigation into the circumstances of the tragedy.
Bryant joined the Los Angeles Lakers when he was just 17, right after finishing high school. During his 20 seasons with the Lakers, he won five NBA championships and was an All-Star 18 times, second most in NBA history. He also won two Olympic gold medals and became the third-leading scorer in NBA history. The night before his death, current Laker star LeBron James surpassed Bryant to drop him to fourth place. Bryant’s last tweet was to James, congratulating him for this milestone: “Continuing to move the game forward @King James. Much respect to my brother.”
Bryant was born in Philadelphia and was the son of former NBA player Joe Bryant and was named after the famous beef of Kobe, Japan. When he was six, his father left the NBA and went to play professionally in Italy. Bryant lived in Italy for several years, where he learned to play basketball himself and became fluent in Italian. When Bryant was about to enter high school, his family left Italy and moved to Lower Merion, a suburb of Philadelphia. By his senior year he was considered to be the best high school player in the nation and became the first guard to be drafted into the NBA directly out of high school.
Bryant was considered one of the hardest workers in sports, which helped him to perform at the highest level for two decades. He was one of the game’s most intense competitors, an attitude that at times caused conflicts with not only opponents but even some of his teammates, but it ultimately earned him the respect and admiration of fans. “Kobe” was one of the few US professional athletes known by a single name, and recognized around the world.
With a reputation for taking shots in the closing moments of tight games, Bryant was considered the NBA’s premier closer for most of his career. For ten consecutive years, NBA general managers voted him the player they would want to take a clutch shot with a game on the line.
Upon retiring, Bryant started a number of business enterprises including Granity Studios, a media company that focuses on creative storytelling around sports. Through this company he wrote and narrated a short film called “Dear Basketball,” which won the Academy Award for best animated short film in 2018.
Upon news of Bryant’s death, the media began non-stop coverage. In part this was due to the shocking suddenness of the famous athlete’s death, in part due to his celebrity and wealth: Bryant earned $323 million in salary alone during his 20 NBA seasons, and an estimated $350 million from endorsements from companies such as Adidas, Nike, and Coca-Cola.
But there is no doubt that Bryant’s death had a wide popular impact which is not merely the product of media manipulation. By Sunday afternoon thousands of people in Los Angeles had begun to gather outside Staples Center, the home of the Lakers. Later that evening the Grammy Awards were held at that same venue and opened its ceremony with a tribute to Bryant by host Alicia Keys. “We're all feeling crazy sadness right now because earlier today Los Angeles, America and the whole wide world lost a hero,” she said. “We're literally standing here heartbroken in the house that Kobe Bryant built.”
NFL professional football players honored him at Sunday’s Pro Bowl game, and there were other memorials throughout the Los Angeles area and at all NBA games Sunday and Monday.
Bryant’s death has also resonated throughout the world. His international popularity may have even exceeded his standing at home, as he became a major figure in elevating basketball’s global profile. In China within hours of news of Bryant’s death, the hashtag devoted to Bryant's death on Weibo had attracted an astounding 2.4 billion views and tens of millions of engagements, making it by far the most widely read and discussed topic of the day.
In Italy, where Bryant grew up, the Italian Basketball Federation announced that every professional team in all levels of basketball will pay homage to Kobe with a moment of silence in every game for seven days.

Trump ramps up tensions with UK after Huawei 5G decision

Thomas Scripps

Boris Johnson’s Conservative government has agreed a limited role for Chinese technology company Huawei in Britain’s 5G telecommunications networks. The decision was made at a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) Tuesday.
Huawei will be excluded from the core parts of the network, which process information, and restricted to providing 35 percent of the equipment in the network periphery—base stations and antennas which connect user devices with the core. The company will also be barred from geographical areas around military bases and nuclear sites.
The fudge decision is a desperate attempt to placate the Trump administration and avoid a collision over basic issues of economy and security. The Trump administration signaled reluctant acceptance of Johnson's compromise stating dissatisfaction with any relationship with an "untrusted vendor" while allowing anonymous sources to tell the media that this would not impact on such an important economic and security partner.
However, such reassurances follow a year of pressure from US officials determined to deny Huawei access to Britain’s 5G network and cannot be taken as the final word. Earlier this month, a US security delegation visited Downing Street to argue, “It’s the strong view and assessment by the US by a broad range of officials both political and professionals that any amount of equipment from untrusted Chinese vendors is too much.”
The US threatened to cut off vital intelligence sharing arrangements with Britain if the deal with Huawei went ahead.
Claimed security concerns aside, the Trump administration’s main aim is to hamstring China’s technology sector and drive them out of markets as an economic competitor. They fear the British decision could set a precedent and open the way to the Chinese company in other countries.
UK security advisors have continued to insist that they are able to counter the security threat posed by Huawei. A Whitehall source said Tuesday, “We are clear-eyed about the challenge posed by Huawei, which we today confirm is a high-risk vendor… Our world-leading cyber-security experts know more about Huawei than any country in the world—and they are satisfied that with our tough approach and regulatory regime, any risks can be managed.”
A critical motivator for the UK is that the economic costs of banning Huawei would be immense, with huge commercial interests at stake. A report commissioned by the UK’s biggest network operators said restricting the use of Huawei would delay the launch of 5G technology by between 18 months and two years, costing the UK economy between £4.5 billion and £6.8 billion.
Huawei is a much cheaper option than its rivals in the 5G market and is already being used in their infrastructure—under supervision—by three out of four of the UK’s mobile operators—EE, Vodafone and Three. Since 5G is being implemented on top of existing 4G networks which already contain Huawei technology, a ban would involve ripping elements of the current system apart, worsening the delay on rolling out the latest technology. 5G is considered essential to attracting new economic investment, particularly for technology and manufacturing companies.
Beijing had threatened “repercussions” if the UK enforced an outright ban on Huawei.
Refusing to accept the demands of the US has consequences. Trump’s enforcer, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, warned on Twitter Sunday, “The UK has a momentous decision ahead on 5G.”
Referencing an earlier tweet from the former Tory chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who wrote a Daily Mail op-ed opposing Huawei’s involvement, he continued, “British MP Tom Tugendhat gets it right: ‘The truth is that only nations able to protect their data will be sovereign’.”
Within minutes of the UK’s announcement, the Daily Telegraph posted a letter “To the people of Britain” by Klon Kitchen, a 15-year US intelligence operative and member of the neo-con Heritage Foundation. Kitchen asked, “Why bother with the struggle of leaving the European Union only to run into the arms of the communist Chinese?”
Republican Senator Tom Cotton sent a statement to the Daily Telegraph saying, “I fear London has freed itself from Brussels only to cede sovereignty to Beijing. Allowing Huawei to build the UK’s 5G networks today is like allowing the KGB to build its telephone network during the Cold War... the US Director of National Intelligence should conduct a thorough review of US-UK intelligence sharing.”
Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president and unindicted war criminal, Dick Cheney, said, “If they’re going to have Huawei in their 5G we have to recalculate [and] reassess whether or not they can continue to be among the closest of our intel partners.”
Leading Republican Newt Gingrich tweeted, “British decision to accept Huawei for 5G is a major defeat for the United Statees [sic]. How big does Huawei have to get and how many countries have to sign with Huawei for the US government to realize we are losing the internet to China?”
Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman with close ties to the military, tweeted, “Congress must work on a bipartisan basis to push back on this decision by the UK…”
Pompeo is due to begin a two-day meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab today.
The extent of the pressure from the US was reflected in Parliament Monday in the most significant rebellion Johnson has faced from the Tory Party since the December election. Tory grandee Sir Iain Duncan Smith began, “Given the fact that we are at war, in a sense... there is a cyber war going on… that we should think about giving a company which is heavily subsidised by China, a country that has set out to steal data non-stop, and also technology, that we think of giving to them that right to be in what is essentially a very, very delicate area of our technology…”
Long-time hawk Bob Seely asked, “Why is it argued that you could limit Huawei to the periphery of the network when Australia and the United States don’t agree, and when of the head of Australia’s cyber agency says the distinction between core and edge in 5G collapses?”
Owen Paterson, a former cabinet minister, said, “If there is such a risk, and we know Sir Richard Dearlove, ex head of MI6 has said there is, we know there is a risk of losing key intelligence from our closest allies, what is the overwhelming advantage of this equipment that we are looking to take this risk?”
Tugendhat compared to move to “nesting a dragon into our critical national infrastructure.”
The government said Tuesday there would be a Parliamentary vote on the Huawei deal in the near future, with the New Statesman commenting that those Tories opposed “hope today is merely the opening salvo of a campaign that will see the government defeated.”
Home Secretary Priti Patel and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace were opposed to Huawei’s involvement, but were outvoted in the NSC by Johnson, Chancellor Sajid Javid and Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill. The Sunday Times reported that both were “on the warpath” over the pending Huawei decision, saying that Johnson had been “bounced” by Whitehall officials into accepting a role for the Chinese company.
These right-wing, nationalist complaints were echoed in the Labour Party, with Shadow Culture Secretary Tracy Brabin stating, “The Tories refused to take our technological sovereignty seriously and failed to invest in home-grown alternatives to Huawei. As a result, they’re in the ludicrous position of having to choose between the UK’s security concerns and our infrastructure needs.”
The Scottish National Party took an identical line, with John Nicholson MP stating that the government had “chosen low cost over security” and Carol Monaghan MP stating that she did not know if it was “naivety or arrogance preventing the UK government from seeing the high risk being presented to security.”
Johnson is being brought face-to-face with the real cost of his Brexit strategy in the demand from Washington that the UK lines up four-square behind the US trade and military war-drive against China. US/UK tensions first broke into the open in 2015 when then Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to participate in the China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) against America’s wishes.
Now sharp divisions have emerged in the Tory Party, only recently united after the bloodbath over Brexit, on the eve of Britain’s exit from the European Union. With the UK departing the EU in just two days, it faces a rendezvous with disaster in its chosen partnership with Trump and his “America First” agenda. This threatens the trade deal Trump promised Johnson would be negotiated if he was able to secure Brexit and weaken another US rival, the EU, in the process.
On Monday, Tim Morrison, a former adviser to President Trump on his National Security Council, declared, “I’m concerned that, as the United Kingdom finally appears to be at least at the end of the beginning for Brexit, what this could mean for a US-UK trade agreement.”
Asked about the consequences for a US/UK trade deal he warned, “It becomes extremely difficult to see how you could get the votes on Capitol Hill [for such a deal].”

Coronavirus provokes turbulence on global stock markets

Nick Beams

The underlying fragility of global share markets, which have been boosted to record levels by the injection of trillions of dollars from the world’s central banks over the past decade and more, was underscored by the sharp falls on Monday and Tuesday in response to the coronavirus crisis.
The major Wall Street indexes dropped by the largest amounts since last October on Monday, with the Dow down by 454 points, or 1.6 percent. The S&P 500 experienced the same percentage decline. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note also fell to 1.605 percent to reach its lowest level in three months—a clear signal of investor uncertainty.
A television screen headlines trading on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Monday, Jan. 27, 2020. [Credit: AP Photo/Richard Drew]
Asian markets, which had been largely closed on Monday, followed Wall Street on Tuesday, with shares prices in South Korea, Singapore and Australia all recording declines. The Hong Kong market remained closed due to the Lunar Year holiday.
Commenting on the Wall Street fall, one corporate investment analyst told the Wall Street Journal: “It reminds investors that this market can turn on a dime, should it start to question what is causing it to go higher.”
Yesterday the Dow recovered some of its Monday losses, rising by 187 points while the S&P 500 also rose.
Markets had been steadily rising since last October following the US-China “phase one” trade deal signed earlier this month, due to calculations that it would lessen trade war tensions.
But the prospect that the corona virus will hit Chinese growth in the coming weeks and months led to the sell-off, particularly by stocks exposed to the Chinese market. Yesterday’s market rise appears to have been sparked, at least in part, by what one financial analyst told the Financial Times is the current “market mythology” that “the stock market can’t go down when the Fed is adding reserves.”
While the Fed has ended its quantitative easing program, it has indicated that interest rates will not rise and is pumping money into the market via purchases of assets in order to stabilise the overnight repurchase or “repo” market, which spiked when rates jumped to as high as 10 percent in mid-September.
The key issue for financial markets in the weeks ahead will be the full impact that the virus has on the Chinese economy. Comparisons have been made with outbreak the SARS virus in 2002–2003. After a brief downturn in its growth rate from 11.1 percent in the first quarter of 2003 to 9.1 percent in the second, the Chinese economy then underwent a recovery.
At that time, however, the Chinese growth rate was around 10 percent per annum and the world economy was experiencing an upturn that led to the highest global growth since the 1970s, in the period immediately prior to the financial crisis of 2008.
The situation today is very different. The world economy as a whole is in what the International Monetary Fund has termed a “synchronised slowdown” and the growth rate in the Chinese economy is barely above 6 percent—its lowest level in three decades.
Commenting on the market fall, Kit Jukes, a strategist at Société Générale, told the Financial Times: “The belief that low rates can and will smooth over the deepest potholes in the road ahead for financial markets is deeply ingrained. But there will be an economic impact from the virus outbreak, even if we don’t know how long it will last and how big the economic hit will be.”
The economic impact of the virus in China is already being widely felt. In Shanghai, the country’s financial capital, companies have been told not to reopen year until February 10. The manufacturing centre of Suzhuo—where iPhone contractor Foxconn, Johnson and Johnson and Samsung have major factories—has delayed the return to work of millions of migrant labourers by a week.
International car manufacturers, including Nissan and Renault, have started to pull foreign staff out of the country and there are concerns about how the outbreak will hit the country’s already depressed auto market.
In a bid to lessen the economic effects, the China Banking Regulatory Commission has said companies would receive support “through measures such as encouraging appropriate lowering of loan interest rates, approving arrangements for loan renewal policies and increasing medium-term and credit loans.”
But the most immediate effect will be on consumption spending, which plays a much more important role in the Chinese economy than it did 17 years ago when the SARS outbreak hit.
Railway transport fell on Saturday, the first day of the Lunar New Year, by 42 percent compared with the same day last year. Passenger flights plunged by the same amount. Retail sales, and consumer demand more broadly, will be the first areas to be affected.
According to Julian Evans-Pritchard, senior China economist at Capital Economics: “The coronavirus makes a pronounced slowdown even more likely and if the disease is not brought under control quickly, then even our downbeat forecasts may turn out to be too high.”
With China contributing about one third of total growth, the world economy as a whole will feel the effects, starting in the Asia-Pacific region. This prospect was reflected in the fall of 2.6 percent in Singapore’s major stock market index on Monday and warnings that the effect on the region could be “enormous.” The full impact will not register for weeks or even months.
In a comment published on Bloomberg, well-known financial analyst and commentator, Mohamed El-Arian said the market reaction to the virus had followed a familiar pattern—a short sell-off followed by a recovery as investors moved in to “buy the dip.”
But this pattern, he warned, obscured long-term challenges. The markets were motivated by the belief that economic fundamentals were resilient enough to navigate shocks and, “perhaps more important,” faith that central banks will provide sufficient stimulus.
However, he continued, markets faced not only the effects of this latest shock but a “considerable list” of medium-term uncertainties. These included “weak structural growth dynamics, de-globalisation, central bank policy effectiveness, climate change, technological disruptions, demographic change and the prospects for China’s historical development process.”

Trump unveils farcical Mideast “peace plan” as Netanyahu is indicted

Bill Van Auken

Donald Trump joined with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House Tuesday to publicly unveil what the US president described as his “vision for peace” in the Middle East. It was a farcical proposal, endorsing all of the policies of the Israeli right while guaranteeing rejection by the Palestinian people.
Trump meets with Netanyahu on Monday, January 27 [Credit: The White House]
The timing of the release of the “vision,” which is supposedly the brainchild of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and the product of over two years of work, was patently set to meet the immediate political needs of both Trump and Netanyahu. It came as Trump’s impeachment trial in the US Senate continued into its second week and only hours after Netanyahu was formally indicated on charges of fraud and bribery. The indictment came after Netanyahu dropped a futile attempt to win a vote in the Israeli Knesset granting him immunity from prosecution.
Trump’s announcement clearly was aimed at boosting the badly tattered image of Netanyahu, who faces his third election contest in less than a year. During the last round of voting, Trump similarly tried to promote the Israeli prime minister’s chances by announcing US recognition of Israel’s illegal claim to the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
The Trump administration has also recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moving its embassy there, and has cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians. Late last year, it announced that it no longer regarded Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory as “inconsistent with international law.”
In what amounted to self-parody, Trump proclaimed a “historic breakthrough” for the plan on the grounds that he had succeeded in winning approval from both Netanyahu and his rival in the Israeli elections set for March 2, Benny Gantz, the Blue and White Party candidate, who is a former chief of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Gantz, in an attempt to offset the obvious effort to boost Netanyahu’s status as a world statesman, flew to Washington on Monday and met with Trump privately before flying back to Israel for the anticipated vote on Netanyahu’s bid for immunity.
That this “breakthrough” included absolutely no discussion, much less agreement, with any Palestinian representative was taken as a matter of course. The US president allowed that the Palestinians would have four years to accommodate themselves to the US-Israeli diktat, while his son-in-law threatened that this would be their “last chance” to obtain an independent Palestinian state.
A conceptual map showing the proposed Palestinian state in green
The audience assembled to hear the proclamation of Trump’s “vision” consisted of his own cabinet members, right-wing supporters, Israeli officials, and prominent American Zionists, including the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a major funder of both the Republican Party and Israeli settlements, who occupied one of the prime front-row seats. They interrupted Trump’s and Netanyahu’s remarks with applause over 70 times—most of them standing ovations—including whoops of joy when the US president bragged of assassinating Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani and ripping up the Iran nuclear agreement.
The plan announced by Trump essentially formalizes the “facts on the ground” established by relentless Israeli aggression and land grabs in the occupied territories. It provides a US seal of approval for formal annexation of these territories and the consolidation of an apartheid regime.
While Trump’s and Kushner’s “vision” claims to grant Palestinians a “realistic two-state solution, offering a viable path to Palestinian statehood” at some point in the future, its rewards to Israel are immediate. Trump said in his White House remarks that Washington would recognize Israeli sovereignty over any land that “my vision provides to be part of the State of Israel.”
Taking him at his word, Netanyahu announced that he would organize a vote of his cabinet on Sunday to immediately impose Israeli sovereignty over the vast areas of the occupied West Bank—including the entire Jordan valley—granted to Israel under the Trump plan. Netanyahu’s move followed a demand for such a vote by his defense minister, Naftali Bennett, of the right-wing religious Yamina party, who insisted that Israel would never accept a Palestinian state nor “give one centimeter of ground to the Arabs.”
The Trump plan was issued in the form of a 181-page document, replete with maps drawing the “conceptual” borders of an expanded Israel and a supposed Palestinian mini-state. The maps make clear the travesty of the supposed Palestinian entity to be carved out of Israeli occupied territories, while masking the full extent of the absurdity of the proposal.
They show a patchwork of Palestinian cantons surrounded by Israeli territory, linked one to another by a series of Israeli-controlled bridges, tunnels and roads. The cantons themselves are peppered with what the plan describes as “Israeli enclave communities,” i.e., Zionist settlements that will be walled off, linked by apartheid-style Israeli-only security roads, and protected by Israeli security forces. On the map are five areas inside the supposed Palestinian territory that are marked as “strategic sites,” i.e., Israeli military bases. The statement moreover makes clear that the 15 “enclaves” listed cannot be interpreted as “all-inclusive.”
Meanwhile, every border, the airspace and access to the sea will be controlled by Israel. The proposal makes the infamous bantustans created by apartheid South Africa seem a model of national self-determination. What is being proposed for the West Bank, as in Gaza, is a giant open-air prison.
In return for this “gift,” the Palestinians are ordered to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” relegating Israeli Palestinians to a permanently oppressed status. They must disarm the Gaza Strip, renounce “terrorism,” along with support for the victims of Israeli security forces and accept what amounts to the imposition of a US-organized colonial administration.
Demonstrations erupted in both the West Bank and Gaza even before Trump and Netanyahu spoke at the White House, as details of the proposal became known. The Israel Defense Forces sent reinforcements into the occupied territories in anticipation of far wider protests on Wednesday.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Islamist Hamas movement, which administers Gaza, held a rare joint emergency meeting Tuesday night to discuss the Trump plan.
Abbas stated that the proposal would never be accepted and that discussions were underway on “changing the role of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in accordance with resolutions taken by the PLO.” While he did not spell out these changes, the PA has previously threatened to end its policing of the Palestinian population in cooperation with the IDF.
In the US, the Democratic Party, Trump’s ostensible opposition, has attempted to prove its own unconditional support for Israel in conjunction with the Trump plan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation to Israel last week to assure state officials that proposed legislation placing conditions on US military aid and requiring Trump to seek congressional approval for a war against Iran should not be seen as a threat to Israeli interests. Leading Democrats have also expressed concerns that the Trump plan exposes too openly the bankruptcy of the entire so-called “peace process” and “two-state solution.”
Trump announced on Tuesday that present in the audience were the ambassadors of the Gulf sheikdoms of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. One purpose of the farce of the Trump plan is to solidify an alliance between the Israeli state and the reactionary Persian Gulf oil monarchies, in preparation for all-out war against Iran. Not present, however, were Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which would play the central roles in pressuring the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to capitulate.
The shameless performance organized by Trump and Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday represented only one more nail in the coffin of the “two-state solution.” For millions of Palestinian workers and youth, the bankruptcy of this tactic has been made abundantly clear, not only by the crimes of Washington and Tel Aviv, but also by the perfidious role played by the Palestinian bourgeoisie.
Neither the Palestinian Authority of Abbas, which has functioned as an outright stooge and policeman for the Israeli occupation, nor the Islamist Hamas faction, has provided any way forward in the struggle against the conditions of oppression, displacement, poverty and violence that have been inflicted upon the Palestinian people.
Putting an end to these conditions can be realized only through the unification of Israeli and Palestinian workers with the working class through the Middle East and internationally in the fight for a Socialist Federation of the Middle East, as part the struggle to put an end to capitalism on a world scale.

28 Jan 2020

Government of Flanders Mastermind Scholarships 2020/2021 for International Students – Belgium

Application Deadline: Varies by institution. Some institutions have as deadline 1st February 2020! Apply early (+see below for all deadlines)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Various universities in Belgium
  • KU Leuven / University of Leuven
  • University of Antwerp
  • Ghent University
  • Hasselt University
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel
University colleges (Arts and Nautical Sciences)
  • Antwerp Maritime Academy
  • Artesis Plantijn University College Antwerp
  • Erasmus University College Brussels
  • Karel de Grote University College
  • LUCA School of Arts
  • PXL University College
  • University College Ghent
Eligible Field of Study: The program holds for all study areas.

About the Award: The programme aims to promote the internationalization of the Flemish Higher Education, as stated in the Action Plan for Student Mobility, Brains on the Move (September 2013).
Students cannot apply directly. Applications need to be submitted by the Flemish host institution.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Masters

Eligibility: The Flemish host institution applies on behalf of the student.
General eligibility requirements
  • The applicant applies to take up a Master degree programme at a higher education institution in Flanders (hereafter ‘Flemish host institution’).
  • The applicant should have a high standard of academic performance and/or potential. He/she meets all academic entrance criteria, including relevant language requirements, for entering the Master programme in question offered by the Flemish host institution.
  • All nationalities can apply. The previous degree obtained should be from a higher education institution located outside Flanders.
  • Students who are already enrolled in a Flemish higher education institution cannot apply.
Selection: A Flemish selection committee awards the scholarships, in cooperation with the Flemish Department of Education and Training.

Number of Awardees: 30

Value of Scholarship: The incoming student is awarded a scholarship of maximum €8000,- per academic year.

Duration of Scholarship: The duration of mobility is minimum 1 academic year and maximum the full duration of the master programme. If the student obtains less than 45 ECTS in the first year, then he/she loses the scholarship in the second year.
Deadline for application at Host institution:

Universities:
• KU Leuven / University of Leuven: 1st February 2020
• University of Antwerp: 1st March 2020
• Ghent University: 29th February 2020
• Hasselt University: 15th March 2020
• Vrije Universiteit Brussel: 28th February 2020


University colleges, also know as Universities of Applied Sciences (and Arts):
• Antwerp Maritime Academy: t.b.c.
• Artesis Plantijn University College Antwerp: 1st March 2020
• Erasmus University College Brussels: t.b.c.
• Karel de Grote University College: t.b.c.
• LUCA School of Arts: 1st March 2020
• PXL University College:2nd March 2020
• University College Ghent: 20th March 2020 (4.00 pm)

• Deadline for application: 30th April 2020
• Selection: May 2020
• Announcement of selection results: June 2020
• Start of mobility: September 2020

How to Apply: 
  • You can find more information in the guidelines for application in the Scholarship Webpage link.
  • You need to contact the Flemish higher education institution to inquire about their internal selection procedures and deadline for submitting the application.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Government of Flanders Priority Country Scholarship 2020/2021 Programme – Belgium

Application Deadline: 1st April 2020 GMT+1.

Eligible Countries: Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Turkey and the United States of America.

To be taken at (University): Various universities in Belgium
  • KU Leuven / University of Leuven
  • University of Antwerp
  • Ghent University
  • Hasselt University
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel
University colleges (Arts and Nautical Sciences)
  • Artesis Plantijn Hogeschool Antwerpen
  • Arteveldehogeschool
  • Erasmushogeschool Brussel
  • Hogere Zeevaartschool
  • Hogeschool Gent
  • Howest, Hogeschool West-Vlaanderen
  • Karel de Grote-Hogeschool
  • LUCA School of Arts
  • Odisee: Stefanie Derks
  • Hogeschool PXL
  • Hogeschool VIVES
  • Thomas More Mechelen-Antwerpen
  • Thomas More Kempen
  • UC Leuven
  • UC Limburg
Eligible Field of Study: The program holds for all study areas.

About the Award: The selection for the Priority Country Programme is made only once a year.
Many forms of mobility are accepted under the Priority Country Programme: both short mobility of one, two or three months, or long mobility of one semester up to a period of maximum one year, both for study or internship:
  • Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, or the United States of America: fellowships for students in both directions, both short and long mobility.
  • Turkey: fellowships for students in both directions, short mobility only: duration of mobility is restricted to one month for internship and two months for study.
Type: Masters

Eligibility: Due to the unique nature of this program, in order to be eligible, the exchange project needs to fulfill all requirements below:
  • The applicant of a Priority Country Programme grant is fulltime enrolled in a study programme of EQF level 5, 6 or 7.
  • In case of study mobility: A higher education institution in Belgium/Flanders (Home institution) and an educational institution in Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Turkey or the United States of America (Host institution) have established an academic cooperation agreement or have the intention to set up a new cooperation agreement by writing a letter of engagement.
  • In case of internship: A higher education institution in Belgium/Flanders (Home institution) and an institution/organization/company in Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Turkey or the United States of America (Host institution) have established a traineeship agreement.
  • The Flemish higher education institution, as well as the partner from Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Turkey or the United States of America cannot ask tuition fees to the students for the exchanges.
  • To be eligible for a Priority Country Programme grant, the student cannot be staying in the country of the Host institution already at the time of the selection procedure.
  • International students meet all academic entrance criteria, including relevant language requirements, for entering the study programme in the Flemish host institution.
  • A maximum of six applications per country can be submitted per higher education institution.
Nationality of the student is not a criterion

Number of Awards: It is estimated that 100 to 120 students can benefit from the Priority Country Programme.

Value and Duration of Scholarship: 
  • The grant amount is €650/month for the Flemish student with a total maximum of €2.600 and €800/month for the international student with a total maximum of €3.200.
  • The students receive a supplementary reimbursement for travel expenses, according to the following rules in the link below.
How to Apply: 
  • The application needs to be submitted following the rules for 2020/2021 submission in the Program Webpage (see Link below).
  • All documents are to be written in English, with exception of the official Transcript of records. If the Transcript of Records written in another language than Dutch, French or English, enclose a certified translation.
  • International students meet all academic entrance criteria, including relevant language requirements, for entering the study programme in the Flemish host institution.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

The Challenge for Chile and the World

Ariel Dorfman

SANTIAGO, Chile.
In October, a rise in Santiago’s metro fares set off the biggest protests in Chile since the end of Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. Protesters were calling out elite corruption, inequality, high prices and low wages, and specifically the pain caused by a privatized retirement system, which left many old people in grinding poverty.
The essential question that confronts Chile is one that many other nations are grappling with today: Can the demands of a radicalized and disaffected movement of citizens, most of whom are young, impatient and social media-savvy, be channeled and resolved by a political elite that has shown itself, until now, blind to the needs of the great majority of its populace?
The approval ratings of President Sebastián Piñera of Chile, who leads a right-wing government, have sunk to six percent while those of the Chilean Congress, which is controlled by the center-left-wing opposition, have fallen to three percent.
Whether Chile will succeed in meeting the challenges of a restless, dissatisfied citizenry depends, in great measure, on the decisions of someone like Pablo Z., a 43-year-old father of four, whom I met a few days ago at the Plaza Italia, the epicenter of the uprising. Ever since the revolt demolished the certainties of Chile’s exceptionalism as an oasis of neoliberal success in the Latin America, he has been living two parallel lives.
By day, he works diligently at a construction job, building one of the many expensive high rises that are sprouting all over Santiago.
In the evenings and often until dawn, he covers his features with a bandanna and battles the police alongside thousands of activists whose tactics have often turned violent and destructive — many times in response to the extraordinary police brutality of the past three months, which includes beatings, rapes in police stations and toxic material in water cannons. It is a level of violence not seen since the Pinochet era.
The rebellion, backed by millions of Chileans who have flooded the streets, derives from a deep frustration with the neoliberal economic model of development that has dominated the country’s existence for almost five decades and that has not delivered the promised prosperity and equal opportunities.
Thus far, the protests have succeeded in ways that would have seemed impossible to even contemplate three months ago. Modifications to the inadequate and unfair health and educational systems and to the failing pension plans (privatized during the Pinochet dictatorship, 1973-1990) are underway, although still insufficient to quell the unrest.
And the right-wing political parties that had always adamantly defended Pinochet’s fraudulent Constitution of 1980, under which they had been able to veto any major changes, joined the parties of the center-left to propose an itinerary for a constitutional convention that will, by the end of April, begin creating a new and participatory Magna Carta born of the free will of the people.
What matters most, perhaps, is that the country no longer thinks of itself as an “oasis” in a turbulent Latin America (in the words of the clueless President Sebastián Piñera) but rather as part of the continent’s perpetual struggle for justice and equality. A new Chile seems to have been born.
Despite these advances, which prove that the political elite of Chile have started to listen to the neglected majorities they are supposed to represent, it is not enough for Pablo Z. and his leaderless comrades. He showed me four pellet wounds in his upper torso — and said he had been lucky, because many activists (almost 300) had lost some vision because the police deliberately targeted their eyes. Others had been beaten and raped in police stations.
Pablo Z. demands that those responsible for these systematic violations of human rights be put on trial and wants the rampant corruption in the highest places — far too often protected by a system rigged to benefit the obscenely rich — be penalized. He and his comrades, meanwhile, live on indecent salaries.
Violence, he argues, will not cease until these demands, including the resignation of the government, be met. He shrugs off the burning of churches, the interruption of university entrance exams, the barricades in the streets, as inevitable when trying to awaken the country to flagrant inequities, shatter its complacency and restore dignity.
Protesters repeatedly speak of dignity and have even renamed some places in Santiago “Dignidad.”
“We accomplished in 30 days what nobody did in 30 years,” Pablo told me. “As soon as we stop protesting, the people at the top will ignore us again. Why should we stop now?”
There are reasons, though, why the protesters might wish to rethink their tactics. Delinquents and narcos have taken advantage of the everlasting clashes to vandalize and loot. Conservative forces are using the resulting chaos, dread and interruption of normal life to emphasize law and order as the most important issue of the day instead of the urgent questioning of the economic and political model.
Sections of the Chilean right, nostalgic for the Pinochet years, have already begun backtracking from the need for a new constitution and are sponsoring harsh repressive measures against the rights of assembly and free speech.
This does not matter to Pablo Z. Suspicious of traditional politicians, he dreams of a total revolution, a cause for which he says he is prepared to die.
Can someone as alienated from the system as Pablo ever be part of a social consensus without which it will be impossible to change the laws of the land? Is there a chance he will ever inhabit a country where he will not be divided between his daytime job as a builder and his nighttime struggles as a destroyer of “oppressive” institutions? Without incessant pressure from below, can structural change ever be achieved? But if the situation gets out of hand, will the armed forces end up intervening to restore “order”?
It remains to be seen if Chile will be able, in the stressful months ahead, to meet the social, economic and political challenges posed by the revolt.
If the mainly peaceful Chilean people do manage such a seemingly intractable task — bridging the abyss between recalcitrant protesters and a fearful elite clinging to power — this deepening of democracy might show other nations a way to deal with similar divisions.
It is something to aim for in these dire times of worldwide conflict and resistance. A popular victory that, I hope, Pablo Z. could eventually recognize as his own and embrace as a way forward.

How Is Washington ‘Liberating’ Free Countries

Andre Vltchek

There are obviously some serious linguistic issues and disagreements between the West and the rest of the world. Essential terms like “freedom”, “democracy”, “liberation”, even “terrorism”, are all mixed up and confused; they mean something absolutely different in New York, London, Berlin, and in the rest of the world.
Before we begin analyzing, let us recall that countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States, as well as other Western nations, have been spreading colonialist terror to basically all corners of the world. And in the process, they developed effective terminology and propaganda, which has been justifying, even glorifying acts such as looting, torture, rape and genocides. Basically, first Europe, and later North America literally “got away with everything, including mass murder”.The native people of Americas, Africa and Asia have been massacred, their voices silenced. Slaves were imported from Africa. Great Asian nations, such as China, what is now “India” and Indonesia, got occupied, divided and thoroughly plundered.
And all was done in the name of spreading religion, “liberating” people from themselves, as well as “civilizing them”.
Nothing has really changed.
To date, people of great nations with thousands of years of culture, are treated like infants; humiliated, and as if they were still in kindergarten, told how to behave, and how to think.
Sometimes if they “misbehave”, they get slapped. Periodically they get slapped so hard, that it takes them decades, even centuries, to get back to their feet. It took China decades to recover from the period of “humiliation”. India and Indonesia are presently trying to recuperate, from the colonial barbarity, and from, in the case of Indonesia, the 1965 U.S.-administered fascist coup.
But if you go back to the archives in London, Brussels or Berlin, all the monstrous acts of colonialism, are justified by lofty terms. Western powers are always “fighting for justice”; they are “enlightening” and “liberating”. No regrets, no shame and no second thoughts. They are always correct!
Like now; precisely as it is these days.
Presently, the West is trying to overthrow governments in several independent countries, on different continents. From Bolivia (the country has been already destroyed) to Venezuela, from Iraq to Iran, to China and Russia. The more successful these countries get, the better they serve their people, the more vicious the attacks from abroad are, the tougher the embargos and sanctions imposed on them are. The happier the citizens are, the more grotesque the propaganda disseminated from the West gets.
*
In Hong Kong, some young people, out of financial interest, or out of ignorance, keep shouting: “President Trump, Please Liberate Us!” Or similar, but equally treasonous slogans. They are waving U.S., U.K. and German flags. They beat up people who try to argue with them, including their own Police Force.
So, let us see, how the United States really “liberates” countries, in various pockets of the world.
Let us visit Iran, a country which (you’d never guess it if consuming only Western mass media) is, despite the vicious embargos and sanctions, on the verge of the “highest human development index bracket” (UNDP). How is it possible? Simple. Because Iran is a socialist country (socialism with the Iranian characteristics). It is also an internationalist nation which is fighting against Western imperialism. It helps many occupied and attacked states on our planet, including Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia (before), Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, to name just a few.
So, what is the West doing? It is trying to ruin it, by all means; ruin all good will and progress. It is starving Iran through sanctions, it finances and encourages its “opposition”, as it does in China, Russia and Latin America. It is trying to destroy it.
Then, it just bombs their convoy in neighboring Iraq, killing its brave commander, General Soleimani. And, as if it was not horrid enough, it turns the tables around, and starts threatening Teheran with more sanctions, more attacks, and even with the destruction of its cultural sites.
Iran, under attack, confused, shot down, by mistake, a Ukrainian passenger jet. It immediately apologized, in horror, offering compensation. The U.S. straightway began digging into the wound. It started to provoke (like in Hong Kong) young people. The British ambassador, too, got involved!
As if Iran and the rest of the world should suddenly forget that during its attack on Iraq, more than 3 decades ago, Washington actually shot down an Iranian wide-body passenger plane (Iran Air flight 655, an Airbus-300), on a routine flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai.In an “accident”, 290 people, among them 66 children, lost their lives. That was considered “war collateral”.
Iranian leaders then did not demand “regime change” in Washington. They were not paying for riots in New York or Chicago.
As China is not doing anything of that nature, now.
The “Liberation” of Iraq (in fact, brutal sanctions, bombing, invasion and occupation) took more than a million Iraqi lives, most of them, those of women and children. Presently, Iraq has been plundered, broken into pieces, and on its knees.
Is this the kind of “liberation” that some of the Hong Kong youngsters really want?
No? But if not, is there any other performed by the West, in modern history?
*
Washington is getting more and more aggressive, in all parts of the world.
It also pays more and more for collaboration.
And it is not shy to inject terrorist tactics into allied troops, organizations and non-governmental organizations. Hong Kong is no exception.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia, China, Venezuela, but also many other countries, should be carefully watching and analyzing each and every move made by the United States. The West is perfecting tactics on how to liquidate all opposition to its dictates.
It is not called a “war”, yet. But it is. People are dying. The lives of millions are being ruined.