United Airlines threatens to axe 36,000 jobs

Steve Filips

Chicago-based United Airlines announced yesterday that it could furlough up to 36,000 airline workers, or 45 percent of its US workforce, on October 1. The mass layoffs are timed to coincide with the termination of the Payroll Support Program (PSP), included in the bipartisan CARES Act, which prohibited layoffs until September 30 as part of the terms of a nearly $25 billion bailout of the airline industry.

In town hall meetings, company executives told employees, “The reality is that United simply cannot continue at our current payroll level past October 1 in an environment where travel demand is so depressed. And involuntary furloughs come as a last resort, after months of company-wide cost-cutting and capital raising.”

The potential job losses at United include 15,000 flight attendants, 11,000 customer service and gate agents, 5,500 maintenance workers and 2,250 pilots. According to a report in the New York Times: “United could cut fewer employees if ticket sales pick up significantly or if many thousands of workers accept fewer hours or apply for buyouts and early retirement packages before a mid-July deadline. Workers will know if they are being furloughed by the end of August, and most will be eligible to return to work when travel picks up. United is also cutting about a third of management and administrative employees.”

United Airlines flight on March 11, 2020 (Anna Zvereva / Wikimedia Commons)

It is clear the airlines are using the collapse in air travel caused by the pandemic to implement long-standing restructuring plants. The combination of real and threatened layoffs will be used to extract huge wage and benefit concessions from airline workers.

The cuts are part of a general bloodletting in the US and international airline industry. American Airlines has already implementing plans to cut 20 to 30 percent of its staff through a combination of forced retirements and involuntary furloughs. “If we’re 20 percent smaller, having 20 percent fewer people,” American CEO Doug Parker told investors last month, “we’re able to use this crisis to figure out things that we can do more efficiently.”

With the rush to lift lockdowns, the airlines enjoyed a brief period of increased air travel. United Airlines, which never blocked out seats or limited capacity, announced it would be adding 25,000 flights in August. The resurgence of the pandemic, with a record 60,000 cases yesterday and a two-week quarantine of travel imposed by New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, has hit United’s hub in Newark, New Jersey, according to media reports.

Since March, United has pressured workers to take early retirements and voluntary furloughs in an effort to slash costs. In June, United CEO Scott Kirby told investors he would seek “new labor deals” from the unions but if none materialized there would be involuntary layoffs, according to a CNN report.

On Tuesday, United applied for US Treasury loans, along with JetBlue, Delta, Southwest and Alaska. Five other carriers—American, Hawaiian, Frontier, Spirit and SkyWest—have also applied for additional loans. All told, the grants in the CARES Act, plus the loans, will total over $50 billion.

The airlines were the beneficiaries of huge bailouts following 9/11 and after the 2008 financial crash. While wrenching massive concessions from airline workers, the five biggest US carriers spent 96 percent of their free cash flow over the past decade on stock buybacks, according to Bloomberg, bolstering the fortunes of investors and top executives. Last year, United’s Oscar Munoz got $12.4 million, Delta CEO Ed Bastian got $17.3 million in total compensation, and American CEO Doug Parker pocketed $11.5 million.

The unions have backed the bailout of the airlines and signaled their willingness to collaborate in another round of devastating concessions. Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, called the threatened United layoffs a “gut punch” but made it clear the unions would do nothing to fight it. Instead, she said that the United proposals were “an honest assessment” of the state of the industry and called on workers to back the Democrats.

Johnson & Johnson-AESA Research & Development (R&D) Fellowship Programme 2020 for African Researchers

Application Deadline: 31st July 2020 1700hrs EAT]

About the Award: The Johnson & Johnson-AESA R&D fellowship programme is committed to building drug development capacity and networks in Africa to enable countries to address diseases with high medical needs, locally. In that spirit, Johnson & Johnson has established an R&D Training Fellowship Programme for highly talented, suitably qualified and experienced African doctors and scientists, to help close the R&D knowledge and experience gap that exists in many countries in Africa to be hosted by the AAS.
Through the establishment of a Research and Development (R&D) training fellowship programme for highly talented, suitably qualified and experienced African physicians, pharmacists, epidemiologists and/or MSc’s in public health to help close the R&D knowledge and experience gap that exists in many African countries.
This fellowship programme is managed by the Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA) is an Africa-led, Africa-centred, and Africa-specific funding and agenda setting platform created to accelerate scientific excellence, leadership and innovation.  AESA is an initiative of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Agency. For more information about AESA, visit https://www.aasciences.africa/aesa.
Within this fellowship programme, Johnson & Johnson, through its dedicated Global Public Health organization, together with the selected Fellows, consider the specific needs of the countries of origin and build upon the valuable knowledge which the fellows bring to the programme to optimize the course curriculum. The majority of the 2-year training will be ‘on the job’ when fellows are being assigned to a late-stage development programme at Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, primarily in areas of infectious diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and vaccines. In addition, the training shall comprise of:

1. Training modules on all aspects of drug development with focus on clinical development;
2. Training modules in leadership, communication, project management, etc. to strengthen leadership skills;
3. Selective modules of the master programmes of Public Health or Tropical Medicine at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp;
4. Other opportunities as identified during the programme (conferences, other trainings).

The entire Programme package maximally strives to strengthen the fellow’s skills and capacities and, upon return of the fellow, contribute to the creation of qualitative clinical development centres of excellence at sites across sub-Saharan Africa, and on the long run contribute to prosperity and welfare of the continent.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:
Individual

1. A citizen of any of the sub-Saharan African countries listed here: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Swaziland, Senegal, Zambia and Zimbabwe;
2. Employed in public, not-for-profit, or academic institutions, or industry;
3. Holding of a scientific University degree (PhD, MD, physicians, pharmacists, epidemiologists, relevant master’s qualifications) with high interest to expand knowledge and experience in drug development and clinical development;
4. Holding a degree and / or demonstrated experience in Public Health and/or local healthcare;
5. Aged between 30 and 45 years at the time of application.

The profile of a successful candidate under this programme is a mid-career professional with very strong leadership qualities. S/he should be able to arrange a 2-year leave of absence from their current place of work during which time their salaries and normal employment conditions will be paid for 50% by their employers (the Programme will support the remaining 50%), be eligible to receive a visa for one of the European countries or USA, able to work cooperatively in a diverse group in a new environment and culture, and, demonstrate an energetic and positive attitude. Upon completion of the fellowship, s/he should be committed to return to the sub-Saharan African region and apply drug development leadership skills and training in their local context.

Institution

1. Is a legal entity;
2. Is based in a sub-Saharan African country listed here: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Swaziland, Senegal, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Home country in Africa & Belgium

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

Year 1-2 | Training at the Janssen R&D campus in Belgium
The Fellowship Programme entails extensive on-the-job training in drug development at Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen R&D Campus in Belgium, with major focus on clinical development. Additional theoretical training covers all essential drug development core activities such as label-driven drug development, regulatory & quality, discovery activities, chemical pharmaceutical development, preclinical development, clinical development & clinical trial execution, biomarkers & diagnostics, vaccines, and commercialization & access. In addition, the fellows can participate in courses in epidemiology, public health, or tropical medicine at the Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine. Finally, courses in leadership, communication, and project management are also provided. These trainings focus on strengthening the fellow’s skills to interact successfully in an international and very often still male-driven environment.
On a whole, the courses are modularly built which allows to adapt the curriculum based on the fellow’s background and expertise, and the needs of the institute. The final curriculum is discussed with the fellow and home institute together.
During the on-the-job training,n fellows either shadow a Medical Leader, Study Responsible Physician, or Compound Development Leader, three key functions in R&D, and connect and closely collaborate with many other core functions at Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen R&D Campus in Belgium and international R&D development sites.

Year 2-3 | Return to home country in Africa
The AAS and Johnson & Johnson will support the fellows for a 1-year period on their return to their home country. Elements of this support may include:

1. Training materials for academic teaching, capacity building and networks.
2. Clinical trial expertise to support initiation of local clinical research.
3. Evaluate opportunities and feasibility of institution to participate in international development programmes and networks

Duration of Award: 3 years

How to Apply: This Call for Application (CfA) utilizes an online application form on AAS Ishango Online Grants Management System (Ishango)
Find Application Link & Requirements in Link below

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

African Research Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases (ARNTD) African Researchers’ Small Grants Program 2020

Application Deadline: 14th August, 2020, 17:00 GMT

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: This fourth edition of the Small Grants Program (SGP III) is to support African researchers in both early and mid/late career to undertake operational research aligned with the goals established in the London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases.  SGP III is comprised of two small grant funding tracks:
a. Small grants for junior researchers
b. Small grants for mid-career and/or senior researchers.

Objectives of the call

1. To increase African leadership, involvement and visibility in neglected tropical disease (NTD) operational and social science research, including through direct engagement with national NTD programs;
2. To contribute to improving the research capacity of an existing cadre of African NTD researchers and strengthening African research institutions in the process by supporting operational and social science research on NTDs that is locally originated and African-led, either by junior researchers or experienced researchers ready to take on larger research programs;
3. To improve South-South communication and collaboration among researchers, policymakers and implementers, and for community participation in research and agenda-setting;
4. To provide an opportunity for young upcoming researchers not only to gain experience in research, but also in preparation of grant applications and management;
5. To supplement a clearly defined aspect of ongoing research or to answer a new question linked to ongoing research being carried out by mid-career/senior researchers;
6. To encourage a model of North-South collaboration which promotes engagement between researchers in the South and their control programs, and improves local leadership and ownership of initiatives and activities.

Type: Grants

Eligibility:
General criteria:

1. Must be currently employed by or enrolled as a student in an academic, health, or research institution in Africa for the duration of the grant
2. Must demonstrate having a commitment to NTD-related research as well as the skills and experience required to carry out the proposed work
3. Must be able to provide evidence of research output, including publications and/or presentations at scientific conferences

Specific to applicants for the junior researchers’ grants:

1. Must be an early career researcher, defined as a basic biomedical scientist, clinically qualified investigator, or public health researcher, who has not previously competed successfully as principal investigator for a major research grant (i.e., ≥USD 200,000)
2. Must hold at least a Master’s degree or should be actively enrolled in doctoral studies. Applicants holding a doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, DrPH, DSc) must have graduated no more than seven years ago. Clinicians (e.g. MBChB, MBBS, MD, DVM holders), who have not completed a Master’s degree must have some specialist training (e.g., Membership, Fellowship) or be able to demonstrate relevant research training/experience
3. Must not currently hold positions above lecturer/assistant professor level or equivalent
4. Must be able to provide written evidence of commitment to providing mentorship and supervision from a senior researcher with a track record and ongoing commitment to NTD research.

Specific to applicants for the mid-career/senior researchers grants:

1. Must be a mid-career/senior researcher, defined as a basic biomedical scientist, clinically qualified investigator, or public health researcher, who has previously competed successfully as principal investigator for a major research grant, but is no more than fifteen years from their highest degree of study
2. Must hold a doctoral degree (e.g. PhD, DrPH, DSc). Clinicians (e.g. MBChB, MBBS, MD, DVM holders), who have not completed a PhD must have completed specialist training (e.g., Fellowship) or be able to demonstrate relevant training tied to research (e.g., MSc, MPhil), or experience
3. Must hold a position no lower than Senior lecturer/Senior Scientific Officer level or equivalent
4. Must demonstrate that they have a track record and ongoing commitment to NTD research

Selection Criteria: This third call for proposals is targeted at outstanding researchers – especially beginning researchers – and academics based in research institutions or universities in Africa. Applicants will have to demonstrate that the proposed research or activity is aligned with country/program interests and has potential institutional/individual capacity-building impact. The small grants targeted at junior and senior researchers at the Masters or PhD level will provide grants ranging from USD $5,000 – $25,000. Applications are accepted in both English and French.

What’s in Scope?
In order to be considered for funding, the proposed research must be informed by existing evidence and identified gaps. Proposals must demonstrate significant potential to inform or develop further research activities. Priority funding will be directed to projects focusing on the five preventive chemotherapy (PC) NTDs (i.e., lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, soil-transmitted helminthiasis, schistosomiasis, and trachoma) and projects focusing on improving equitable access to NTD interventions for vulnerable populations (e.g., nomads, groups in conflict zones, and rural/hard-to-reach areas, refugees, and the disabled). Eligible proposals may focus on:

1. Implementation research that aims to improve the effectiveness of NTD programs. This includes:
a. Identifying factors that hinder equitable delivery of NTD program interventions to vulnerable groups.
b. Developing, testing, and scaling practical solutions that are evidence-based, adaptive, and context-specific.
c. Identifying ways to improve uptake, adaptation, and adoption of existing evidence-based strategies, tools to achieve elimination and control targets.
For implementation research topics, applicants have the option of selecting one or both of the following:

• Conduct a formative study to quantify and describe implementation challenges and make recommendations for program improvements. In this case, applicants should clearly outline research hypotheses, methodology, and variables of interest.
• Conduct an intervention study, citing evidence from previous research and program dis-aggregated data through a gender, equity, and human rights lens and justifying the research questions, approach, and methodology in the background and significance section of the proposal. In this case, applicants should also clearly outline research hypotheses, methodology, and variables of interest; and document the proposed plan for evaluating the short-term or intermediate effect of the intervention on variables of interest.

2. Operational research with potential for generating knowledge that can directly inform programmatic decisions around program monitoring, stopping, and surveillance. Studies to develop or validate innovative new diagnostic technologies to support monitoring and evaluation of NTD programs are especially welcomed. 

What’s out of Scope?
SGP II funding cannot be used for paying salaries, participating in meetings/conferences, payment of tuition/course fees, purchase of restricted commodities (e.g., contraception, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, etc.), and for supporting existing programmatic M&E activities such as, but not limited to, mapping, mass drug administration, transmission assessment surveys (TAS), Kato-Katz impact evaluations, trachoma impact surveys/surveillance surveys, data quality assessments, onchocerciasis impact evaluations, onchocerciasis Stop MDA surveys, coverage surveys, knowledge attitude perception surveys, etc.).  

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Maximum funding per award: USD 30,000

How to Apply:

1. Access the online application form and instructions here, complete all required sections and submit ahead of the deadline
2. Upload a copy of your budget. Download template in English here. Upon completion, please click here to upload a copy of your budget. Please note that an application without an accompanying budget using the prescribed template will not be reviewed.

Review of the application will take the following into consideration:

1. The eligibility of the applicant
2. The scientific merit of the proposed project
3. The significance of the research
4. The potential for scaling up the research
5. The overall quality of the application

A panel will review all complete applications submitted, culminating in the preliminary selection of the junior and senior grant awardees. You may download the reviewer’s guide here. The final award and disbursement of funds will be conditioned on the head of department/unit of the host institution in which this award will be based confirming in writing that the research will be supported with appropriate space and facilities and administered in the name of the organization. In addition, successful applicants for the junior researchers’ grants will be required to submit a letter of support from a senior researcher and mentor who will serve as their “research quality guarantor”, and will be equally responsible for the success of the research project.
Inquiries can be made from the ARNTD Secretariat at any point during the period when the call is open by sending an email with the subject line “Inquiry SGP III” to secretariat@arntd.org.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

DAAD Postgraduate Study Scholarship in Music 2021 for International Students – Germany

Application Deadline: 1st October 2020

Eligible Countries: International 

To be Taken at (Country): Germany

About the Award: In this study programme, you can complete

• a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
• a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)

at a state German college of music of your choice.
Postgraduate studies are possible in the so-called 2nd cycle (usually a four-semester Master’s degree) or a 3rd cycle which usually takes place in two semesters (concert examination, masterclass or PhD in an artistic subject).
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field. Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the field of musicology or music education or musicians with a scientific project.

Type: Masters, Short course/Training

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of Music at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme; if this is not possible, they should have at least exhausted all the training options available for their instrument in their country of origin.

• As a rule, applicants should have taken their final examinations no longer than six years before the application deadline.
• The respective college of music is responsible for deciding age limits for admission, whereby differing rules may be applied depending on the applicant’s academic level and chosen subject.
• Applicants who have been resident in Germany for longer than 15 months at the application deadline cannot be considered.
• If the scholarship holder is enrolled in a Master’s or postgraduate degree programme which includes a study period abroad, funding for this period abroad is usually only possible under the following conditions:
  – The study visit is essential for achievement of the scholarship objective.
  – The study period is no longer than a quarter of the scholarship period. Longer periods cannot be funded, even partially.
  – The study period does not take place in the home country.

Language: Applicants in the field of music should have a knowledge of the language of instruction that corresponds to the requirements of the chosen university at the latest by the time they start their scholarship. If you do not yet have the language skills required by the university at the time of your application, your application should indicate the extent to which you are in a position to reach the required level. After you have been awarded a scholarship, take advantage of the funding opportunities described under “Value”.

Selection Criteria: A special DAAD committee made up of professors from German colleges of music makes the final decision about scholarships in the field of music. The decision is based upon written applications and sound recordings which have to be submitted.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• A monthly payment of 850 euros
• Travel allowance
• One-off study allowance
• Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover

Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:

• Monthly rent subsidy
• Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family

To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:

• Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (www.deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
• if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language at the German host institution is German.
• Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
• Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
• As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.

Duration of Award:
Master’s degree programme:

• Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or study project
• The scholarships are awarded for the duration of the standard period of study for the chosen study programme (up to a maximum of 24 months). To receive further funding after the first year of study for 2-year courses, proof of academic achievements thus far should indicate that the study programme can be successfully completed within the standard period of study. Therefore, a reference of the main subject teacher will be required.
• Applicants who are already in Germany in the first year of a postgraduate course at the time of application may apply for funding for their second year of study.
• An extension of the scholarship is possible if changing to a new stage in studies is intended (usually from a Master’s degree to an advanced programme of study such as a concert exam or master class). For particularly qualified candidates, it is possible to apply for an extension for a concert exam for up to two years.

Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification:

• One academic year. In individual cases, the scholarship can be extended on request
• Start: usually on 1st October, or earlier if a language course is taken prior to the study programme

How to Apply:

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Australian Government Research Training Programme (RTP) Scholarships 2020/2021 for International Students

Application Deadline: Varying by universities (usually May-October)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Australia and International

To be taken at (country): Australia

About the Award: The Research Training Program (RTP) scheme is administered by individual universities on behalf of the Department of Education and Training. Applications for RTP Scholarships need to be made directly to participating universities. Each university has its own application and selection process, please contact your chosen university directly to discuss how to apply for the RTP scheme.
Information on commencing a postgraduate research degree and university courses can be found on the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching website. General information about the support arrangements for students may be obtained from the Study Assist website. Frequently asked questions for students are also available to answer student queries.
The objectives of the RTP scheme are to:

• provide flexible funding arrangements to support the training of domestic students and overseas students undertaking HDRs at Australian HEPs
• deliver graduates with the skills required to build careers in academia and other sectors of the labour market
• support collaboration between HEPs and industry and other research end-users
• support overseas students undertaking HDR studies at Australian HEPs.

Type: Masters (by research), PhD (research)

Eligibility:

• RTP scholarships are available to domestic and overseas students enrolled in an accredited HDR course at an Australian HEP.
• Other eligibilities to be decided by participating universities

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Students can be offered RTP scholarships for one or more of the following:

• tuition fees offset
• stipend for general living costs
• allowances related to the ancillary cost of research degrees.

Duration of Award: Two (2) years for a research masters degree and Three (3) years for a research doctorate degree.

How to Apply: Applications for an RTP need to be made directly to participating universities. The department does not provide an application form. Contact details for participating universities and general information about courses offered in Australia may be obtained HERE

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider: Australian Government Department of Education and Training.

Key U.S. Ally Indicted for Organ Trade Murder Scheme

Nicolas J S Davies

When President Clinton dropped 23,000 bombs on what was left of Yugoslavia in 1999 and NATO invaded and occupied the Yugoslav province of Kosovo, U.S. officials presented the war to the American public as a “humanitarian intervention” to protect Kosovo’s majority ethnic Albanian population from genocide at the hands of Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. That narrative has been unraveling piece by piece ever since.

In 2008 an international prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, accused U.S.-backed Prime Minister Hashim Thaci of Kosovo of using the U.S. bombing campaign as cover to murder hundreds of people to sell their internal organs on the international transplant market. Del Ponte’s charges seemed almost too ghoulish to be true. But on June 24th, Thaci, now President of Kosovo, and nine other former leaders of the CIA-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA,) were finally indicted for these 20-year-old crimes by a special war crimes court at The Hague.

From 1996 on, the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies covertly worked with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) to instigate and fuel violence and chaos in Kosovo. The CIA spurned mainstream Kosovar nationalist leaders in favor of gangsters and heroin smugglers like Thaci and his cronies, recruiting them as terrorists and death squads to assassinate Yugoslav police and anyone who opposed them, ethnic Serbs and Albanians alike.

As it has done in country after country since the 1950s, the CIA unleashed a dirty civil war that Western politicians and media dutifully blamed on Yugoslav authorities. But by early 1998, even U.S. envoy Robert Gelbard called the KLA a “terrorist group” and the UN Security Council condemned “acts of terrorism” by the KLA and “all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training.” Once the war was over and Kosovo was successfully occupied by U.S. and NATO forces, CIA sources openly touted the agency’s role in manufacturing the civil war to set the stage for NATO intervention.

By September 1998, the UN reported that 230,000 civilians had fled the civil war, mostly across the border to Albania, and the UN Security Council passed resolution 1199, calling for a ceasefire, an international monitoring mission, the return of refugees and a political resolution. A new U.S. envoy, Richard Holbrooke, convinced Yugoslav President Milosevic to agree to a unilateral ceasefire and the introduction of a 2,000 member “verification” mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). But the U.S. and NATO immediately started drawing up plans for a bombing campaign to “enforce” the UN resolution and Yugoslavia’s unilateral ceasefire.

Holbrooke persuaded the chair of the OSCE, Polish foreign minister Bronislaw Geremek, to appoint William Walker, the former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador during its civil war, to lead the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM). The U.S. quickly hired 150 Dyncorp mercenaries to form the nucleus of Walker’s team, whose 1,380 members used GPS equipment to map Yugoslav military and civilian infrastructure for the planned NATO bombing campaign. Walker’s deputy, Gabriel Keller, France’s former Ambassador to Yugoslavia, accused Walker of sabotaging the KVM, and CIA sources later admitted that the KVM was a “CIA front” to coordinate with the KLA and spy on Yugoslavia.

The climactic incident of CIA-provoked violence that set the political stage for the NATO bombing and invasion was a firefight at a village called Racak, which the KLA had fortified as a base from which to ambush police patrols and dispatch death squads to kill local “collaborators.” In January 1999, Yugoslav police attacked the KLA base in Racak, leaving 43 men, a woman and a teenage boy dead.

After the firefight, Yugoslav police withdrew from the village, and the KLA reoccupied it and staged the scene to make the firefight look like a massacre of civilians. When William Walker and a KVM team visited Racak the next day, they accepted the KLA’s massacre story and broadcast it to the world, and it became a standard part of the narrative to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia and military occupation of Kosovo.

Autopsies by an international team of medical examiners found traces of gunpowder on the hands of nearly all the bodies, showing that they had fired weapons. They were nearly all killed by multiple gunshots as in a firefight, not by precise shots as in a summary execution, and only one victim was shot at close range. But the full autopsy results were only published much later, and the Finnish chief medical examiner accused Walker of pressuring her to alter them.

Two experienced French journalists and an AP camera crew at the scene challenged the KLA and Walker’s version of what happened in Racak. Christophe Chatelet’s article in Le Monde was headlined, “Were the dead in Racak really massacred in cold blood?” and veteran Yugoslavia correspondent Renaud Girard concluded his story in Le Figaro with another critical question, “Did the KLA seek to transform a military defeat into a political victory?”

NATO immediately threatened to bomb Yugoslavia, and France agreed to host high-level talks. But instead of inviting Kosovo’s mainstream nationalist leaders to the talks in Rambouillet, Secretary Albright flew in a delegation led by KLA commander Hashim Thaci, until then known to Yugoslav authorities only as a gangster and a terrorist.

Albright presented both sides with a draft agreement in two parts, civilian and military. The civilian part granted Kosovo unprecedented autonomy from Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav delegation accepted that. But the military agreement would have forced Yugoslavia to accept a NATO military occupation, not just of Kosovo but with no geographical limits, in effect placing all of Yugoslavia under NATO occupation.

When Milosevich refused Albright’s terms for unconditional surrender, the U.S. and NATO claimed he had rejected peace, and war was the only answer, the “last resort.” They did not return to the UN Security Council to try to legitimize their plan, knowing full well that Russia, China and other countries would reject it. When UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Albright the British government was “having trouble with our lawyers” over NATO’s plan for an illegal war of aggression against Yugoslavia, she told him to “get new lawyers.”

In March 1999, the KVM teams were withdrawn and the bombing began. Pascal Neuffer, a Swiss KVM observer reported, “The situation on the ground on the eve of the bombing did not justify a military intervention. We could certainly have continued our work. And the explanations given in the press, saying the mission was compromised by Serb threats, did not correspond to what I saw. Let’s say rather that we were evacuated because NATO had decided to bomb.”

NATO killed thousands of civilians in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia, as it bombed 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 69 schools, 25,000 homes, power stations, a national TV station, the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and other diplomatic missions. After it invaded Kosovo, the U.S. military set up the 955-acre Camp Bondsteel, one of its largest bases in Europe, on its newest occupied territory. Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, Alvaro Gil-Robles, visited Camp Bondsteel in 2002 and called it “a smaller version of Guantanamo,” exposing it as a secret CIA black site for illegal, unaccountable detention and torture.

But for the people of Kosovo, the ordeal was not over when the bombing stopped. Far more people had fled the bombing than the so-called “ethnic cleansing” the CIA had provoked to set the stage for it. A reported 900,000 refugees, nearly half the population, returned to a shattered, occupied province, now ruled by gangsters and foreign overlords.

Serbs and other minorities became second-class citizens, clinging precariously to homes and communities where many of their families had lived for centuries. More than 200,000 Serbs, Roma and other minorities fled, as the NATO occupation and KLA rule replaced the CIA’s manufactured illusion of ethnic cleansing with the real thing. Camp Bondsteel was the province’s largest employer, and U.S. military contractors also sent Kosovars to work in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2019, Kosovo’s per capita GDP was only $4,458, less than any country in Europe except Moldova and war-torn, post-coup Ukraine.

In 2007, a German military intelligence report described Kosovo as a “Mafia society,” based on the “capture of the state” by criminals. The report named Hashim Thaci, then the leader of the Democratic Party, as an example of “the closest ties between leading political decision makers and the dominant criminal class.” In 2000, 80% of the heroin trade in Europe was controlled by Kosovar gangs, and the presence of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops fueled an explosion of prostitution and sex trafficking, also controlled by Kosovo’s new criminal ruling class.

In 2008, Thaci was elected Prime Minister, and Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. (The final dissolution of Yugoslavia in 2006 had left Serbia and Montenegro as separate countries.) The U.S. and 14 allies immediately recognized Kosovo’s independence, and ninety-seven countries, about half the countries in the world, have now done so. But neither Serbia nor the UN have recognized it, leaving Kosovo in long-term diplomatic limbo.

When the court in the Hague unveiled the charges against Thaci on June 24th, he was on his way to Washington for a White House meeting with Trump and President Vucic of Serbia to try to resolve Kosovo’s diplomatic impasse. But when the charges were announced, Thaci’s plane made a U-turn over the Atlantic, he returned to Kosovo and the meeting was canceled.

The accusation of murder and organ trafficking against Thaci was first made in 2008 by Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY), in a book she wrote after stepping down from that position. Del Ponte later explained that the ICTFY was prevented from charging Thaci and his co-defendants by the non-cooperation of NATO and the UN Mission in Kosovo. In an interview for the 2014 documentary, The Weight of Chains 2, she explained, “NATO and the KLA, as allies in the war, couldn’t act against each other.”

Human Rights Watch and the BBC followed up on Del Ponte’s allegations, and found evidence that Thaci and his cronies murdered up to 400 mostly Sebian prisoners during the NATO bombing in 1999. Survivors described prison camps in Albania where prisoners were tortured and killed, a yellow house where people’s organs were removed and an unmarked mass grave nearby.

Council of Europe investigator Dick Marty interviewed witnesses, gathered evidence and published a report, which the Council of Europe endorsed in January 2011, but the Kosovo parliament did not approve the plan for a special court in the Hague until 2015. The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and independent prosecutor’s office finally began work in 2017. Now the judges have six months to review the prosecutor’s charges and decide whether the trial should proceed.

A central part of the Western narrative on Yugoslavia was the demonization of President Milosevich of Yugoslavia, who resisted his country’s Western-backed dismemberment throughout the 1990s. Western leaders smeared Milosevich as a “New Hitler” and the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but he was still arguing his innocence when he died in a cell at The Hague in 2006.

Ten years later, at the trial of the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, the judges accepted the prosecution’s evidence that Milosevich strongly opposed Karadzic’s plan to carve out a Serb Republic in Bosnia. They convicted Karadzic of being fully responsible for the resulting civil war, in effect posthumously exonerating Milosevich of responsibility for the actions of the Bosnian Serbs, the most serious of the charges against him.

But the U.S.’s endless campaign to paint all its enemies as “violent dictators” and “New Hitlers” rolls on like a demonization machine on autopilot, against Putin, Xi, Maduro, Khamenei, the late Fidel Castro and any foreign leader who stands up to the imperial dictates of the U.S. government. These smear campaigns serve as pretexts for brutal sanctions and catastrophic wars against our international neighbors, but also as political weapons to attack and diminish any U.S. politician who stands up for peace, diplomacy and disarmament.

As the web of lies spun by Clinton and Albright has unraveled, and the truth behind their lies has spilled out piece by bloody piece, the war on Yugoslavia has emerged as a case study in how U.S. leaders mislead us into war. In many ways, Kosovo established the template that U.S. leaders have used to plunge our country and the world into endless war ever since. What U.S. leaders took away from their “success” in Kosovo was that legality, humanity and truth are no match for CIA-manufactured chaos and lies, and they doubled down on that strategy to plunge the U.S. and the world into endless war.

As it did in Kosovo, the CIA is still running wild, fabricating pretexts for new wars and unlimited military spending, based on sourceless accusations, covert operations and flawed, politicized intelligence. We have allowed American politicians to pat themselves on the back for being tough on “dictators” and “thugs,” letting them settle for the cheap shot instead of tackling the much harder job of reining in the real instigators of war and chaos: the U.S. military and the CIA.

But if the people of Kosovo can hold the CIA-backed gangsters who murdered their people, sold their body parts and hijacked their country accountable for their crimes, is it too much to hope that Americans can do the same and hold our leaders accountable for their far more widespread and systematic war crimes?

Iran recently indicted Donald Trump for the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, and asked Interpol to issue an international arrest warrant for him. Trump is probably not losing sleep over that, but the indictment of such a key U.S. ally as Thaci is a sign that the U.S. “accountabilty-free zone” of impunity for war crimes is finally starting to shrink, at least in the protection it provides to U.S. allies. Should Netanyahu, Bin Salman and Tony Blair be starting to look over their shoulders?

India with Chinese Characteristics

Satya Sagar

As India and China squabble over a tiny but strategic strip of land along their long border, some may be tempted to classify this as a clash between a democracy and a communist dictatorship.

And yet, a closer look reveals that India is not much of a democracy anymore – with rampant state repression, subversion of institutions, mass surveillance and discrimination against minorities. Neither is China communist in any sense of the term– being among the world’s most powerful capitalist nations, with widespread social inequality, pauperization of the peasantry and crude exploitation of labour.

Both countries have instead become like the very colonial empires their people fought to become independent nations. Empires operated on behalf of tiny elites, who whip up nationalist sentiments to divert attention from issues such as equitable sharing of resources or democratic rights for their citizens.

Seven decades ago, when India and China freed themselves from the grip of colonialism, they  embarked on different political and economic trajectories. India, under the Fabian socialist Jawaharlal Nehru established a multi-party, constitutional democracy and promoted a ‘mixed economy’, which was essentially capitalism with a strong dose of public sector involvement. China, under Mao turned into a communist dictatorship, banned all opposition parties, collectivized land in the rural areas and nationalized all industry.

While the means varied, the two countries had a similar quest –  to lift their populations out of poverty, rapidly industrialize and catch up with the developed West. Both China and India also symbolized a rising Asia that wanted to undo the humiliation they had suffered under colonialism and emerge as strong nations.

Over the last half century, the two Asian neighbours have regained some of their lost historic status as global powerhouses, especially China, which in purchasing power parity terms is the world’s largest economy today, surpassing the United States. Steady growth has lifted millions of their citizens out of dire poverty and both countries are better fed and more educated than anytime under colonial rule.

China and India also possess great military might today – being nuclear powers and ranked first and second for largest number of active troops in the world.   The real threats to China or India however are not external but come from within, as both countries seem to have lost their way and turned their backs on the civilizational impetus that guided their freedom struggles.

Today governments in the two countries represent nothing more than holding operations on behalf of powerful vested interests. In both countries big moneyed corporations shape national policies routinely, resulting in growing income inequalities that betray their socialist or communist vision from the past.

In the case of China, the Communist Party has always justified monopoly on power in the name of ensuring equal share of resources to all citizens, particularly from the peasantry. However, rapid urbanization promoted by the government in the last three decades, has seen a widening gap between rich and poor and incomes of urban and rural populations.

Between 1978 and 2015 the share of national income earned by the top 10 per cent increased from 27 per cent to 41 per cent. In the same period  the share earned by the bottom 50 per cent  dropped from 27 per cent to 15 per cent. Private businesses also dominate the  Chinese economy today with the share of public property in national wealth declining from about 70 per cent in 1978 to about 30 per cent in 2015.

in the case of India, which always had milder redistributive policies compared to China, the richest 1 per cent hold more than four-times the wealth held by 953 million people who make up for the bottom 70 per cent of the population. Overall, the top 10% of the Indian population today holds 77% of the total national wealth.

What is worse is that governments of the two countries are today also completely in the grip of a majoritarian ethos, that insists that their nation belongs exclusively to certain dominant social groups. Though at the time of the communist revolution China instituted many sound policies to take care of the needs of its 50 plus ethnic minorities, today it is run entirely by and on behalf of the Han ethnic group, who constitute 90 percent of the population.

In the case of India – despite the Constitution guaranteeing both secularism and equality to all citizens- power is concentrated in the hands of upper caste Hindus. Though themselves a tiny number they claim to represent Hindus in general, who make up over 80 percent of the citizenry. Apart from continuing with the centuries old oppression of indigenous communities and those at the bottom of the Hindu caste order, the Indian state also systematically discriminates against Muslims, who are the country’s largest religious minority.

Both countries are also increasingly intolerant of dissent, using the harshest methods to put down their opponents of any kind. China’s brutal suppression of those calling for freedom in Tibet is well known and if recent reports of mass arbitrary detention, torture, forced labour, and sterilisation of Xinjiang’s Muslims are to be believed, the methods used by the Chinese regime mirror those of Nazi Germany.

In India, which calls itself the ‘world’s largest democracy’, the right-wing regime currently in power has become brazenly authoritarian. Political dissidents, particularly student activists, are routinely thrown into prison, with the surveillance state muzzling freedom of expression. In Kashmir, where Muslims are locally a majority, Indian troops are routinely accused of gross human rights violations, paralleled only by atrocities committed by Israeli forces occupying Palestinian territories.

As China and India face-off over control of icy land in the mountains along their borders what people of both countries should really worry about is not each other but the dubious nature of their own ruling regimes.

Growing authoritarianism in the two countries can only result in increasing internal turmoil that will undo all the gains they have made since independence. More than money or military might, it is principles like democracy and fairness to all citizens, that are the real source of strength of societies throughout history.

Even in the United States, it is the fact that they can have a mass movement like ‘Black Lives Matter’ – without brutal suppression –  that makes them a real superpower. A few centuries ago the reason why China and India got so easily conquered by European powers was because their feudal systems did not allow any meaningful debate or social change to happen – thereby weakening them internally.

Today, as old imperialist nations like the US, UK and Japan once again fish in troubled waters, trying to pit India against China, it is important to remember the right lessons from history.

Going back to the times of the East India Company and the Opium War may not be something the people of either country will want for sure. That is what they will get though, if they fail to fight their own rotten regimes at home on time.

Lawfare, Crisis and Hindutva Fascism in India

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The Hindutva fascism is replacing seven decades of secular democratic traditions and liberal constitutional practices in India. The well-established decentralised institutions of governance are destroyed with processes of the centralisation of power by the BJP government led by Mr Narendra Modi. The civilizational traditions of inter-faith dialogue and religious harmony in Indian society is ruined by the majoritarian politics of Hindutva forces. The Indian economy today is in its worst crisis in history even before the outbreak of Coronavirus pandemic. The growing Indian economy was stalled due to economic mismanagement, false economic priorities, irrelevant and arbitrary economic policies. The internal security, neighbourhood policies of India and its external relationships are tattered by the personality cult driven Modiplacy. The economic, social and political crises in India are not isolated events. These are self-inflicted wounds by the ignorance and arrogance of Modi government, which is driven by anti-democratic and obscurantist ideology of the RSS. Where did India go wrong? What are the ideological factors that landed Indians in such a situation of desperation and despondency? How to characterise Modi government? The answers to these questions are central to understand the predicaments of India and Indians today.

The ‘unbridle neoliberal capitalism’ in economy, ‘higher caste identity-based supremacist ideology in politics’, ‘authoritarianism in governance,’ ‘evangelical cultural and religious outlooks’, and ‘false propaganda’ are the five defining characters of Mr Narendra Modi led BJP government in India. These features are central to the forward march of Hindutva fascism in India. These forces are transforming every democratic, judicial, educational, health and security establishments in India to kowtow before the RSS ideology, which derives its historical inspirations from the racist European Nazism and fascism. These forces have historical twin targets. Their first ideological target is to consolidate higher caste Hindus by spreading the politics of fear and hate. It helps in creating the culture of otherness, where religious minorities are branded as enemies of the Indian nation. The second target is to attack political left, human right organisations and activists, progressive and democratic organisations and political parties. The objective is to destroy any form of opposition to the BJP led governments in India.

The Supreme Court of India has given ideological breathing space to fascist forces by defining it as ‘Hindutva is not a religion, but a way of life and a state of mind’ in its 1995 judgement. It helped the BJP to get greater social and political acceptance among politically naïve liberals in India. The first part of the judgement is correct as Hindutva is not a religion. It has nothing to do with Hindu religion and spiritual Hindus. But second part is absolutely a biased conceptualisation. Hindutva is neither a way of life nor a state of mind. It is a political project of reactionary higher caste Hindu identity politics, which is against the democratic, secular and liberal ethos of Indian constitution and multicultural ethos of Indian society. The interconnection between the Hindutva fascism, Indian judiciary and neoliberal capitalism, which is pushing India in a ruinous path of no return. This troika creates Indian form of lawfare, which is against egalitarian principles and promises of Indian Constitution and seven decades of judicial practices in independent India.

The Supreme Court of India destroys universalistic appeal of the Indian Constitution by not halting the implementation of exclusionary laws of the BJP government. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR) are unnecessary and unjustified attempts to institutionalise exclusionary form of citizenship and governance, which is antithetical to the Indian society and Indian Constitutional practices. Some of the existing legal and parliamentary traditions help the Hindutva led government to make new laws in Indian legislatures to destroy democracy and deepen social, economic, cultural and religious crises in India. The lawfare is a weapon to pursue the politics of the ruling classes. It is used to destroy any form of political opposition to the reactionary government in India. The lawfare in India provides legitimacy to reactionary political and economic forces by disciplining the masses. It enhances the power of regional, national and international capital and weakens the power of labour. The lawfare helps in socialising the policies and normalising the politics of Hindutva fascist forces in India.

The lawfare creates both conditions, institutions and regimes of capitalist accumulation with the help of Hindutva fascist forces. The social, economic and political crisis is an opportunity for the capitalist classes to capture the natural and other resources in the country. Mr Narendra Modi’s successful bid to be the PM of India twice shows his media made popularity; read it as manipulation helps him to pretend to be the messiah of the masses. He was successful in selling the false development narratives to the electorate by taking advantage of widespread anger against neoliberal economic mismanagement and corrupt practices of the United Progressive Alliance led by the Indian National Congress. However, after defeating Congress party, Modi led BJP is following the same neoliberal economic policies with letter and spirit. The rules and regulations are made to facilitate the mobility of capitalism in India. It helps in the further consolidation of capitalism with the authoritarian governance and fascist politics of Modi led BJP. This is the reason for which Modi is considered to be the darling of capitalist oligarchs in their local, regional, national and international incarnations.

The Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court of India has revealed that the lawfare in India is intertwined with so called popular narratives and nationalist sentiments. The so-called popular narratives and nationalist sentiments are shaped by the propaganda of the bourgeois media and reactionary political forces led by BJP and RSS. It seems that historical facts and evidences are no longer sacred in Indian judicial practice. The insidious cult of RSS and BJP is looming large on Indian republic and its future depends on our collective conscious to comprehend the seriousness of the crisis. It would be hypocritic to be silent patriotic when Hindutva fascism is destroying lives and livelihoods of millions of Indians by implementing disastrous economic and development policies. It is time for political struggles to expose the fake nationalism of RSS and BJP, and restore liberal, constitutional democracy in India. The progressive political struggle to defeat Hindutva fascism is the only alternative for the survival of India and its forward march towards a path of peace and prosperity.