1 Sept 2016

Brazilian Senate votes to remove President Rousseff of Workers Party

Bill Van Auken

Brazil’s Senate voted Wednesday afternoon by an overwhelming majority to confirm the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, effectively ending more than 13 years of rule by the Workers Party (PT), which first came to power in 2003 under the presidency of former metalworkers union leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
A two-thirds majority was needed to permanently oust Rousseff from office. In the event, three-quarters of the Senate voted to remove her, with 61 senators voting for her conviction and 20 voting against. There were no abstentions.
A separate vote was taken on an article calling for Rousseff to be barred from any public office or employment for eight years. This gained majority support but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds vote.
The charges against Rousseff were of a trumped-up character, brought by a cabal of corrupt, right-wing politicians who until recently were the closest allies of Rousseff and the PT.
The Senate found the Brazilian president guilty of issuing three unauthorized supplementary spending decrees and engaging in so-called fiscal peddling, i.e., delaying payments to the state-run Banco do Brasil to cover up holes in funding for social programs. Supporters of the impeachment charged that both measures were intended to conceal the depth of Brazil’s economic crisis in the run-up to Rousseff’s 2014 reelection.
Rousseff’s defenders countered that similar fiscal measures had been employed by previous Brazilian presidents as well as by state governors, and that the real impulse for the impeachment was the government’s failure to protect leading politicians caught up in the massive corruption scandal involving billions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks from the state-run energy conglomerate Petrobras.
The impeachment proceedings were initiated in December of last year by the then-president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha, immediately after PT deputies on a congressional ethics committee investigating his diversion of millions of dollars in bribe money to secret Swiss bank accounts announced that they would vote against him.
According to the group Transparency Brazil, fully 60 percent of the Brazilian lawmakers who voted on impeachment are themselves either under criminal investigation or have already been convicted on corruption charges.
In a speech delivered after the vote to finalize her removal from office, Rousseff declared the impeachment “the second coup” she had faced in her lifetime. The first was the 1964 US-backed coup that brought to power the military dictatorship under which she was imprisoned and tortured. The second, she said, was “the parliamentary coup concluded today by means of a juridical farce.”
She charged that the “coup” was the work of a “powerful conservative and reactionary force” bent on disrupting her government’s “progressive national project” and introducing the “most radical economic liberalism and social regression.” She added, “It is a misogynist coup, a homophobic coup, a racist coup,” concluding her remarks with a verse from the Russian poet Mayakovsky.
The PT’s “progressive national project” consisted essentially of minimal social assistance programs made possible by the commodities and emerging market booms that have since gone bust. This was combined with an aggressive defense of the interests of Brazilian capitalism and the faithful fulfillment of obligations to the international banks and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The crisis that has gripped much of Latin America has undermined this model in Brazil, just as it has either brought down or driven into deep crisis other governments identified with the so-called turn to the left begun at the beginning of the millennium.
After being sworn in as president in the Senate, Rousseff’s former vice president (and acting president since the vote of the lower house in favor of impeachment in May), Michel Temer, of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), convened a meeting of his cabinet in which he declared he would no longer tolerate anyone referring to him as a golpista (putschist). “The golpista is you who are against the Constitution,” he said of his critics. “Things have been defined and it’s necessary to be very firm… this is no joke.”
Temer, who flew Wednesday night to China for the meeting of the G20 leading economies, also issued a taped speech which was broadcast on national radio and television Wednesday night. He hailed the impeachment as “democratic and transparent.” He declared that “uncertainty has come to an end,” and added, “It is the hour for uniting the country and placing the interests of the nation over the interests of groups.”
He indicated what he meant by this, stating that “the government is like your family. If it falls into debt, it must cut its expenses.” He warned that the government would soon be unable to pay out retirement benefits without introducing social security “reform.”
Temer, who is supposed to occupy the presidency through the end of 2018, added that his “mission is to show businessmen and investors of the whole world” that Brazil is offering “good deals” and will “guarantee investors political stability.” To that end, he added, a “modernization” of Brazil’s labor laws was required as well as measures to make the state more “agile.”
The newly installed, unelected president acknowledged that he was assuming power with Brazil “mired in a grave economic crisis.” Just two days before, the Brazilian statistics agency IBGE reported that the official unemployment rate had risen again in the last quarter, reaching 11.6 percent, with roughly 12 million Brazilians without work. At least 3.4 million have lost their jobs in the last year alone. The economy shrank by 0.6 percent, the sixth consecutive quarter of decline.
Temer’s program is aimed at placing the full burden of this crisis onto the backs of the Brazilian working class. In addition to the measures he hinted at in his recorded remarks, the government is preparing a constitutional amendment that would bar any increase in spending for up to 20 years and scrap requirements guaranteeing health and education budgets, threatening a further gutting of essential social services.
The protests of Rousseff, the PT and its pseudo-left apologists notwithstanding, the Workers Party had itself attempted to introduce similar measures. In its bid to ward off impeachment, the PT’s principal argument was that it was best suited to carry out such sweeping attacks while guaranteeing “governability” by virtue of its ties to the trade unions and the government-affiliated “social movements.”
It appealed not to the working class and oppressed masses to defeat what it termed a coup, but rather to the right-wing politicians who were organizing it, with former President Lula attempting to cajole them into voting against impeachment.
The ultimate decision to oust Rousseff was driven by the demands of Brazilian and international finance capital, which wanted a change in regime in order to accelerate the attacks already begun under the rule of the PT.
Polls have indicated that the vast majority of the population is hostile to both Rousseff and Temer, who are seen as part of the same corrupt capitalist state apparatus pursuing essentially the same political and economic agendas. Nonetheless, the impeachment will used to rapidly intensify the attacks on Brazilian workers.
The Brazilian pseudo-left organizations, including those that broke with the Trotskyist movement, the International Committee of the Fourth International, in the 1960s, bear grave responsibility for the immense dangers now confronting the Brazilian working class. They played a key role in forming the PT and liquidated themselves into it, promoting the illusion of a Brazilian parliamentary road to socialism that made the building of a revolutionary Marxist party in the working class no longer necessary. The PT in power incubated the extreme right-wing forces that are now being unleashed against the Brazilian workers and oppressed.
Reflecting the position of Wall Street, State Department spokesman John Kirby Wednesday afternoon issued Washington’s seal of approval for the impeachment. “The Brazilian Senate, in accordance with Brazil’s constitutional framework, has voted to remove President Rousseff from office,” he said. “We’re confident that we will continue the strong bilateral relationship that exists between our two countries… We plan to continue this very essential collaboration.”
He added that bringing down Rousseff was “a decision made by the Brazilian people, and obviously, we respect that.”

India-Myanmar: Time to Rev up Bilateral Ties

Ashok Sajjanhar


The National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi assumed power in Myanmar in March, 2016. The NLD had handsomely won the elections in November 2015, notwithstanding the huge obstacles placed in its path by the military. Suu Kyi herself could not assume the role of the country's president because of a constitutional provision debarring her from doing so. She hence anointed her loyal aide and confidant U Htin Kyaw to this high position.

India's first official contact with the NLD government was established when External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj paid a one-day visit to Naypyidaw on 22nd August 2016 where she met Suu Kyi as well as President Kyaw. Conversely, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had travelled to Naypyidaw on 05 April 2016 - within a week of assumption of power by the NLD - to establish contact with the new government.

President Kyaw chose India as the destination of his first foreign visit as president. This visit took place from 27-30 August 2016. This underscores the importance Myanmar attaches to relations with India. At the same time it should be noted that Suu Kyi, whose official position is State Counsellor and Foreign Minister but who is the de facto leader of the country, chose China to be the first country of her visit - notwithstanding China's collaboration with the military government when she was under house arrest. When she was under house arrest, Suu Kyi was highly critical of Chinese actions. After assuming power, virtues of realpolitikappear to have caught up with her and she seems to have realised the need to mend fences with Beijing.

Domestic peace and security, as well as economic development appear to be the basic determinants of Suu Kyi's reach out to China.
 She is now scheduled to visit India in October for the BRICS-BIMSTEC Summit outreach during which she will meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other world leaders.
Despite the delay in reaching out to Myanmar, India can quickly make up for lost time by working assiduously and with dedication to strengthen the partnership. Both countries share a heritage of religious, linguistic, cultural and ethnic ties.

President Kyaw's tour provided a valuable opportunity to both countries to have a comprehensive dialogue on all issues of mutual interest and concern.

The most important message conveyed to President Kyaw was by Prime Minister Modi, who in his statement said, ‘’at every step of the way, 1.25 billion people of India will stand by you - both as partners and as friends.’’ This message was both in context of bilateral ties as well as in the regional context of providing counterpoise to China's increasing influence in Myanmar's affairs, which often makes Myanmarese citizens and leaders wary and nervous.

During the wide-ranging talks between the two leaders, particular focus was accorded to security along the 1640-kilometer long land border shared by the countries. Insurgents from Indian states often seek refuge in Myanmar's jungles to launch strikes against Indian civilians and security forces. With Myanmar’s cooperation, India is effectively dealing with this menace. No less than President Kyaw reassured Swaraj of Naypyidaw's support to New Delhi in ensuring security during her visit and stated that Myanmar will not allow its territory to be used for attacks against India. This commitment was reiterated during President Kyaw’s visit to New Delhi as well.

Myanmar is the spring board for providing connectivity to India’s northeastern states with the ASEAN countries. It therefore plays a critical role not only in ensuring stability and security of northeast India but also in its economic development and progress.

Two of the four agreements signed during the visit - the India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway and the upgradation of the road segment between Kalewa and Yagyi; and the completion of the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project by December 2016 - relate to improving connectivity.  Both countries expressed their resolve to strengthen maritime security cooperation in the Bay of Bengal. Myanmar represents the pivot around which the success of India's 'Act East Policy' - launched by Modi in Naypyidaw in November 2014 - revolves. It was decided to strengthen engagement in economic and commercial cooperation including agriculture, banking, power and energy, and trade in pulses. Both countries agreed to expand cooperation in oil exploration and hydrocarbon pipeline construction by Indian companies.

India offered to share its experience in creating institutions as well as policies to deal with relations between the Centre, states and regions as well as ethnic and religious minorities.
India expressed support for Myanmar's national reconciliation and peace process under the Panglong Conference. It was decided to give further impetus to development cooperation including capacity building, education, healthcare and infrastructure. Promoting cultural cooperation and academic exchanges was accorded significant emphasis.
Enhancing ties with India can help Myanmar to counterbalance China's influence and also develop its economy by using Indian investment, expertise and capacity. Transition to a civilian government in Myanmar has given greater strategic space to India. The message President Kyaw takes back from New Delhi is that India stands ready to support Myanmar in every possible way on its march to security, reconciliation and prosperity. As Prime Minister Modi said, "A bright future for Myanmar is not just your objective. It is also our aspiration."

31 Aug 2016

Akademie Schloss Solitude International Fellowship Programme for Artists and Designers 2017.

Brief description: International artists are invited to apply for the Akademie Schloss Solitude fellowship 2017-2019. The Akademie Schloss Solitude fellowship is an international residence fellowship for artists and designers of all genre funded to Stuttgart, Germany.
Application Timeline: 
Application opens 1st September, 2016.
Application closes: 30th November, 2016.
Offered annually? Bi-annually
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Germany
Eligible Fields of Study: Architecture (design, landscape architecture, urban planning), Visual Arts (including performance art), Performing Arts (stage design, dramatic texts, dramaturgy, musical theater, performance, direction, drama, dance), Design (fashion, costume, product and furniture design, visual communication), Literature (essay, criticism, poetry, prose, translation),Music/Sound (interpretation, sound installation, sound performance, composition), Time-based Media (including video, video installation, documentary and fiction film) and Web-based Media (web design, web development/coding, web art and digital journalism).
Furthermore, scholars, scientists and professionals from the disciplines of the Humanities, Social Sciences(Culture and Geopolitics), Economy/Economics (Urban Policy) and History (its practices of writing and politics in the contemporary) are invited to apply.
About the Award: At the beginning of a new application round, the Akademie stipulates a new central topic within the context of its art, science & business program which is designed to include not only fellows from all disciplines, but external specialists too. The Akademie views art, science and business as complementary rather than separate activities, which interact dynamically and encourage mutual productivity. To this end, fellows are selected in the fields of art, science & business, internal and public events are organized and publications are released. All fellows – artists, scientists and economists – are free to participate in projects related to the central topic.
Following a suggestion by the current jury chairman, Kaiwan Mehta, the Akademie will be organizing its art, science & business program around the central topic
»The Practice of History in Everyday Life«.
With this central topic, the Akademie would like to initiate a comprehensive interdisciplinary discussion about the practices of writing and politics of History in the contemporary and its implications in society.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Persons up to 35 or if older who have completed a university or college degree within the past five years are welcome to apply. Currently enrolled university or college students (at the time of application) will not be considered for selection. Several fellowships are also awarded regardless of the applicant’s age. It is possible to complete a project within the framework of the fellowship. 50 to 70 fellowships are allocated every 24 months. Akademie Schloss Solitude has 45 studios at its disposal.
Selection Process: 
  • The independent jury consists of a jury chairperson and generally eleven specialist jurors who independently allocate the fellowships for their respective disciplines. New jurors are nominated every 24 months.
  • This principle—consciously subjective, but temporally limited—increases the chances of identifying and promoting special talents, as artistic quality is not necessarily a matter of consensus. At the same time, individual decisions allow a certain artistic proximity or productive oppositions to be expected among the fellows. The jurors make their decisions according to qualitative aspects based on the samples that the applicants submit. There are no artistic conditions attached.
  • No one has a legal right to be awarded a fellowship. Therefore, the jury is under no obligation to justify its decisions. Decisions regarding Solitude grants will be communicated to the applicants in writing.
  • On being awarded the fellowship, the holder also receives a house contract and house rules. The fellowship is regarded as legally binding once the grant holder has signed the house contract.
Number of Awardees: 50 to 70
Value of Fellowship: The Akademie Schloss Solitude fellowship is a residence fellowship. It is expected that the fellows spend at least two-thirds of their residency at Akademie Schloss Solitude. The fellowship includes the following:
  • A combined apartment / studio, furnished with electricity, water and heat free of charge
  • A stipend amounting to Euro 1,150 monthly (plus one-time expenses incurred by the fellowship holder travelling to and from Stuttgart from his or her primary place of residence).The Akademie may also offer additional financial supplements, depending on its respective budget situation.
  • A supplement for so-called double housekeeping (subsidy for apartment or studio costs); freight cost subsidy for the transport of materials, tools and instruments to and from Stuttgart; a project promotion subsidy and a one-time materials subsidy; in the case of non-German guests (from non EU-countries), assumption of part of their health insurance expenses.
  • The use of the workshops owned by Akademie Schloss Solitude under the supervision of the technical director, are free of charge for fellowship holders.
  • In light of the historical character and architectural substance of the building, the combined apartment/studios are generally only suitable for one person. In special cases the Akademie will consider allocating two studios for families.
  • All artists invited to stay at Akademie Schloss Solitude are obliged to establish residence in Stuttgart for the duration of the grant (compulsory registration).
Duration of Fellowship: Fellowships are granted for three to twelve months.
How to Apply: The link to the application website will be posted on the frontpage of the Solitude website as from 1st September, 2016.
Award Provider: The Akademie Schloss Solitude fellowship

Microsoft PhD Fellowship in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematics 2017

Application Deadline: October 10, 2016. 
Offered annually? Yes
Brief description: Microsoft research offers PhD Fellowship Program for PhD Students in their second or third year of PhD studies
Eligible Field of Study: Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Mathematics department
Eligible Countries: Student from any part of the world must attend a United States or Canadian university
To be taken at (country): United States or Canadian university
About Scholarship: The Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship is a two-year fellowship program for outstanding PhD students nominated by their universities. To be eligible for this fellowship, you must apply during your second or third year of PhD studies. Fellowships are granted by Microsoft Research at the discretion of Microsoft.
Scholarship Type: PhD Fellowship
Selection Criteria and Eligibility:
  • Applicants for the Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship Program must be nominated by their universities, and their nominations must be confirmed by the office of the chair of the eligible department. Direct applications from students are not accepted.
  • Student must attend a United States or Canadian university and be enrolled in the Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Mathematics department (if your department is within the scope of these areas, but is titled differently, you are eligible).
  • Students must be in their second or third year of an eligible PhD program in the fall semester or quarter of 2016. The nominating university will be asked to confirm the student’s PhD program start date (month/year).
  • Payment of the fellowship awards, as described above, will be made directly to the university and is not transferable to another academic institution or department.
  • The recipient must remain an active, full-time student in a PhD program over the two consecutive academic years of the award or forfeit the award.
  • A recipient of a Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship may not receive another fellowship from another company or institution for the same academic period. Fellows accepting multiple fellowships will become ineligible to receive continued funding from Microsoft.
Number of Awardees: A maximum of three applicants per eligible department, per eligible university, will be accepted. A total of nine applications per university will be allowed.
Value of Fellowship:
  • The fellowship recipient award will cover 100 percent of the tuition and fees for two academic years (2017–18 and 2018–19).
  • A stipend is provided to cover living expenses while in school (US$28,000 for 2017–18 and US$28,000 for 2018–19).
  • A conference and travel allowance is provided for recipients to attend professional conferences or seminars (US$4,000 for 2017–18 and US$4,000 for 2018–19).
  • Fellowships are awarded to recipients for two consecutive academic years only and are not available for extension.
Duration of Fellowship: 2 years
How to Apply: 
  • Applications must include: nominee’s thesis proposal or research statement, a one (1) page summary of their thesis proposal or research statement, nominee’s curriculum vitae, and three (3) letters of reference from established researchers familiar with the nominee’s research. Of these, one (1) letter should come from the student’s advisor. Only one (1) letter can be from a current Microsoft employee.
  • Applications must be submitted via the online application tool in any of the following formats: Word document, text-only file, or PDF. Email or hard-copy applications will not be considered. All application materials must be submitted by the person who is designated as the application contact by the departmental chair’s office and must not be the applicant.
  • Applications submitted to Microsoft will not be returned. Microsoft cannot assume responsibility for the confidentiality of information in submitted applications. Therefore, applications should not contain information that is confidential, restricted, or sensitive. Microsoft reserves the right to make public information from applications that receive awards, except those portions containing budgetary or personally identifiable information.
  • Incomplete applications cannot be considered, and notification of incompleteness will not be made.
  • Due to the volume of submissions, Microsoft Research cannot provide individual feedback on applications that do not receive Fellowship awards.
To apply, please submit via the online application tool athttps://cmt.research.microsoft.com/MSRFellowship/.
Sponsors: Microsoft Research

Microsoft/Cambridge PhD Scholarships in Africa, Europe & the Middle East 2017

Application Timeline: Application Opens: 1st September, 2016
Application Closes: 26th September 2016
Notification of results: Stage 1 ~ By the end of October 2016
Stage 2 ~ By the end of December 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Brief description: Microsoft Research Cambridge PhD Scholarship Programme in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) to be taken at students country of study
Accepted Subject Areas: The courses are:
  • Computational Science
  • Computer-Mediated Living
  • Constraint Reasoning
  • Machine Learning and Perception
  • Online Services and Advertising
  • Programming Principles and Tools
  • Systems and Networking
About Scholarship
The Microsoft Research PhD Scholarship Programme in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) was launched in 2004 and has so far supported more than 200 PhD students from more than 18 countries and 51 institutions. Each year by September, PhD supervisors from academic institutions in EMEA are invited to submit their proposals for collaborative research projects with Microsoft Research Cambridge. Applications are then peer reviewed and approximately 20 projects are selected for funding. PhD students are appointed to the selected projects and begin their research in the following academic year under the supervision of their academic supervisor, with co-supervision from a researcher at Microsoft Research Cambridge.
Scholarship Offered Since: 2004
Scholarship Type: Research PhD Scholarship.
Selection Criteria
Following receipt of the applications, each is carefully reviewed by expert researchers from universities and Microsoft Research. Among the best proposals, those which are most closely related to the research carried out at Microsoft Research in Cambridge are selected.
Eligibility: Only PhD supervisors should apply. If their project is selected, the supervisor has until 31 March 2017 to find the best possible student for the project; otherwise, the PhD Agreement will be terminated automatically. Only applications from institutions in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa will be considered
For an application to be considered, the following key requirements apply:
  1. The institute agrees to the terms and conditions in the MRL Term Sheet.
  2. The applicant must be in dialogue with the prospective Microsoft supervisor prior to the submission deadline and jointly drafting the proposal.
  3. The proposed research must be closely related to the research topics listed above carried out at Microsoft Research in Cambridge.
Number of Scholarship: 20
Scholarship Benefits: Each Microsoft scholarship consists of an annual bursary up to a maximum of three years. The monetary value of the award varies by country to reflect local differences in costs and overheads. Payment is made directly to the institution. The amount of the scholarship is the maximum amount Microsoft Research pays to the institution. In addition, every Scholar receives a fixed hardware allowance and conference allowance.
Duration: Maximum of three years
Eligible Countries: Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
To be taken at (country): Candidates home country.
How to Apply: Applications must be submitted by academic institutions, such as from a PhD supervisor or departmental secretary.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details
Sponsor: By Microsoft Research.
Important Notes:
Only PhD supervisors should apply. If their project is selected, the supervisor has up to one year to find the best possible student for the project.
After a student is identified, the scholarship provider request a CV and two strong letters of recommendation (in English and preferably not from the supervisor) from professors who are familiar with the student’s work. The scholarship committee may decide to interview the student by telephone.

Human Shields as Preemptive Legal Defense for Killing Civilians

Neve Gordon & Nicola Perugini

Human shields have been making headlines for some time. Before the recent fray between the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) and Iraqi army in Fallujah, the United Press International released an article entitled “Iraqi forces halt Fallujah advance amid fears for 50,000 human shields”.
Indeed, not a day has passed in the past several months without an array of newspapers mentioning human shields in different theatres of violence: Fom Syria, where ISIL fighters fled Manbij in convoys apparently using human shields; through Kashmir, where “army and police used civilians as human shields in operations against militants”; to Ukraine, where pro-Russian separatists were accused of using international observers as shields.
Moreover, the phrase human shields is not only used to describe the use of civilians in the midst of war, but to depict civilians in protests, from Ferguson in the United States, to Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.
Liberal democratic states are not the only ones who are warning the world of the increasing use of human shields; rather authoritarian regimes as well as a variety of local and international organisations of different kinds, from the Red Cross and human rights NGOs to the United Nations, are invoking the term.
In a recent confidential UN report, Houthi rebels were blamed for concealing “fighters and equipment in or close to civilians … with the deliberate aim of avoiding attack.”
Allowing killing
Although different forms of human shielding have probably been conceptualised and mobilised since the invention of war, its quotidian use is a completely novel phenomenon. Why, one might ask, has this term suddenly become so pervasive?
Legally speaking, human shields refer to the use of civilians as defensive weapons in order to render combatants or military sites immune from attack. The idea behind the term is that civilians, who are protected under international law, should not be exploited to gain a military advantage.
While most people will undoubtedly be familiar with this definition, less known is the fact that international law not only prohibits the use of human shields but also renders it legitimate for militaries to attack areas being “protected” by human shields.
The US Air Force, for example, maintains that “lawful targets shielded with protected civilians may be attacked, and the protected civilians may be considered as collateral damage, provided the collateral damage is not excessive compared with the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by the attack.”
Along similar lines, the 2013 document on joint targeting published by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff underscores the importance of the principle of proportionality, it also notes that, “otherwise lawful targets involuntarily shielded with protected civilians may be attacked … provided that the collateral damage is not excessive compared with the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by the attack.” (PDF)
What all this means, quite simply, is that human shields can be legally killed so long as the deployment of violence does not breach the principle of proportionality – which requires belligerents to refrain from causing damage disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained.
It now appears that police forces the world over are adopting a similar perspective as they confront protests and riots.
The motivation behind the adoption of such guidelines by domestic and international actors is clear: It allows security forces to relax the rules of engagement, while framing those who deploy shields as morally deplorable and in breach of international law.
Pre-emptive legal defence
Given the strategic and pervasive adoption of the phrase human shields, it seems clear that the term is not only being deployed as a descriptive expression to depict the use of civilians as weapons, but also as a kind of pre-emptive legal defence against the accusations of having killed or injured them.
Put differently, if any one of Fallujah’s 50,000 civilians is killed during an anti-ISIL onslaught, then it is not the US-backed attacking forces that are to blame, but rather ISIL itself, which illegally and immorally used civilians as shields.
Moreover, it increasingly appears that it is enough to claim – in advance – that the enemy is using human shields in order to warrant the killing of non-combatants.
Even though it is undeniable that many militaries and non-state armed groups do, in fact, use human shields, the potential ramifications of the mere accusation are extremely worrisome.
In other words, by claiming that the other side is using human shields, the attacking force provides itself with a pre-emptive legal defence.
To understand fully the implications of this framing it is imperative to take into account that urban areas, as Stephen Graham from Newcastle University put it, “have become the lightning conductors for our planet’s political violence.”
The fact that warfare currently shapes urban life in many areas around the globe means that civilians occupy and will continue to occupy the frontlines of much of the fighting.
This leaves them extremely vulnerable to being framed as human shields, since it would be enough to say in advance that the residents of a city are shields for their deaths to be legal and justified.
Insofar as this is the case, then the pre-emptive legal defence may very well be used as part of a horrifying process aimed at legalising and normalising the massive slaughtering of civilians.

The New Cold War Between the US and China

Manuel E. Yepe

Leonardo Boff, is a Franciscan monk who was one of the main creators of the liberation theology-until he decided in 1992 to leave the priesthood. On August 12, he granted an interview to journalist Martin Granovsky, from the Argentine newspaper Pagina 12, in which he analyzed the course that Brazil and Argentina have taken due to their subordination to transnational capital.
Asked about the reasons for the advance of neo-conservative processes in Latin America –by means of a coup, as in Brazil, or by the ballot box, as in Argentina–  Boff linked them to a new cold war that is being waged between the United States and China.
The Asian giant, now part of the BRICS bloc, has been gaining presence in Latin America and this contradicts the US purpose to control the continent. By attacking Brazil, the US attacks China and its huge investments in Latin America that only last year meant $54 billion for the railway that would link the Atlantic with the Pacific.
Latin Americans are frightened by the U.S. negotiations with Argentine president Mauricio Macri regarding two new military bases, one on the border between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, and another in Patagonia, near the world’s largest freshwater aquifer, says the leader of liberation theology, who is already 77 years old.
Regarding the coup process in Brazil, Boff reported that the Movimiento Sin Tierra  [Landless Movement] has the support of Pope Francisco who got very enthusiastically close to President Dilma Roussef; so much so that she has greeted him on her every trip to Europe.
In one of her trips she was accompanied by the Brazilian actress Leticia Sabatella who gave the Pope a first-hand description of the situation. She let him know that the main issue was defense of democracy, because attacking Dilma would bring violent forms of social repression. After listening to her, the Pope said: “It is the work of capitalism: of Brazilian capitalism and transnational capitalism.”
Boff believes the Pope has seen that neo-liberalism, which gives more value to the market than to the common good for people, produces great marginalization and great poverty. The forty million Brazilians who were rescued from hunger in the country are now begining to return to their previous situation.
“As is known, the deputy who remained as interim president dismissed Dilma´s cabinet and attacked the Ministry of Social Welfare and the agrarian reform. Social projects are increasingly underfunded, attention to culture was scaled down  from a ministry to an undersecretary, and Michel Temer cut the subsidies to public universities by half “.
According to Boff, the Pope considered that the parliamentary coup without bayonets seeks the same effect as military coups did before: to reinforce a group of big national capitalists together with transnational capitalists aimed at a greater accumulation of capital by privatizing national assets.
There is a project to recolonize Latin America and increasingly turn it into an area that only exports pure raw materials without adding value to its products. Brazil itself has more than 70 million hectares to produce and satisfy hunger worldwide, and has more than enough water, said Boff.
“Everything would fall under the control of the privatized or internationalized capital. The Pope is aware of this phenomenon and of the fact that the poor would return to misery and hunger.”
In Argentina, the state caries out a policy of privatization. It talks to the companies. There is no society but individuals. Wealth accumulation is concentrated in a shrinking group. You cannot analyze the situation in Argentina or Brazil separately or assess the attempt by the United States to align the two countries within the imperial strategy in isolation, Boff said.
“In the 13 years when the Workers Party (PT) in power, it was shown that there are two projects at stake. The two want to be democratic, but neo-liberal democracy is for the few and makes rich policies for the rich and poor policies for the poor.”
Boff recalled that there are 210 million people in Brazil and 71,440 superrich who control more than half of the gross domestic product. The World Bank has said that the greatest accumulation of capital in the world is in Brazil, where the most anti-popular and anti-social capitalists reside. They keep much of their fortunes abroad in tax havens and operate through offshore companies. This is definitely an example of the two types of democracy.
The other type of democracy, that of Lula in Brazil, is the inclusive democracy, open to all. The global correlation of forces makes it impossible to prevent the accumulation of capital. But at least we can put some limit to it. In his interview with the Argentine newspaper Pagina 12, Leonardo Boff concluded, “We must do it.

New Australian government seeks to impose deep cuts

Mike Head

The Australian parliament resumed yesterday for the first time since the July 2 election, with the narrowly-returned Liberal-National Coalition government in open disarray. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull anxiously appealed for all parliamentarians to unite behind a program of austerity, military spending and expanded powers for the security forces.
Addressing a reduced caucus of 106 Coalition members of parliament—nearly 20 lost their seats in the election—Turnbull declared that the entire parliament faced a “massive moral challenge” of “budget repair.” His remarks were particularly addressed to the Labor Party, which has already offered bipartisan support, but he insisted that every MP, “regardless of their party,” had to face the “reality” that “we are living beyond our means.”
Turnbull portrayed the “challenge” as one of not loading debt onto future generations. In reality, the government is preparing to impose savage cuts to the living standards and working conditions of the working class so as to boost corporate profits, via sweeping tax cuts, and massively increase military spending.
Overshadowing the proceedings were the worsening global economic slump and financial instability, the demands of the US government for stepped-up involvement in its war preparations against China, and the widespread disaffection that resulted in record numbers of votes against the three main parties—the Coalition, Labor and the Greens.
Parliament formally opened with an hour-long address by Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove setting out the government’s priorities. Delivering a speech prepared by Turnbull’s office, Cosgrove urged the parliament to impose “fiscal discipline” to prepare for shocks in the global economy. The next necessity was to “invest $195 billion in defence capability” over the next decade, including the “largest investment in our naval forces since World War II.”
The scale of the onslaught being prepared against working people is indicated by one of the first bills drafted by the government, a so-called Omnibus Bill. It has 600 pages, containing 24 schedules of measures to slash social spending by $6.1 billion over four years. It constitutes an assault on some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, including welfare recipients, students, old-age pensioners and newly-arrived migrants.
Among the measures are cuts to aged care, public dental health programs, and higher education funding. There is harsher means testing of pensions for nursing home residents, the abolition of backdating for carers allowances and punitive 9 percent interest rate charges on unpaid welfare debts.
The abolition of a “clean energy supplement,” will take up to $7 a week off welfare recipients. Job seeker bonuses to assist the unemployed find work will be scrapped. There will be a two-year waiting period for welfare payments for all newly-arrived migrants, and higher thresholds for health insurance rebates.
Some student scholarships will be scrapped. All students will have to repay HELP tuition fees once they start earning $51,956 a year—about $3,000 lower than present. HELP subsidies will be eliminated for maths, science, statistics, education, nursing, midwifery and early childhood education students.
These measures were prioritised because Labor committed to back them during the election. This is only a first instalment. In the lead-up to the election, Labor abandoned previous promises to oppose budget cutbacks totalling an estimated $33 billion over the next four years, as well as hospital funding savings of $57 billion over 10 years.
Far deeper inroads are being demanded by the financial markets, which have threatened to scrap the country’s AAA credit rating unless Turnbull’s government can quickly demonstrate its capacity to eliminate the budget deficit, now around $40 billion annually, by 2020.
At the same time, there is ferocious opposition within the government and the parliament to making even minor reductions in the multi-billion dollar annual tax concessions to the wealthy, via superannuation and property investment schemes. Turnbull’s plan to provide a veneer of “fairness” to the austerity offensive by making small cuts to these handouts to the rich have fuelled public rifts in the Coalition.
The financial elite’s agenda will accelerate the growth of social inequality imposed by successive Labor and Coalition governments, which has already produced intense popular discontent. Real wages have started to decline over the past three years, tens of thousands of full-time jobs have been eliminated or replaced by part-time employment, and more than a million people are now living in poor or derelict housing.
As one recent report highlighted, the share of income going to the wealthiest 1 percent in Australia has already almost doubled since 1983, the year the Hawke Labor government took office. The Gini index, a measure of income inequality, rose further from 0.32 to 0.33 between 2012 and 2014, mostly during the last Labor government.
Even by the limited official statistics, the wealth gap is much wider. By 2003–04, the net worth of the wealthiest 20 percent of households was 57 times as high as the poorest 20 percent. A decade later, in the final year of the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments, the richest 20 percent had 71 times the worth of the poorest quintile. According to the Rich 200 List, the collective fortunes of the wealthiest 200 people rose to near $200 billion last year, spearheaded by property developers.
Precisely because of this yawning class divide, the government’s priority list is also topped by three bills, headed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission Bill, to crack down on any industrial action by workers. These are part of a series of measures to bolster the repressive powers of the state apparatus to suppress resistance.
The fractures evident within the government have fuelled complaints in the corporate media that Turnbull has failed to push through the economic restructuring agenda he promised when he ousted Tony Abbott as prime minister last September. In today’s Australian Financial Review, political editor Laura Tingle stated: “The question increasingly becomes when, how and whether Turnbull can assert the authority normally associated with a prime minister who has just won his first mandate, however narrowly.”
The source of the instability wracking the government lies in the global financial breakdown of 2008. The temporary extension of Australian capitalism’s mining boom, sustained until 2011 by China’s debt-laden stimulus packages, has since unravelled. But, from the standpoint of the corporate elite, a revolving door of successive Labor and Coalition governments—Turnbull’s is the sixth since 2007—has failed to fully impose the burden on the population.
Turnbull called the July 2 double dissolution election in a bid to break the political logjam created by the blockage of key budget measures since 2013 by Labor, Greens or “crossbench” senators who postured as opponents of the most egregious of the measures, fearing the eruption of popular unrest. The election backfired, however, leaving the government with just a one-seat majority in the lower house and only 30 seats in the 76-member Senate.
As the Socialist Equality Party warned during the election, whichever parties formed the next government, it would escalate the assault on working people, as well as the preparations for war and repression, triggering convulsive social and class struggles.

Spain’s public debt reaches record levels

Alejandro Lopez

Spain’s public debt rose to a record €1.1 trillion last week. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the debt comes in at 100.9 percent, which is equivalent to the total value of the goods and services produced in a year.
The figure has trebled since 2007, before the onset of the global financial crisis, when it was 35.5 percent of GDP (€384 billion). In the space of a year, Spain has added €50 billion to its debt.
Just to pay the interest on the debt, the caretaker Popular Party (PP) government has set aside €33.5 billion in this year’s budget, nearly twice as much as that given to social subsidies and unemployment payments.
Spain, which has been unable to form a new government since the general election in December 2015 (followed by another in June), now faces a third election before the end of the year. There is great pressure to prevent this happening and reach an agreement to steer through €10 billion in austerity measures before October 15, as promised by Madrid to the European Union (EU) after overshooting its deficit targets.
Following the announcement of the debt figures, the Economy Ministry published a statement disputing the information and claiming it remained on track to meet year-end targets. “There are big seasonal variations that have to be taken into account,” the ministry insisted, stating that the increase in public debt has been slowing since 2013 and adding, “We will comply with the agreed objective in the stability programme” with the EU.
The false optimism of the PP was in marked contrast to the view of the European Commission, which stated that Spain would not be able to reduce its debt this year. The media also took issue, declaring, “The PP government should not boast about economic growth. If it were not for external assistance from the European Central Bank and falling interest rates, the economic situation of our country would soon become unsustainable.”
El País stated that the size of the debt “was one of the longest and most durable consequences of the crisis… Instead of allocating public resources to more productive spending such as education, research or health, for generations we will determine the causes of economic growth and welfare on the basis of debt, even if the deficit is reduced significantly in the coming years.”
This situation is not exclusive to Spain. Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio is around 176 percent, Italy’s 130 percent, Portugal’s 128 percent, Cyprus’s 108 percent, Belgium’s 105 percent.
The record level of debt confirms the fallacy of the claims that austerity measures imposed since 2009 by the troika--the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB)—will clean up the finances of Europe’s economies. The slashing of jobs and cuts in wages and social services, resulting in unemployment and poverty for tens of millions across Europe, is part of a deliberate policy by the ruling class to fundamentally reorganise class relations.
Vast amounts of wealth have been transferred to the financial elites, worsening the social conditions of the working class and widening social inequality, while at the same time creating the conditions for another financial meltdown.
The ability to service Spain’s debt is dependent on record low borrowing costs, resulting from the virtually free credit provided by the ECB. Since 2000, the yield on 10-year Spanish sovereign bonds—the interest the government pays on its borrowing--has fluctuated by around 4 percentage points, reaching nearly 7 percent in 2012, shortly before a €100 billion bank bailout package was agreed. Today the yield is around 1 percent.
As an El País editorial recognised, “The worst part of the situation will take place when the ECB reduces the protection it exerts today on the cost of public debt… This guarantees high bond prices and exceptionally low interest rates.” It added that this was “not the result of action or inaction of the Spanish government,” but a benefit of Spain’s membership of the single currency.
Spain’s widely cited economic growth, on track to hit around 3 percent this year, is related to conjectural factors. These include the global drop in oil prices, negative interest rates that have lowered mortgage rates, and low wages resulting from three labour reforms, which have produced a vast increase in temporary and part-time contracts. Record numbers of tourists have taken their holidays in Spain as a result of the instability in the Middle East and the refugee crisis in countries like Turkey and Greece.
Whilst economic growth has risen and bank profits are once again soaring, the social conditions in Spain continue to deteriorate. The country still has 20 percent of its working population unemployed--45 percent of its youth--and a declining population due to mass emigration. A third of children live in poverty.
Eight months after the December elections, Spain remains without a proper government. After two elections that have produced two hung parliaments, the political deadlock is comparable to the Second Republic during the 1930s, which ended with a three-year civil war and was followed by a 40-year dictatorship under General Francisco Franco.
Last week, the PP signed an agreement with the right-wing, pro-business Citizens party ahead of an investiture vote in Congress, but it is not sufficient to gain the necessary 176 votes for acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to be reelected.
Despite growing political, media and big business pressure on the Socialist Party (PSOE) to abstain in the investiture debate and allow a PP-led minority government to be formed, party leader Pedro Sánchez is claiming his deputies will vote “no.” To be seen supporting the PP could prove disastrous to the PSOE in regional elections in Galicia and the Basque Country on September 25.
If Rajoy fails to win today’s vote of confidence, the Spanish Constitution stipulates that a second debate and vote must take place 48 hours after the first. In that vote, scheduled for Friday, an overall majority is not required. If Rajoy is still not able to win the backing of other parties, he cannot be re-appointed prime minister. If no agreement is reached within two months of the confidence vote, the king must issue a decree dissolving parliament and fixing an election date 54 days later. This would result in the poll being conducted on Christmas Day.
Whatever agreements emerge out of the investiture negotiations or whether a third election is called, the final outcome will be more austerity. All the major parties--Popular Party, Socialist Party, Citizens and the pseudo-left Podemos--are committed to upholding the payment of the debt.
Podemos, which once called for a “restructuring of the debt,” that is, negotiating with Brussels to get better terms for Spain, has since junked this demand to prove its malleability to the ruling elites. In its programme for the June 26 elections, Podemos explicitly committed the party to the EU budget stability pact and the repayment of the debt.
Such was the impact of its defence of the ruling class that a million people who voted for it and the United Left (IU) in December failed to recast their votes for the Podemos-IU alliance, Unidos Podemos, in June.