Preparing for Radiological Emergencies and Terrorism

Manpreet Sethi

India is still coming to terms with the aftermath of the terrorist attack on an army camp at Uri. More names have been added to the long list of Indians who have died in incidents that have been conceived and executed with the support of elements in the ‘deep state’ of Pakistan. Given that Rawalpindi shows no inclination to abandon its strategy of inflicting terror on India, one cannot but be prepared to handle acts of terrorism that may breach new thresholds in the future. Preparedness and response for a radiological emergency is, therefore, a task that the country must plan for.

A news item in the Times of India of 22 August 2016 reported the conduct of a mock drill to rehearse Indian preparedness for a radiological emergency at an airport. The news was welcome for two reasons. Firstly, reportage of such exercises helps reassure the public that the relevant agencies are duly practicing preparedness to handle such emergencies. This also has an impact on restoring public confidence in nuclear power in general, which was badly shaken by the Fukushima episode of 2011. Secondly, the handling of an off-site radiological emergency involves the coordinated participation of a number of stakeholders. 20 agencies reportedly participated in the exercise. It is only through periodically repeated drills that requisite rapport and confidence in joint operations of this nature can be built.

It is natural that emergency preparedness and response strategies (EPRs) are relatively better evolved and comparatively easier to execute when a nuclear emergency is confined to the nuclear plant or site. Such crises primarily involve quick handling by the operating staff who are better equipped with technical knowledge and also more familiar with and better trained to abide by stringent standard operating procedures (SOPs) that must be followed in crisis. It is only in case of a severe accident at plant site that other civilian agencies need to be included in consequence management.

In contrast, in case of off-site, radiological emergencies that could happen anywhere, the involvement of the public necessarily requires the participation of many governmental and non-governmental agencies for crisis management. Some places likely to face such events are predictable, such as where radiological sources are in use – hospitals, industries, etc. But, discovery of stolen or maliciously use of orphan sources or acts of radiological terrorism through dirty bombs could occur anywhere. Emergency preparedness in such cases requires a very high level of quick detection, assessment and response from both nuclear and non-nuclear administrations.

Cooperation among many national and international stakeholders is a necessity in case of a radiological emergency. Law and order agencies, fire fighting and medical services, traffic officials and first responders designated by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) must all be part of the team to quickly bring the situation under control. Above all, an effective public communication strategy must be available to use the media as a friend rather than letting it give its own spin to the crisis. Relationships built with press and local populace during moments of quiet would go a long way in communicating credibly and with confidence in times of crisis.

Over the years, India has judiciously invested in building organisational and technological expertise in EPR. The NDMA has published elaborate and precise guidelines for dealing with such emergencies. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has developed and employs sophisticated tools to cater for quick detection, impact assessment and response. BARC has developed special mobile and fixed monitoring equipment that can be used for detection of radioactivity and identification of contaminated areas which can assist in correct movement of the responders and evacuees. At the second level, integrated assessment software is able to predict a rapid evaluation of damage from blast, fires etc and thereby help allocate medical, fire-fighting facilities etc. Most importantly, a software tool such as the geographical information system (GIS) provides maps of areas with location of roads, buildings, hospitals, etc in order to help plan routes of evacuation or influx of responders.

However, even the best laid out plans and available technological tools can be stymied if a few common-sense issues are not adequately addressed. The first of these is the prime requirement of inter-agency cooperation. Given the involvement of varied types of responders, not all of whom have radiological emergency as their daily top-most priority, it is quite likely that each would have a different understanding or level of commitment to participation in collaborative mock drills. Caught with usual manpower and resource shortages, over-burdened services are likely to accord less priority to an event that is seen as of low probability. However, the high consequence potential of such an occurrence is the precise reason that demands the highest attention. Conduct of mock drills must be undertaken in the spirit of joint planning for an operation and there should be adequate mechanisms for feedback assimilation to effectuate improvements.

2016 has seen a rise in terrorist incidents across the world. Vulnerabilities of regions once thought to be immune to such risks stand exposed as the US and countries in Europe and Asia have undergone such strikes. Each has struggled to minimise risks as well as improve consequence mitigation. Fortunately, no act of nuclear or radiological terrorism has yet been experienced. But there is no doubt that a radiological emergency would be a mammoth operation of managing not only the physical safety and movement of the public but also involve dealing with many psychosomatic issues.

The psychological impact of an act of radiological terrorism would in fact invoke greater damage than any real threat from radioactivity. It is for this reason that dirty bombs are described as weapons of mass disruption since they would cause greater panic, at the physical, socio-economic and psychological levels. Being neighbours with a country which is not only the fountainhead of terrorism but is also flush with fissile material, a radiological emergency is a threat for India. Well planned and regularly rehearsed EPR strategies, which include education of the public, must be accorded due priority as one important plank of addressing this threat perception.

Microsoft WINsiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship for Nigerian Entrepreneurs 2016

Application Deadline: 

Round 1 Application Opens: 21st September, 2016
Round 1 Application Closes: 10th October, 2016
Round 2 Application Opens: 17th October, 2016
Round 2 Application Closes: 24th October, 2016
Fellows Announced: 16th November, 2016
Fellowship Bootcamp: 16th – 22nd November, 2016
Mentorship Program: 4th January – 30th June 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: We belong to the Windows Insiders, the greatest community of people in the world who use the Windows technology we love to eradicate the problems we hate. We are thrilled to announce the WINsiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship.

We are looking for people like you, Nigerian entrepreneurs who can’t stop thinking of that idea you have that will solve a local problem as well as improve the lives of your fellow Nigerians.

We would like to build a fellowship of 20 Nigerian entrepreneurs to become our first ever, inaugural class of #WINsider4Good Fellows. If chosen, you will receive hardware and software along with 6 months of tailored technical and strategic mentorship from local and international leaders to help bring your unique idea to life.

Offered Since:

Type:

Eligibility: Candidate eligible to participate in the #WINSiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship program must:

• be a member of the Windows Insider Program (apply in link below)
• be a legal resident of Nigeria;
• be 18 or older;
• have an original idea for a product or service that improves the lives of fellow Nigerians;
• not be (or have a family members who is) an employee of Microsoft;
• not be government employee.

Selection Criteria:  The WINSiders4Good Nigeria Fellowship will select 20 candidates based on the following criteria:

• Social Impact
  • Addresses a common issue affecting a clearly identified segment of the Nigerian population and provides a clear benefit to the potential customers in addressing this issue
• Market Viability
  • The product or service has a clearly defined market that is willing and able to pay for the services to address the issue, the paying customer does not always be the end user
• Innovation
  • The product or service provides a unique approach to the issues faced by the Nigerian people through a net new innovation the market has yet seen; an improvement on existing solutions; or a combination of multiple solutions for more effective and efficient intervention
• Scalability
  • The business has the potential to serve customers across the geographic region where the entrepreneur is based, or across all of Nigeria

Number of Awardees: 20

Value of Fellowship: To help develop a product or service, Fellows will receive Microsoft hardware and software, including Windows 10, Office 365 and Azure credits.  Fellows will also receive technical and strategic mentorship from Microsoft staff, local and international experts. We want to learn more about the specific needs of the Fellows and their solutions to tailor an engagement that will most benefit them.

How to Apply: Please ensure you go through the application guidelines and Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Microsoft

Stanford University Draper Hills Summer Fellowship Programme 2017. Funded to Attend

Application Timeline:

• Deadline: Wednesday, 16th November, 2016.
• Programme Date: July 16- Friday, August 4, 2017
• Applicants will be informed of their selection to the program by April 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Transitioning countries

To be taken at (country): Stanford University, California, USA

About the Award: Launched in 2005, the Draper Hills Summer Fellowship on Democracy and Development Program (DHSFDD) is a three-week academic training program that is hosted annually at Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.  This training program provides a unique forum for emerging leaders to connect, exchange experiences, and receive academic training to enrich their knowledge and advance their work.

For three weeks during the summer, fellows participate in academic seminars that expose them to the theory and practice of democracy, development, and the rule of law. Delivered by leading Stanford faculty from the Stanford Law School, the Graduate School of Business, and the departments of economics and political science, these seminars allow emerging leaders to explore new institutional models and frameworks to enhance their ability to promote democratic change in their home countries.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• This program is aimed at mid-career practitioners working actively in the fields of democracy, development, and the rule of law. Applicants can be working as policy-makers, academics, legal professionals, social entrepreneurs, business entrepreneurs, and leaders of civil society organizations (such as representatives of trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, the media, business and professional associations).
• In their present capacity, applicants should play important and influential roles in their country’s political, economic, and social development. Participants should have demonstrated professional and personal achievements in a relevant sector of democracy, development, and the rule of law.
• Successful applicants will have academic credentials necessary to participate and contribute to the six-hour seminars each day, and tackle advanced academic readings to complement the classroom-based curriculum.
• A working knowledge of English is an important prerequisite for participation in the program. It is expected that each fellow have a solid command of written and spoken English to fully benefit and participate in the program.
• The ideal participant will have extraordinary motivation and a keen interest in learning as well as sharing knowledge and experiences to help build and enrich the alumni community.

Selection Criteria: Due to the large volume of applications for the Draper Hills fellowship received each year to the fellowship program, we take our selection criteria very seriously. Please review the criteria below very carefully before submitting your application to the program. If you do not meet these criteria your application will not be reviewed.

• This is not an academic fellowship but meant for practitioners only. We value practical experience over academic credentials, and we admit scholars only to the extent that they are active in government, public policy, civil society, economic development and rule of law. They should hold leadership roles in their respective sector.
• Applicants must be mid-career practitioners and have at least ten to 12 years of experience to qualify for the fellowship. Those with more experience are much more competitive in the selection process.
• Candidates must be from and currently reside in a country where democracy is not well entrenched. Candidates residing outside their home country due to war or conflict may be granted exceptions. Applicants will not be accepted from countries such as: the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and member states of the European Union.
• Candidates must be at least 28 years of age at the start of the fellowship in July 2017. The average age of our fellows at the time of the program is 38.
• Candidates must be actively working in the field of democracy, development, and the rule of law. We do not accept candidates who are in the midst of full-time university degree programs.
• Candidates must have a solid command of written and spoken English. All program materials and sessions are in English. Participants will also be required to give 9-minute TED-style talks throughout the three-week program regarding their work and motivation. English language proficiency is very important in order to benefit and contribute to the program dialogue.

Number of Awardees: 25 to 30

Value of Fellowship: Stanford asks all applicants to be prepared to contribute towards the cost of their participation in the fellowship, if they are selected. Typically this comes in the form of a fellow covering round-trip airfare to the Program. Stanford will pay for accommodations, meals, and transportation costs during the duration of the Program. In the past, some fellows have asked their employers to subsidize their travel to Stanford based on the benefits that the training will contribute towards their professional and organizational advancement. They may also choose to fundraise for these costs after selection decisions are issued in April 2017. A small travel fund is available for fellows who under no circumstances can support their travel or need to apply for a partial subsidy. Priority for accessing the travel fund will be given based on need, and destinations where airline fares to California are exorbitant.

How to Apply: In order to apply to the Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program please create an account through the online portal. The application form is available once you login and will be available through the deadline, Wednesday, November 16, 2016. Due to the volume of applications, we strongly suggest that you submit the application form as soon as possible. You will be asked to contact two references to furnish letters of recommendation to support your candidacy to the program. A complete application package will be due no later than Wednesday, November 16, 2016.

Please ensure you go through the Application Guidelines and Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Stanford University

Important Notes: Applicants are required to participate the entire duration of the Draper Hills fellowship program at Stanford University. They must be sure that they can be absent from their professional obligations during that time and must make a commitment to attend the full program upon acceptance.

British High Commission Cameroon Women Scholarship 2016/2017 for Masters Programmes

Application Deadline: 30th November 2016

Eligible Countries: Cameroon

To be taken at (country): Cameroon

Eligible Fields of Study: The areas of studies in which candidates are sought for 2016-17 are as follows:

• Human Rights
• Rule of Law /Governance
• Information and Communication Technology
• Science and Technology
• Development studies
• Media Management and Legislation
• Security (International Security/Security Management/Terrorism/Regional Development/Conflict Resolution/Peace Studies.
• Public Health

About the Award: The British High Commission in Yaounde- Cameroon, is announcing to the general public that the 2016/2017 edition of the Cameroon Women’s Scholarship has now been launched.

The Cameroon Women’s Scholarship targets women with strong leadership potential, who possess the academic excellence to pursue a Master’s degree, but face a significant financial barrier to continuing their studies.

The Scholarship is funded by the British High Commission in Cameroon which also manages the scheme in partnership with the Cameroon Women’s Scholarship Alumni and the Cameroon Chevening Alumni Association.

Type: master’s degree course

Eligibility: The Cameroon Women Scholarship is open to those who meet the following criteria:

1. must have secured an admission for the 2015/2016 academic year in any higher education institution of learning in Cameroon by 31st January 2016. Failure in securing admission by this date will lead to the withdrawal of scholarship.
2. the start date of the applicants’ chosen course must fall within the first half of the 2016/2017 academic year.
3. must be a national of Cameroon
4. must hold an undergraduate degree (an equivalent of 3 – 4 years undergraduate studies) in any field with grade of at least a Second Class-upper (Hons)
5. must have at least two (2) years work experience by 30 September 2016

There is no age limit for Cameroon Women’s Scholarship.

Selection Criteria: Candidates are to be assessed against the following criteria:

1. have the personal, intellectual and interpersonal qualities necessary for leadership in their home country
2. be motivated to make a career leading to a position of leadership in their own countries within 10 years of their Scholarship
3. be committed to networking to find global solutions to key development issues
4. be able to use their studies and experience to benefit themselves, their country and the FCO
5. be capable of successfully undertaking and completing their proposed course

Number of Awardees: twenty (20)

Value of Scholarship: one million francs (FCFA 1 MILLION) and two mandatory leadership training for all laureates.

How to Apply: To apply, provide the following:

1. A completed scholarship application form (see in link below)
2. A personal statement – a one-page statement/essay about yourself, your leadership potential, accomplishments and career goals (maximum of 800 words.)
3. An updated CV (include contact details of two referees maximum of 2 pages using font 12 Times New Roman.) You will be disqualified if you do not stick to the guidance.

NB: Only the above three documents are needed at the first stage. Candidates shortlisted for interview will be required to submit copies of university level transcripts and all academic certificates.

Submit your documents as an attachment to camwomenscholarship@gmail.com.

You can only apply via email. Your three files should be named as follows:

• appNAME for the application form
• personalNAME for the personal statement
• cvNAME for the CV

E.g.: candidate named Fouda Pauletta would have her files as:

• appFOUDA
• personalFOUDA
• cvFOUDA

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: British High Commission

Important Notes: Application and personal statements MUST be in English Language irrespective of the language of instruction of the candidate and the school she will be attending.

Not following all the application guidelines for the Cameroon Women Scholarship will result to disqualification.

The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Programme 2017

Application Deadline: 1st December, 2016

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): United States of America

About the Award: The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program supports independent research and study related to Smithsonian facilities, experts, or collection for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.

Program Description:

Smithsonian Institution Fellows conduct independent study and research related to SI collections, experts, or facilities in cooperation with at least one Smithsonian advisor.

The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program is administered through the Smithsonian Office of Fellowships and Internships (OFI).

The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program is open to:

1. Graduate Students
2. Predoctoral Students
3. Postdoctoral Researchers and
4. Senior Researchers

Graduate Student Fellowships: Graduate Student Fellowships are typically 10 weeks in length. Students must be formally enrolled in a graduate program of study at a degree granting institution. Before the appointment begins fellows must still be enrolled and must have completed at least one full time semester or its equivalent. Graduate Student Fellowships are usually intended for students who have not yet been advanced to candidacy if in a doctoral program. Graduate student fellowships are offered for ten weeks and are not available for periods of less or more than ten weeks.

Predoctoral Student Fellowships: Predoctoral Student Fellowships are typically (pls see below for exceptions) 3 to 12 months in length. Students must be enrolled in a university as a candidate for the Ph.D. or equivalent. By the time the appointment begins the university must approve the undertaking of dissertation research at the Smithsonian Institution and certify that requirements for the doctorate, other than the dissertation, have been met.

Postdoctoral Researcher Fellowships: Postdoctoral Student Fellowships are typically (pls see below for exceptions) 3 to 12 months in length. The doctorate degree must be completed by the time the fellowship begins.

Senior Researcher Fellowships: Senior Fellowships are typically 3 to 12 months in length. Applicants must have held a Ph.D. or equivalent for at least 7 years.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• The program is open to US citizens and Non-US citizens. Applicants whose native language is not English are expected to have the ability to write and converse fluently in English. All application materials must be presented in English (foreign transcripts may be translated, see below).
• Past or current fellowship recipients are eligible to apply for another award.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The Smithsonian Institution Fellowship award amounts are as follows:

• Graduate Student Fellowship**: $7000.00 for 10 weeks
• Predoctoral Student Fellowship: $32,700 annually; research allowance up to $4,000 total.
• Postdoctoral Researcher Fellowship: $48,000 annually; research allowance up to $4,000 total.
• Senior Researcher Fellowship: $48,000 annually; research allowance up to $4,000 total.

Fellows in earth/planetary sciences and conservatory sciences are eligible to receive up to $5,000.00 over the amounts above.

How to Apply: Apply Through: SOLAA

Please ensure you go through the application guidelines and Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Smithsonian Institute

Goodbye To The World Of The Single Superpower

Arshad M Khan

China and Russia conducted joint naval exercises in the South China Sea last week. Five Russian and ten Chinese ships participated in eight days of drills covering joint air defense, anti-submarine operations, landing, island-seizing, search and rescue operations, and weapons use. In the single largest naval exercise undertaken by the two, the Russian fleet comprised an Udaloy class anti-submarine destroyer, the Admiral Tributs, while the Chinese supplied surface ships, including landing craft, and submarines. The message, in the wake of the international tribunal’s ruling against China’s claims in the South China Sea, is crystal clear.

Even more important is the trade offensive as outlined at the recent G-20 meeting in Hangzhou. Their vision affords a new template for an all inclusive plus-sum game that was clearly directed against TPP, seen by China as antagonistic to its interests, and an attempt by the US to call the shots on Pacific trade.

Chinese influence in Europe is exemplified by the huge UK contract to build two and possibly three nuclear power plants in England in conjunction with EDF of France. The deal was given the go ahead by Prime Minister Theresa May the week after the G20 meeting.

The Chinese multi-polar view also embraces trade in currencies other than the dollar, particularly in the case of Russo-Chinese trade. A starting point is the joint Russian Far East and Chinese Northeast initiative. Rivals in the past, U.S. policies directed against both countries have boomeranged bringing them closer together.

Who is responsible for this policy? Or perhaps it is just hubris — the false security of being labeled the world’s only superpower. Well, welcome to the multi-polar world again — and perhaps not a bad thing given the humanitarian disasters wreaked upon the world in the last decade and a half. As a balancing polarity, Russian military power, including 7300 nuclear warheads, combined with Chinese economic strength could well be a stabilizing force. Worth noting that on a Purchasing Power Parity basis, China is already the world’s largest economy.

Also on the dollar front — or rather omission thereof — Russia and Iran announced last week that trade between the two countries will henceforth not be in dollars. It is a natural outcome of the U.S. seizing foreign assets at will, a constant threatening posture, and the my-way-or-the-highway attitude to sovereign nations. Many countries have waited patiently for alternatives, and now China is making such available.

Other long time U.S. allies have been emboldened by China’s open outreach. Rodrigo R. Duterte, the newly elected president of the Philippines, aside from lacking basic diplomatic courtesy, has declared his intention to follow an independent (from the U.S. that is) foreign policy. He wants to end joint U.S.- Philippine naval patrols west of the country in the South China Sea; acquire weaponry from China and Russia also; and develop economic and trade relations with the same.

One wonders if the CIA is now busy hatching a coup plot to send him scurrying and bring the Philippines back into the fold. President Duterte would do well to remember another loquacious president, Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, also elected but then swiftly dispatched into exile through a coup within six months of excessive verbiage.

There was a time when the U.S. was a good friend of Pakistan, a country now used and discarded to suffer on its own the aftereffects of the war on terror. The latter starting with an Afghan war on a country that was not involved in any way with 9/11 except that it offered a place to stay to a mujahedin commander, who had assisted with CIA help in getting rid of the Soviets. The man’s name was Osama bin Laden. The Afghan government wanted proof of his involvement; George W. Bush was not prepared to wait. A trillion and more dollars later, after 2325 soldiers are dead and 20,083 wounded, the U.S. is still there. In a related scandal, an average of 22 American veterans commit suicide each day. Might it have been better to have offered proof of bin Laden’s involvement? The obvious question, ‘what has been gained by making enemies out of most Afghans who were once friends’ betrays the folly.

In the history of the world, the downfall of great powers often begins with overreaching leading to a fed-up citizenry. That the U.S. has begun its downward slide is confirmed by a demagogue like Trump now having an even chance of becoming president.

Bartering On Refugees: The Costa Rica Solution

Binoy Kampmark

“We will also participate in a US-led program to re-settle Central American refugees currently in a resettlement centre in Costa Rica.” Malcolm Turnbull, Australian PM, Sep 21, 2016

It used to be claimed that you could not let the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, go anywhere with any degree of freedom. The mouth would open, the madness would come out.  His successor’s efforts have not been much better, reflecting a deep seated pathology in the global refugee debate and notions of violated borders.

On arriving in New York, Malcolm Turnbull seemed full of poorly minted ideas.  He insists that his country’s policy on asylum is one to be emulated – globally.  “Addressing irregular migration, through secure borders, has been essential in creating confidence that the government can manage migration in a way that mitigates risks and focuses on humanitarian assistance on those who need it most.”

What his portrait of purported balance ignores is the grotesque Pacific camp system that institutionalises torture and dehumanisation.  As a video statement from Iranian journalist refugee Behrouz Boochani noted, a vain measure to convince delegates at the UN to pressure Turnbull, “Australia’s offshore policy is not based on border protection, it is based on torture.”

The externalisation of all processes on treating and assessing the claims of refugees is an international malady.  The European Union is erratically putting up fences in parts while allowing trickles in elsewhere.  Countries are blaming each other for not pulling their weight. Fictional numbers of compromise are suggested, but the rise of toxic populism has hardened attitudes.

The United States is also undertaking its own reserved strategy in dealing with those feeling social strife in countries affected by violence.  Strategists in Washington have been chewing over how best to deal with the influx of people fleeing Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala via Mexico with the US as an ultimate destination.

To that end, Australia has suggested itself as an unwitting accomplice in quelling the numbers coming into the US.  Within twenty-four hours, the “Costa Rica” solution (or non-solution, as these things tend to be), was born.  Turnbull had offered a hand to his US counterparts that Australia would do its bit “to pledge new commitments to support some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

The Turnbull proposal, despite being deemed a “hoax” by opposition leader Bill Shorten, confirms a trading model for refugees.  We will take some from the Costa Rica centre, and you, in turn, may take some of ours. That last point has been officially denied, though the discussion on trade is certainly on, given statements by the Nauru justice minister, David Adeang, that Nauru had invited “other countries to assist in finding durable resettlement options for our refugees.”

There is an irony in this, given the humanitarian pretence of governments who obsess about “breaking” various market models of people smuggling.  Far from them to be the only ones engaged in the business of carting human souls across dangerous routes.  This is global resettlement with an unacceptable face.

Such models are also premised on brutal presumptions: those seeking asylum and refugees will not be settled in countries of their ultimate destination, as this throws the international system out of kilter. They will, rather, be located in places of least comfort in a cultural and economic sense.

Turnbull’s approach has been sold before the United Nations as necessary for a credible border protection regime.  Patching up porous borders wins votes, as does repelling unconventional refugee arrivals who dare travel by boat.  That enables the government of the day to then raise the legal humanitarian intake without agitating the local electorate it wishes to pacify.

All this is then above board, made decently, without fuss and fury.  In this case, the promise has been to make a previously announced figure – 18,750 – permanent, or at least up till the 2018-9 year.  This neatly inflates Australian generosity, which, if it comes to crude figures, can be measured by the resettling of 11,776 people last year.  In terms of recognising, registering or resettling refugees, Australia ranks a dismal 25th, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Turnbull was also in the sweetening mood, promising to add $130 million over the course of three years towards “peace building and assistance to refugees, forcibly displaced communities and host countries.”  This is additional to the $220 million in assistance to Syria and countries in its proximity.

Playing this electoral game of pick and choose comes with its risks.  Polls held in various countries show certain fears about that great phantom known as Muslim migration.  An Essential opinion poll fanned a few flames in that regard, revealing that one in two Australians favoured a ban on Muslim immigration.

The consequence of this is potentially retarding, with Australian politicians reluctant to acquiescence to the country’s receiving of refugees from some of the more traumatised areas of the planet.  Far better, then, to receive more desirable types, if only on paper.

The Australian proposal has another disruptive point. It creates a Costa Rica exception in the bargaining house, suggesting that the Obama administration has been lending its ear to Canberra.  As the Sydney Morning Herald (Sep 22) observed, the US program “echoes Australia’s use of Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.”

Refugees warehoused like disreputable goods on Manus Island and Nauru face interminable periods of detention and the promise that they will never be allowed to settle in Australia. But they were the silent figures in a debate that has degraded them.  Their plight is effectively being globalised.

USAID or US CIA?

Thomas C. Mountain

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was created by Pax Americana to provide a cover for CIA agents under the pretext of helping the 3rd World. US Imperialism has to do some good or its potential targets would not open their doors to intelligence agents posing as do gooders, so USAID was created.

Today the USAID is headed by Gayle Smith, formerly the “Special Advisor” to President Barack Obama and Senior Director of the National Security Council. To put it simply, Gayle Smith is one of the top “spooks” in the USA, someone who told the CIA what to do.

Today this former “spook” is running a multibillion dollar “aid agency” with thousands of employees or “contractors” operating world wide. Who knows who is an agent and who is a real aid worker when it comes to USAID.

Earlier this year Ms. Smith sent 25 senior CIA investigators to Ethiopia to see first hand what was going on with the nationwide uprising under cover of “investigating the drought”. Their report, yet to be made public, must have been pretty dire for not to long later, Freedom House, that excreable voice of the CIA, published a report insinuating that replacements for the present Ethiopian regime could be in the works.

USAID is up to its ears in the effort for “regime change” in South Sudan with dozens of CIA ops operating inside the country. Look at Latin America and the USAID’s dirty war against Cuba for decades now with USAID involved in recent “coups” and “quiet coups” in Central and South America.

When you deal with the USAID you are dealing with the USCIA and never forget it. Better yet, kick them out of your country like our government did here in Eritrea more than a decade ago.

German supermarket chain to be broken up with thousands of jobs lost

Marianne Arens

The German retail chain Kaiser’s Tengelmann confronts liquidation. According to media reports the Kaiser’s Tengelmann owner, Karl-Erivan Haub, intends to close dozens of stores and wipe out up to 8,000 jobs by January 1, 2017.

As usual, the ver.di trade union was notified in advance and has advised the company’s management. A roundtable involving ver.di, together with Kaiser`s Tengelmann and the two retail giants Edeka and Rewe, has been organised to ensure a smooth winding down of the stores.

The decision affects 5,650 shop assistants, warehouse workers, forklift and truck drivers and their families, as well as the employees of the Birkenhof meat processing company. They all have to reckon with mass redundancies, and the closure or sale of almost 430 supermarkets in the states of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria and Berlin.

According to information from the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung of 10 September, Haub will announce his plan at an extraordinary company meeting on 23 September. Haub has already outlined his plan in a secret paper provided to the supervisory board, which includes trade union officials. It evidently involves the closure of less profitable stores, including over 80 in North Rhine-Westphalia, and the wiping out of at least 5,000, and according to dpa, up to 8,000, jobs. More profitable branches in Berlin and Munich are to be sold.

A fierce price war and rabid competition have raged for years in the food retailing industry due to the growing influence of internet marketers. The Cologne Institute for Business Research (IFH) expects that trade in physical stores could shrink by around €40 billion by 2020. This is also a result of years of stagnation and decline in real wages in Germany. A growing proportion of the working population has simply less money for shopping.

For Kaiser’s Tengelmann, a relatively small chain, the prices of its goods are roughly 10 percent higher than its market rivals Aldi, Lidl, Rewe and Edeka. Because the chain was suffering losses, CEO Haub announced his intention to sell Kaiser’s Tengelmann to Edeka two years ago. Previously, employees had waived 50 percent of their Christmas and holiday pay for three years in a row.

Both the Monopolies Commission and the Federal Cartel Office vetoed the sale, arguing that Edeka would obtain a dominant position from the merger. However, Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) had already held talks in December 2014 with the heads of both companies, and annulled the veto in March 2016 with a ministerial decree. In so doing, he paved the way for the sale of Kaiser’s Tengelmann branches to Edeka under certain conditions.

The conditions were primarily aimed at strengthening the unions at Edeka. They included both a five-year jobs and locations guarantee for 97 percent of the workforce, as well as a ban on the selling off of individual stores. Numerous stipulations were made conditional on the union’s agreement. The Edeka Group, originally developed as a cooperative association of independent retailers, had previously prevented widespread trade union membership.

Edeka grudgingly accepted the ministerial decree because that was the only way to circumvent the cartel prohibition, and because ver.di signaled far-reaching cooperation. The competitors of Edeka, Rewe and Markant, however, then filed a lawsuit at the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Dusseldorf.

The OLG upheld their lawsuit in July and decided to ban the proposed merger. Minister Gabriel, together with Edeka, appealed to the Federal Court (BGH) to permit the merger. Germany’s highest court subsequently announced it would reach a decision by 15 November.

A final decision by the BGH could drag on for a maximum of two years, but the billionaire Haub is not prepared to wait. “The BGH option is no longer relevant,” Haub told the Süddeutsche Zeitung in early September. With an estimated fortune of $4.5 billion, the US magazine Forbes ranks Haub as one of the 200 richest people in the world. He is both the owner and chairman of Kaiser’s Tengelmann.

When it became known that Haub would announce the rationalisation of jobs at an extraordinary Supervisory Board meeting on 23 September, the unions ver.di and NGG responded immediately. Rather than mobilise the workers of the affected companies against the job cuts, the unions agreed to organise a roundtable with the industry bosses this week to ensure a controlled liquidation of jobs.

If it depends on ver.di, then the fate of tens of thousands of ordinary salesmen and women, drivers, etc., whose jobs today are already among the toughest and worst paid, will be served on a platter to Haub and the multibillion-dollar bosses who run Edeka and Rewe. The roundtable is aimed primarily at defusing possible protest and resistance.

A particularly pernicious role is being played by Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel. He immediately welcomed the planned roundtable, declaring that it was good, “if the competing companies are now willing to conduct the type of constructive discussions they refused to hold before the fusion process.” This is hogwash. The “constructive discussions” will culminate in a shabby sellout of the workforce.

Sigmar Gabriel was never interested in the fate of cashiers, meat packers or other workers. He is only interested in his current project: a red-red-green government coalition of the SPD, Left Party and the Greens at the federal level, for which he needs the support of the unions and the Left Party.

In the poker game surrounding the fate of Kaiser’s Tengelmann, Gabriel held talks at an early stage with Edeka, while ver.di leader Stefanie Nutzenberger (responsible for retail on ver.di’s executive) held talks with the competitor firm Rewe. Nutzenburger sits on the Rewe Supervisory Board. Rewe had registered from the beginning its own interest in buying Kaiser’s Tengelmann branches.

Despite being competitors, both Edeka and Rewe have an interest in the roundtable discussions. Instead of the previous plan, i.e., to acquire the whole company with all of its loss-making stores under the terms of the ministerial permit, they can now pick out profitable stores to take over, while the union sabotages resistance by the workforce.

Now both the union and the SPD have given their seal of approval to the destruction of jobs, wages and workers’ rights in the merger. This is clear from the contract bargaining completed by the unions a few weeks ago in anticipation of the BGH ruling on Edeka. According to the new contract, ver.di and NGG representatives have accepted job transfers, longer working hours, wage cuts and the closure of Birkenhof meat plants in North Rhine-Westphalia.

If it is left to the Social Democrats and union officials, then the fate of Kaiser’s Tengelmann employees will be the same as the employees of other store chains that have closed or drastically rationalised, such as Neckermann, Karstadt, Practitker or Schlecker. In all of these cases, ver.di functionaries agreed to the closures and organised mass redundancies.

NASDAQ hits record after US and Japanese central banks signal continued stimulus

Nick Beams

The decisions of the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) on monetary policy announced yesterday were both indications of the perplexity in the world’s leading financial institutions over how to deal with the “new normal” in the global economy, characterised by low growth, weak investment, contracting trade and low inflation.

In a split 7–3 vote, the Fed decided to leave interest rates on hold, while the Bank of Japan, after a weeks-long review of its quantitative easing program, made adjustments to its policies in light of the failure of its measures to achieve their stated aim of lifting inflation.

The BoJ decision was made in response to problems that arose following policies announced earlier this year.

Instead of simply trying to expand the overall money supply through broad-based asset purchases, the bank said it would now target 10-year government bonds, allowing the yield on longer-term bonds to rise. The decision was in response to concerns expressed by longer-term investors, including pension funds and insurance companies, that falling yields adversely affected their business models.

But the major impact of the statement was the commitment that the quantitative easing program, under which the BoJ injects 80 trillion yen (around $US800 billion) a year into financial markets, will go on indefinitely.

The bank said it would continue to buy assets until inflation “exceeds the price stability target of 2 percent and stays above the target in a stable manner.” With inflation currently running at minus 0.4 percent, and showing no sign of rising, this is a pledge that quantitative easing is not a temporary or emergency measure but will become permanent.

Financial markets responded positively to the news with the broad-based Topix index up by 2.5 percent and Nikkei rising by 1.8 percent.

In announcing its decision, the US Fed’s Open Market Committee said that while “the case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened,” it had decided “for the time being to wait.” The split vote, with three members voting for an immediate increase in the base rate of 0.25 percent, and comments by Fed chairman Janet Yellen, indicating that she was looking for a rate rise, point to a possible increase by the end of the year. Financial markets welcomed the decision with the Dow up by 163 points on the day and the NASAQ index reaching a record high.

Yellen made clear, however, that any interest rate rises in the future would be gradual and monetary policy would remain accommodative. While she insisted that the decision did not reflect lack of confidence in the economy and she expected economic growth to continue at a moderate pace over the next few years, projections on the future direction of interest rates by members of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) again saw a downward revision on where they expect rates to be.

The median projected rate for the federal funds rate was reduced by around half a percentage point, indicating expectations of lower growth.

It was during the question and answer session at her press conference that some of the confusion in financial circles made its appearance through the calm exterior which Yellen seeks to present.

In answer to questions on the role of politics and political uncertainty as a basis for the Fed decision—Republican candidate Donald Trump has accused the Fed of keeping rates low at the behest of the Obama administration—Yellen insisted that politics played no part in the central bank’s decisions. Another questioner noted that while the Fed had cited the Brexit decision as a reason to keep rates on hold in June, how could it not be the case that political uncertainty in the US was having an impact on investment and the Fed’s decisions.

Brushing aside present politics, Yellen replied that “investment spending has been weak for some time and we are not certain what is causing that.”

Given that investment is a key driver of the economy, this is a significant admission. It indicates that the Fed has little overall grasp of what is taking place and is simply responding to immediate events.

The perplexity at the top was expressed in other remarks. Yellen said Fed policymakers were “struggling” with a difficult set of issues over what is the “new normal” in the US and global economy.

These comments amount to a virtual declaration that the economic scenario on which the Fed has based itself over the past eight years has been torn to pieces. The “conventional wisdom” was that, after the financial crash and the Great Recession which followed, stimulatory measures by central banks in the US and worldwide would restore economic growth close to its previous path.

This has evidently failed and instead a period of “secular stagnation” has set in, that is, permanent low growth and disinflation.

The historically unprecedented quantitative easing policies of the Fed and other central banks, which have pumped trillions of dollars into the global financial system, have done next to nothing to promote growth, leading only to massive speculation and the growth of a financial bubble that threatens to burst even if there is only a small rise in interest rates.

This prospect was alluded to indirectly by Yellen when she explained the risks which the Fed confronted when considering its policy. On the one hand, she said, there was the prospect that keeping interest rates too low could risk “overheating” the economy, while on the other there was the danger that an increase could set off a recession.

These remarks, in the context of a discussion of a possible 0.25 percent rise in the federal funds rate, point to real fears. They are not based on the belief that such a small rise will lead to a slowdown in the real economy—it would have next to no impact on investment decisions or consumer spending—but that it could trigger a major disturbance in financial markets.

This is evidenced by what happened at the start of the year when, following the 0.25 percentage point increase last December, global equity and financial markets experienced one of their worst year-openings on record in January.

Under conditions where the growth in the real economy continues to slow, the ongoing rise in financial markets is inherently unsustainable. This is because, notwithstanding the illusions that money can indefinitely beget more money, credit, share values and other financial assets ultimately represent a claim on real wealth.

In its latest survey of the economic outlook of the advanced economies, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has revised down its global growth estimate, citing weak trade growth and lower productivity.

It predicted growth in the UK for 2017 at 1 percent, down from 2 percent, largely due to sharp falls in business investment.

It lowered its US growth forecast for 2016 to 1.4 percent, from 1.8 percent and cut the forecast for Canada from 1.7 percent to 1.2 percent, and marginally lowered its projection for global growth to 2.9 percent.

The report said the world economy “remains in a low-growth trap with persistent growth disappointments weighing on growth expectations and feeding back into weak trade, investment, productivity and wages.”

The growing divergence between financial markets, boosted by the actions of central banks, and the real economy is creating the conditions for another financial crisis and even deeper attacks on the wages and social conditions of the working class.

US pushes for “no fly” zone as Syrian conflict escalates

Bill Van Auken

Speaking before a United Nations Security Council meeting on Syria Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry demagogically blamed Russia and the government of President Bashar al-Assad for the escalating violence that has left a ceasefire reached earlier this month in tatters.

Kerry also demanded the imposition of a de facto “no fly” zone over areas controlled by US-backed Islamist “rebels,” including those affiliated with Al Qaeda, under the pretext of assuring delivery of humanitarian aid and reviving the ceasefire.

“I believe that to restore credibility to the process, we must move forward to try to immediately ground all aircraft flying in those key areas in order to deescalate the situation and give a chance for humanitarian assistance to flow unimpeded,” Kerry told the Security Council meeting.

The Syrian government declared the ceasefire ended on Monday after reporting 300 violations by the Western-backed Islamist “rebels” and in the wake of the US bombing of a Syrian army outpost near the Deir al-Zor airport in eastern Syria on Saturday that killed as many as 90 soldiers and wounded another 100.

US officials have claimed that the attack was a mistake, while Damascus has pointed out that it was immediately followed by an assault on the position by fighters of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), charging that the air and ground actions were coordinated. Deir al-Zor occupies a strategic position on the highway leading from Syria to Iraq and onto Iran.

The US airstrike was followed on Monday by an attack on a UN aid convoy in the town of Urum al-Kubra in northern Aleppo that left 20 people dead and 18 trucks bearing relief supplies destroyed. Washington immediately charged, without presenting any evidence, that either Russia or the Syrian government was responsible. Kerry and other US officials are now invoking the attack as a means of vilifying Moscow and pressing for new concessions.

Blaming Russia and the Assad government for Monday’s attack, Kerry claimed that it “raises a profound doubt about whether Russia and the Assad regime can or will live up to the obligations that they agreed to in Geneva.”

Speaking earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the attack on the aid convoy as “an unacceptable provocation,” and called for a “thorough and impartial” investigation to determine who was responsible. He repeated previous statements by Russian military officials that no Russian warplanes had been in the vicinity of the attack, adding that the Syrian air force was not capable of carrying out such an airstrike at night. He pointed out that the attack on the convoy coincided with a “rebel” offensive in the same area.

Russian military officials, meanwhile, reported Wednesday that a US Predator drone, capable of firing multiple air-to-surface missiles, was seen flying over the aid convoy at the time of the attack. Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry released an aerial video showing that the aid convoy had been accompanied by a “rebel” truck towing a large-caliber mortar launcher, which subsequently disappeared from view.

In his statement to the Security Council, Lavrov also insisted that there could be no more “unilateral” cessations of hostilities in Syria. Russia has charged that the US-backed Islamists never accepted the ceasefire and continued to carry out attacks on government positions after it went into effect on September 12.

Speaking before the same Security Council meeting, Syria’s ambassador to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari vowed that his country “will not become another Libya or Iraq,” and stated that his government was prepared “to reach a political solution that is decided by the Syrians”

While Kerry claimed that his proposed “no-fly” zone is meant to prevent the Syrian government from attacking “civilian targets with the excuse that it is just going after Nusra,” from the standpoint of Washington’s aims, the exact opposite is the case.

As with its support for the ceasefire itself, Washington is invoking humanitarian concerns for civilians trapped in areas controlled by the Al Nusra Front and similar Al Qaeda-linked militias in order to bring a halt to Syrian military operations against these forces and thereby allow them to rearm, regroup and resume an offensive against the Assad government.

The Syrian ceasefire has been the subject of bitter divisions within the Obama administration, with the Pentagon and top uniformed commanders in the Middle East calling into question whether the military would even obey orders to implement the deal.

Those most heavily involved in the US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria, particularly elements within the CIA, have opposed the agreement because it calls upon Washington to oversee the separation of the so-called “moderate opposition” that it has paid and armed from Al Qaeda-linked forces like the Al Nusra front that are formally designated as “terrorists.” In the week following the ceasefire’s initiation, there was no sign of these “moderates” distancing themselves from the Al Qaeda elements. Such a separation is opposed by Washington’s “rebels” because Nusra represents the most significant armed group fighting the Syrian government.

Even more importantly for the Pentagon, the ceasefire’s call for the establishment of a joint operations center with Russia to share intelligence and targeting information would cut across the US military’s escalating preparations for war with Russia itself. The bombing of the Syrian army position on Saturday, followed by the attack on the aid convoy on Monday, served to squelch this proposal.

Amid the diplomatic sparring between the US and Russia at the United Nations, there were multiple signs that the conflict in Syria is on the brink of a dangerous escalation, carrying with it the threat of a wider and even world war.

The US is considering a plan to begin directly arming the Syrian Kurdish fighters of the YPG (People’s Protection Units), according to unnamed officials quoted in a report published Wednesday in the New York Times. US special forces units have already been deployed alongside the Kurdish fighters and Washington has been at least indirectly arming them by feeding weapons to a smaller Syrian Arab militia force that fights alongside the YPG.

Nonetheless, the plan, which is reportedly under discussion in the US National Security Council, would represent an escalation of the US utilization of the Kurdish militia as a proxy force in its campaign against ISIS. It would also deepen tensions between Washington and the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which launched its own military incursion into Syria last month.

Operation Euphrates Shield, as the Turkish invasion of Syria has been dubbed, now also counts with a US special operations “advise and assist” mission. As the primary strategic goal of Ankara’s intervention is to prevent Kurdish forces from consolidating an autonomous entity on Turkey’s border, US special forces could end up facing each other on opposite sides of the battlefield.

Before leaving for the UN General Assembly meeting in New York City, Erdogan told reporters that the Turkish intervention had “cleared” an area of 900 square kilometers (about 350 square miles) of “terrorists,” by which he meant both ISIS and the Kurdish YPG. He added, “We may extend this area to 5,000 square kilometers as part of a safe zone.” Such an intervention would require the deployment inside Syria of thousands of Turkish troops.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced Wednesday that the Russian navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is being deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to participate in military operations in Syria.