Withdrawing the MFN Status to Pakistan: Legality and Implications

VP Haran

The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment is the fundamental basis of multilateral trade conducted under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. It simply means that WTO members will not discriminate among other members, except as specifically provided for in the rules. Multilateral trade rules embodied in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], were framed in the immediate years following the World War II, which probably prompted the framers of the rules to provide for exceptions to the general rule on grounds of National Security, via Article XXI. There are other exceptions as well, in Article XX of the GATT. In the context of reports that India will be reviewing its 1996 decision to extend the MFN status to Pakistan, it will be useful to understand the legal position, in view of our commitments in the WTO and under SAFTA.

Pakistan, which is bound by WTO rules to extend the MFN status to India has not done so, using the provisions of Article XXI. India has not taken the issue to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, partly because it is difficult to challenge Pakistan’s subjective assessment on security issues. Nor has New Delhi reconsidered withdrawing the 1996 decision – probably because it gives us bragging rights that we have been extremely reasonable in dealing with Pakistan. Article XXI ‘Security Exceptions’ of GATT states that:

“Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed…(b) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests…(iii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or (c) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

The critical phrase – “which it considers necessary” – gives a member state nearly unfettered rights to invoke this provision at its own discretion, which is what Pakistan has used, to deny the MFN status to India. In the mid-1980s, following a ban on imports of goods and services from Nicaragua by the US, the former approached the GATT. The US argued that validity of its decision to invoke Article XXI cannot be examined by the GATT Panel and succeeded in getting this critical point excluded from the terms of reference to the Panel.

The answer to whether or not India has the right to withdraw the MFN status to Pakistan on security considerations is a most definitive yes. When Pakistan has invoked a security exception to deny India an MFN status, New Delhi would be justified in reciprocating for the same reason and under the same provision; and Pakistan will have no case to take to the WTO. Furthermore, recent developments near the India-Pakistan border would constitute an emergency in New Delhi’s relations with Islamabad, which would justify the decision to withdraw the MFN status.

 

All members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) are required to extend MFN treatment to fellow members, under the South Asian Free Trade Agreement [SAFTA]. SAFTA also provides for some exceptions, one of which is national security. Article 14(a) of the SAFTA states that: 

 

“Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Contracting State from taking action and adopting measures which it considers necessary for the protection of its national security.”

 

This provision is modeled after Article XXI of the GATT and here again, the member can adopt “measures which it considers necessary”. The measures are left to the discretion of the member and India would be justified in withdrawing the MFN status in the present circumstances. Its assessment in this regard is beyond challenge.

 

While India would be on firm legal ground in withdrawing the MFN status granted to Pakistan, what would the practical implications be? It will be a strong political message to Pakistan, but more importantly, to domestic public opinion that the government means business in facing up to the security challenges from the western frontier.

 

It is uncertain whether it will have serious economic consequences for Pakistan. Pakistan’s exports to India in 2015-16 was $441 million – 1.56 per cent of its total exports – and much of it was primary products. On the other hand, India’s exports through regular channels to Pakistan in 2015-16, despite the denial of MFN status, was $2.17 billion. Pakistan could retaliate by restricting imports of several items from India.

 

On the economic front, the scores may be even; but on political terms, India would have scored a point.

Solomon Mahlangu Scholarship Fund for Young South Africans 2017

Application Deadline: Applications (online and manual) close on 15th January 2017.

Eligible Countries: South Africa

To be taken at (country): South Africa

Eligible Field of Study: Full-time degrees that fall within the priority growth sectors, critical and scarce skills areas outlined in the labour planning framework of the country.Full-time degrees that fall within the priority growth sectors, critical and scarce skills areas outlined in the labour planning framework of the country.

About the Award: In its quest to address the challenge of youth unemployment, access to education, among many other challenges, the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) changed its core business to focus on education and skills development as the organisation’s main priority. This move was informed by studies which suggested that salary remains the main source of income for young South Africans.

The Solomon Mahlangu scholarship fund was established in honour of Solomon Kalushi Mahlangu who at the age of 23, was executed under the apartheid laws after being wrongfully accused of murder and terrorism. Fearing crowd reaction at the funeral, police decided to bury Mahlangu in Atteridgeville, Pretoria.
The scholarship fund is designed to create an environment for affording youth with excellent academic background, an opportunity to further their studies. Financial support will be provided to youth who pursue full time degrees that fall within the priority growth sectors, critical and scarce skills areas outlined in the labor planning frameworks of the country.
The fund will be accessible to deserving South African youth who meet the minimum entry requirements set by the NYDA and, who have been admitted for study at public Universities and Universities of Technology

Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: 

• Students must be applying for admission to one of the public universities as a 1st year full-time student in a priority study (see above).
• High school learners who plan to attend one of the public universities or university of technology after completing the National Senior Certificate
• Must meet University Admission Points Score (APS) and achieve an average of 70% in the NSC exams
• Must be South African citizens between 14 – 35
• Financial neediness – combined household salary of less than R15 000 a month
• Reside in rural/semi-rural areas

Number of Awardees: 150

Value of Scholarship: 

• Tuition
• Accommodation
• Meals
• Study Books

Duration of Scholarship: The Solomon Mahlangu Scholarship is awarded for the duration of studies

How to Apply: Applications can be completed online or manual. Click HERE to start completing your online application.

Download an application form (form in the link below) or get one from your nearest branch. Complete the form and send to VDG House, 8 Victoria Road, Plumstead, Cape Town 7945 or email to studentfunding@studentfundingportal.com.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to fully complete the online application form.

Electronic applications are the preferred method of applying as they ensure speed, accuracy and efficiency.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: National Youth Development Agency (NYDA)

Important Notes: 

• Application does not automatically mean acceptance; a selection will be made of students to be covered by the scholarship programme.  Application does not automatically mean acceptance; a selection will be made of students to be covered by the scholarship programme.
• NO late applications will be considered.

A System Of Food Production For Human Need, Not Corporate Greed

Colin Todhunter


There has been an adverse trend in the food and agriculture sector in recent times with the control of seeds and chemical inputs being consolidated through various proposed mergers. If these mergers go through, it would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector. Over the past couple of decades, there has already been a restriction of choice with the squeezing out of competitors, resulting in higher costs for farmers, who are increasingly reliant on corporate seeds (and their chemical inputs).

Big agribusiness players like Monsanto rely on massive taxpayer handouts to keep their business models on track; highly profitable models that have immense social, health and environmental costs to be paid for by the public. Across the globe healthy, sustainable agriculture has been uprooted and transformed to suit the profit margins of transnational agribusiness concerns. The major players in the global agribusiness sector fuel a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production that result in numerous negative outcomes for both farmers and consumers alike (listed here: 4th paragraph from the end).

Aside from the domination of the market being a cause for concern, we should also be worried about a food system controlled by companies that have a history (see this and this) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in activities that might be considered as constituting crimes against humanity. If we continue to hand over the control of society’s most important infrastructure – food and agriculture – to these wealthy private interests, what will the future look like?

There is no need to engage in idle speculation. Foods based on CRISPR (a gene-editing technology for which Monsanto has just acquired a non-exclusive global licensing agreement for use) and synthetic biology are already entering the market without regulation or proper health or environmental assessments. And we can expect many more unregulated GM technologies to influence the nature of our food and flood the commercial market.

Despite nice sounding rhetoric by company spokespersons about the humanitarian motives behind these endeavours, the bottom line is patents and profit. And despite nice sounding rhetoric about the precision of the techniques involved, these technologies pose health and environmental risks. Moreover, CRIPRS technology could be used to create genes drives and terminator seed traits tools could be used for unscrupulous political and commercial ends.

There could well be severe social and economic consequences too. The impacts of synthetic biology (another sector dominated by a handful of private interests) on farmers in the Global South could result in a bio-economy of landlessness and hunger. Readers are urged to read this report which outlines the effects on farming, farmers and rural economies: synthetic biology has the potential to undermine livelihoods and would mean a shift to narrower range of export-oriented mono-cropping to produce biomass for synbio processes that place stress on water resources and food security in the exporting countries.

Aside from these social, health and environmental implications, can we trust private entities like Monsanto (or Bayer) to use these powerful (potentially bio-weapon) technologies responsibly? Given Monsanto’s long history of cover-ups and duplicity, trust took the last train out a long time ago. Moreover, the legalities of existing frameworks appear to mean little to certain companies: see here what Vandana Shiva says about the illegality of Monsanto’s enterprise in India. National laws that exist to protect the public interest are little more than mere hurdles to be got around by lobbyists, lawyers and political pressure. So what can be done?

Agroecology is a force for grass-root rural change that would be independent from the cartel of powerful biotech/agribusiness companies. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritises the needs of farmers and consumers. It represents an alternative to corporate-controlled agriculture.

However, as much as people and communities strive to become independent from unscrupulous corporate concerns and as much as localised food systems try to extricate themselves from the impacts of rigged global trade and markets, there also has to be a concerted effort to roll back corporate power and challenge what it is doing to our food. These corporations will not just go away because people eat organic or choose agroecology.

The extremely wealthy interests behind these corporations do their level best to displace or dismantle alternative models of production – whether agroecology, organic, public sector agriculture systems or anything that exists independently from them – and replace them with ones that serve their needs. Look no further than attempts attempts to undermine indigenous edible oils processing in India, for instance. Look no further than the ‘mustard seed crisis‘ in India in 1998. Or look no further than how transnational biotech helped fuel and then benefit from the destruction of Ethiopia’s traditional agrarian economy.

Whether it’s on the back of US-backed coups (Ukraine), military conflicts (Iraq), ‘structural adjustment’ (Africa) or slanted trade deals (India), transnational agribusiness is driving a global agenda to suit its interests and eradicate impediments to profit.

To underline this point, let’s turn to what Michel Chossudovsky says in his 1997 book ‘The Globalization of Poverty’. He argues that economies are:

“opened up through the concurrent displacement of a pre-existing productive system. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy or obliged to produce for a global distributor, state enterprises are privatised or closed down, independent agricultural producers are impoverished.” (p.16)

Increasing profit and shareholder dividends are the bottom line. And it doesn’t matter how much devastation ensues or how unsustainable their business model is, ‘crisis management’ and ‘innovation’ fuel the corporate-controlled treadmill they seek to impose.

As long as the domination of the food system by powerful private interests is regarded as legitimate and as long as their hijack of governments, trade bodies and trade deals, regulatory agencies and universities is deemed normal or is unchallenged in the sham ‘liberal democracies’ they operate within, we are destined for a future of more contaminated food, ill health, degraded environments and an agriculture displaced and uprooted for the benefit of self-interest.

The problems associated with the food system cannot be dealt with on a single-issue basis: it is not just about the labelling of GM foods; it’s not just about the impacts of Monsanto’s Roundup; it’s not just about Monsanto (or Bayer) as a company; and it’s not just about engaging in endless debates with corporate shills about the science of GMOs.

Despite the promise of the Green Revolution, hundreds of millions still go to bed hungry, food has become denutrified, functioning rural economies have been destroyed, diseases have spiked in correlation with the increase in use of pesticides and GMOs, soil has been eroded or degraded, diets are less diverse, global food security has been undermined and access to food is determined by manipulated international markets and speculation – not supply and demand.

Food and agriculture have become wedded to power structures that have created food surplus and food deficit areas and have restructured indigenous agriculture across the world and tied it to an international system of trade based on export-oriented mono-cropping, commodity production for a manipulated and volatile international market and indebtedness to international financial institutions.

The problem is the system of international capitalism that is driving a globalised system of bad food and poor health, the destruction of healthy, sustainable agriculture and systemic, half-baked attack on both groups and individuals who oppose these processes.

At the very least, there should be full public control over all GMO/synthetic biology production and research. And if we are serious about reining in the power of profiteering corporations over food – our most basic and essential infrastructure – they should be placed under democratic ownership and control.

In finishing, let us turn to Ghiselle Karim who at the end of her insightful article says:

“… we demand that it is our basic human right to protect our food supply… [food] would be planned to meet human need, not corporate greed.  We have hunger not because there is not enough food, but rather because it is not distributed equally. The core of the problem is not a shortage of food, but capitalism!”

Australian government claims refugee policy “best in the world”

Max Newman

Despite continued revelations of abuses inflicted on incarcerated asylum seekers who sought protection in Australia, the Liberal-National government has not only maintained its stance of refusing entry to all refugees, but proclaimed its “border protection” regime as a model for governments to adopt worldwide.

Invited to address the United Nations summit on refugees in New York this week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claimed that only by “addressing irregular migration through secure borders” could governments “focus humanitarian assistance on those who need it most.”

Before his speech, Turnbull touted Australia’s refugee policy as the “best in the world.” He sought to justify the indefinite detention of nearly 2,000 asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island by declaring that “public opinion will not accept a generous humanitarian program… unless the government is seen to be in command of its borders.”

By generous, Turnbull evidently meant his government’s pledge to grant humanitarian visas to 18,750 carefully-selected people annually. This is a drop in the ocean compared to 65 million displaced people across the globe, most of them fleeing the horrific wars triggered by the US and its allies, including Australia, in the Middle East.

Tacitly, Turnbull criticised the governments of Europe for not yet following Australia’s lead and totally shutting their borders to the desperate people trying to escape war and impoverishment—which would leave millions of people languishing in over-crowded refugee camps in some of the world’s poorest and most war-torn countries.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, who was also invited to the UN summit, sought to defend the appalling conditions in the Australian-controlled Pacific island camps by claiming they were better than those in countries such as Syria and Jordan. But the conditions in the Australian camps, which were re-established by the previous Labor government, are deliberately punitive, precisely to deter refugees from trying to leave camps in the Middle East and seek protection in Australia.

In reality also, governments internationally are vilifying refugees in order to curb popular support for the displaced millions and to justify shutting borders, imposing police-state measure and continuing the wars and regime-change operations that have fuelled the worst refugee crisis since World War II.

The “Australian model” is one of cruelty and inhumanity. The recent leak of over 2,000 incident reports from Nauru, dubbed the Nauru Files, provided a picture of the violations of basic legal and democratic rights that occur daily in Australia’s “offshore processing centres.” Former staff members have spoken out bravely against the abuses, defying the threat of being jailed under the government’s secrecy provisions.

Speaking at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute recently, Dutton boasted of maintaining the camps in the face of “sustained activist opposition.” Dutton insisted that the government’s “relationship in this regard with Nauru will continue for decades.” In other words, despite the overwhelming evidence of violations, the camps while remain open indefinitely.

The Labor Party and the Greens attempted last week to distance themselves from their own role in imposing these policies by co-sponsoring a motion in the Senate for a committee inquiry into the leaked reports. It was the 2010–13 minority Labor government, kept in office by a formal agreement with the Greens, that re-opened the Nauru and Manus facilities, for the express purpose of ensuring that detainees would have “no advantage” over the millions of refugees trapped in camps elsewhere.

Labor and the Greens are working together to try to head off the mounting disgust among broad layers of people and promote political illusions that some modification of the “border protection” regime can be made within the parliamentary framework.

The motion was tabled by Labor Senator Murray Watt without any Greens or Labor senator speaking. The only speaker was Liberal Senator James McGrath, who declared that the “government will not waver in our commitment to the strong and consistent border protection policies.” Despite the motion, the government’s policy would not change and “no-one in regional processing centres will be resettled in Australia.”

The truth is that the Senate inquiry will seek to whitewash the political responsibility for the crimes committed against refugees by successive Australian governments.

The Labor Party unequivocally supports the indefinite detention of asylum seekers. It was the Keating Labor government that instigated mandatory detention within Australia in 1992. And today, Labor’s leaders insist that the Gillard Labor government “stopped the boats” by reopening the offshore camps in 2012.

Initially, the Greens proposed a royal commission into the Nauru abuses, which would only serve as a more sophisticated form of cover up. Very quickly, however, the Greens complied with Labor’s call for yet another Senate inquiry, sending a wider signal of their readiness to collaborate with Labor.

Greens immigration spokesperson Senator Nick McKim said the Greens were “disappointed” by Labor’s lack of support for a royal commission, but “thank them for their constructive approach on this inquiry.”

McKim said: “We need to close the camps and bring the people there to Australia. But until that happens, we need to reveal the truth.” This only serves to cover up the fact that numerous reports, inquiries and investigations, including a previous Senate inquiry headed by the Greens, have failed to shift the government’s policy in the slightest. Nor has Labor’s support for “offshore” detention altered one bit.

In August last year, a Senate inquiry with Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young as deputy chair, produced evidence of systematic abuses of detainees, including sexual assault and torture, but did not demand closure of the camps. Instead, it called for more “transparency” and an “open centre” model, which still left detainees highly restricted.

Over the past year there has been a further escalation in suicides and protests, with two asylum seekers self-immolating. Despite this and Papua New Guinea’s highest court ruling the Manus camp illegal, both prison camps are still operating.

The working class must come to the aid of refugees and those displaced by war. They must have the basic democratic right to live and work where they choose, with full civil and political rights. The closing of borders to asylum seekers is a damning indictment of the entire nation-state system, which divides the international working class along national lines in the interests of corporate profit.

Number of London homeless sleeping on the streets tops 8,000 nightly

Allison Smith 

Rough sleeping doubles

Figures released by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee show that the number of people rough sleeping (sleeping on the streets) in London has doubled since 2010, rising 7 percent in the last year alone, to 8,096 people.

Research by the Crisis charity shows that the number one cause of homelessness is the ending of assured short-hold tenancies in the private rental sector—accounting for one third of all homeless acceptances by local councils.

Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Crisis, said, “The number of people rough sleeping in London is the highest in the country and for the first time in many years numbers are increasing in all parts of England. The biggest reason someone finds themselves homeless is the end of a private rented tenancy.”

Dying homeless in London

More than 8,000 people sleep rough in London each night, and for these vulnerable citizens, the average life expectancy is just 47 years. The average for the UK as a whole is 81.5 years.

Many of London’s homeless die violent or lonely deaths.

This summer, a spate of deaths in Camden Borough due to poisoning from synthetic cannabis led to an outcry from residents. The drug, once legal in London, is peddled to homeless residents for £1 per cigarette as a cheap alternative to marijuana. However, the strength of the synthetic drug is unpredictable, sometimes with devastating consequences.

This past June the decomposing body of Joseph Coughlin was found in his homeless hostel, three days after he had died. Social services and hostel managers failed to check on him, and his death went unnoticed until residents complained of a foul odour coming from his room.

Last year, former concert pianist Anne Naysmith, nicknamed “The Car Lady of Chiswick,” died after being hit by a lorry in West London. Naysmith had been living in her car until Hounslow Council towed it away in response to complaints from residents. After this, she lived in various places, including an alleyway behind an Italian restaurant, Charing Cross Hospital’s boiler room, and shrubbery behind Stamford Underground Station.

Last year a Kensington resident discovered the body of an unknown man impaled on a spike in the prosperous Conservative-controlled borough. After an exhaustive search, police discovered he was a Polish immigrant worker. He left behind a family in Peterborough.

Homeless university students in London

A survey of undergraduate students at London Metropolitan University (LMU) School of Social Professions found that 27 of the programme’s students are homeless. These homeless students were too ashamed to admit their situation and seek help from the university.

At LMU, the least expensive single student room with shared facilities is £584 per month, on par with private bed-sit rentals in London. This extortionate sum is forcing many low-income students to sleep on floors or couches or in hostels and local council emergency accommodation.

Martin Blakey, chief executive of Unipol housing charity for university students in Leeds, Nottingham and Bradford, said the survey findings don’t surprise him, telling the Guardian :

“It’s hard to get figures on homelessness because universities don’t monitor it, but I strongly suspect that it is a problem not just for LMU. Even in Leeds, when we hold viewings for family accommodation we find that people want to move in within days. When we ask about their present contracts, they are often extremely vague about where they are living. In London, student accommodation is being left to the market, so special groups, such as students with families, need greater help and support if they’re to survive in the market-driven jungle.”

According to the Degrees of Debt report by Sutton Trust, the average English university student can expect to graduate with around £44,000 of student loans. For the first time, English university students are now graduating with more debt than their American counterparts.

Homelessness and health

In 2015, at least 2,521 homeless London residents had “identifiable psychiatric needs”—a 260 percent increase from 2009, according to figures released by St. Mungo’s homeless charity that year. Mental health problems are the most common cause of homelessness.

In addition, homeless people also experience higher incidences of common diseases as well as diseases that were all but eradicated in the Victorian era, such as tuberculosis.

According to a Crisis charity survey of homelessness and access to general practitioner health care, one in 50 homeless people reported having tuberculosis, 25 times the national average. Responses from survey participants also revealed that homeless people are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and five times more likely to suffer from epilepsy. Eighty percent of survey participants reported they are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

The Crisis survey reports that access to health care by homeless people is limited by a number of factors, including difficulty registering with a surgery, lack of trust in institutions and authority figures, and lack of awareness or understanding of their own health situation.

Children transferred out of boroughs suffer abuse and neglect

An Independent newspaper investigation, published earlier this year, revealed the tragic deaths of children who were “lost” by social services authorities after being moved away from their local area. These included “the death of a six-month old child from head injuries, the death of a 13-month-old child from ongoing abuse, the death of a neglected one-year-old baby, and the miscarriage of a baby after the eight-month pregnant mother collapsed from stress and exhaustion.”

Councils moving homeless and vulnerable families to a new borough have a lawful duty of care to notify the new borough council of the family’s situation through a system known as Notify2 in London, especially when there is a history of child abuse and neglect. However, local authorities report that transferring councils routinely do not provide critical information about these families.

The Independent reports that between July 2011 and June 2015, London Councils moved 64,704 homeless families, with 4,053 of these families moved out of Greater London area entirely.

Boroughs targeting homeless with Public Space Protection Orders

Councils across London are increasingly threatening to criminalise rough sleeping individuals through the use of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs).

PSPOs were first introduced in 2014 as part of the UK Government’s Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, an anti-democratic bill with sweeping powers to criminalise everything from congregating in groups to sleeping rough, and particularly discriminating against the homeless. An investigation by Vice.com revealed that 36 local authorities are using the PSPOs to target rough sleepers, slapping them with a £100 penalty and possible criminal record and a further fine of £1,000 if they fail to pay the original penalty.

Under pressure from homeless advocates, Hackney Council in East London recently dropped its plans to charge homeless £100 on the spot for “anti-social behaviour” such as begging, street drinking, and rough sleeping in designated “hotspots.” But the council is undergoing a review of the use of PSPOs by other boroughs to determine if they will reintroduce them in the near future.

Tens of thousands of London homes stand empty

There are currently 56,000 empty homes in London. One of the main reasons is the phenomenon known as “buy to leave.” Property investors simply buy a house, leave it empty for a period until house prices rise enough to sell it on and make a substantial profit.

Croatian parliamentary election fails to resolve political crisis

Markus Salzmann

The parliamentary election in Croatia on September 11 failed to resolve the continuing political crisis of the youngest EU member state. The massive rejection of the entire political elite by the population was expressed in mass abstention. Only 54 percent, slightly more than half, of eligible voters took part in the election, 10 percent fewer than in the last election 10 months ago.

The nationalist conservative Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) won the most votes. According to the official results, it won 61 seats, slightly more than the Social Democrats (SDP), who won 54 seats. The “Most” party (Bridge) achieved third place, winning 13 seats. HDZ and Most won a combined total of 151 seats, not enough to form a majority government.

The Party “zivi zid” (Living Wall) also achieved parliamentary representation. It won votes with its criticisms of the big parties and the raging corruption and privatizations in the big cities. Party members were recruited from the civil rights movement, and from small nominally “left” groups and former members of the SPD. It is pro-capitalist and calls for the Croatian Central Bank to play a larger role in order to strengthen “competition.”

The regional party IDS (Istrian Democratic Assembly), the party of Milan Bandic—who was mayor of Zagreb for many years and who faces an ongoing trial on charges of bribery and organized crime— also made it into parliament. The fascistic HDSSB led by the war criminal Branimir Glavas also secured a seat. Eight seats went to representatives of national minorities.

Under the circumstances, building a ruling coalition is viewed as an extremely difficult task. Due to extreme tensions between HDZ and SDP, a grand coalition is unlikely, so the HDZ will need at least two coalition partners. The Most party, which was also part of the last government, is viewed as a possible coalition partner.

On the night of the election, Most head Bozo Petrov voiced his conditions for joining a coalition. He said that he would only consider joining a coalition if it really carried out “reforms.” Most wants a massive reduction in taxes for corporations and “smaller management,” in other words, mass layoffs in the public sector. Petrov gave the HDZ and the SPD five days to address his demands. In this way he said he hoped to avoid a long political impasse.

New elections became necessary in Croatia after the ruling coalition government led by the non-party pharmaceutical manager Tihomir Oreskovic collapsed in June, after only four months. Oreskovic, the former head of a North American pharmaceutical company, had headed a coalition of the HDZ and the right-wing neo-liberal Most. The aim of his government was to carry out “hard reforms” in Croatia.

The election in November 2015 had led to a stalemate between the HDZ and the SDP. Most became a kingmaker and agreed with the HDZ to name Oreskovic as prime minister.

The economic crisis in the former Yugoslavian state has continued unabated since it joined the EU in 2013. After six years of recession, the official unemployment rate is 14 percent overall, while youth unemployment stands at 43 percent. A study performed by the IFO Institute in Munich draws attention to the extremely high cost of living in Croatia and, above all, the high cost of food. Because of the precarious living conditions for large segments of the population, increasing numbers of people are leaving Croatia to seek employment abroad. The number of young and well-educated Croats who have left has risen by 33 percent.

In its last country report, the IMF had called for wide-ranging cuts, primarily on the public sector. Some 12 percent of the Croatian working population are employed by a state-owned enterprise, twice the average in the EU as a whole. This is a thorn in the side of the international financial elite.

Both the HDZ and the Social Democrats also advocate further attacks on the working class. The HDZ is led by Andrej Plenković, an experienced politician who, unlike his predecessor Tomislav Karamarko, enjoys a good reputation in Brussels and is expected to follow a strict course of reforms. Plenković is a jurist and former diplomat and has been a member of the European Parliament since 2013, when Croatia joined the EU. For years, the EU has demanded that Croatia reduce its state debt and budget deficit and improve conditions for foreign investors.

The ruling class has reacted to the social, economic and political crisis by encouraging extreme nationalism, which raises the spectre of a renewal of conflict in the Balkans. According to the Financial Times, the relationship between Serbia and Croatia has deteriorated to its lowest point since 1995. Open nationalism has now become “political mainstream” in Croatia.

The election on Sunday was preceded by a vile campaign in which the parties strove to outdo each other with their nationalism. Both of the big parties vehemently defended the closing of the so-called Balkan route for refugees. They also fuelled tensions between the former Yugoslavian states.

The SDP and its lead candidate, former head of state Zoran Milanovic, outdid all the others. At a meeting of the Croatian veterans of the war from 1991 to 1995, he called Bosnia a “failed state.” He called neighbouring Serbia a “wretched” gang that “wants to rule half the Balkans.”

Belgrade and Sarajevo reacted immediately. Serbia’s President Tomislav Nikolić compared Milanovic’s statements to those of the fascist Ustasha regime. Bosnian Foreign Minister Igor Crnadak reacted just as sharply, rejecting the insults levelled at Bosnia and Serbia. Previously, Serbia’s Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic had called Croatia the greatest disgrace of the EU.

Croatian Foreign Minister Miro Kovač (HDZ) recently worsened relations between Croatia and the other Balkan states when he blocked a new round of negotiations between the EU and Serbia. At a meeting with war veterans, Milanović announced that he would continue and intensify this policy.

Immediately before the election, Branimir Glavas, who in 2009 was judged guilty of the murder of Serbian civilians in Osikek in 1991, was rehabilitated and acquitted by the Supreme Court. The self-avowed fascist used his acquittal to propagandize against Serbia during the election. The suspension of the 1946 sentence of Alojzije Stepinac, the former Cardinal of Zagreb, also created a stir. By supporting the fascistic Ustasha at the beginning of the 1940s, Stepinac shared responsibility for the murder of Serbs in the 1940s.

French right-wing candidate Alain Juppé warns of rising anti-Muslim hysteria

Kumaran Ira

On Friday, former Prime Minister Alain Juppé, the favorite in the right-wing Les Républicains (LR) party primaries for the 2017 presidential elections, spoke to Le Monde to declare his concern over the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hysteria dominating the election campaign. Juppé said that major candidates were inciting so much ethnic hatred that France risked sliding into civil war.

Juppé told Le Monde, “We must absolutely calm down the climate that exists in France today. Simply saying the word ‘Muslim’ leads to a hysteria that is totally disproportionate.” He added, “We must calm down the situation. If we continue the way we are going now, we are heading towards civil war. But I want civil peace.”

This extraordinary remark comes after deep attacks on Muslims in France in the last two years, after terror attacks in France and Belgium by Islamist networks fighting for NATO’s proxy war in Syria. Thousands of Muslim homes have been raided under the state of emergency. President François Hollande of the Socialist Party (PS), which imposed the state of emergency, has repeatedly invited Marine Le Pen, the leader of the neo-fascist National Front (FN), to the Elysée presidential palace. The FN is expected to easily qualify for the presidential run-off in May.

Since the Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 2015, the French people have been subjected to relentless propaganda, including from Juppé’s own LR party, denouncing Muslims. Thus, in one column after the Charlie Hebdoattacks, Nouvel Obs commentator Jean Daniel wrote that, “Yes, we are at war, and what’s more it is a war of religion.”

Nearly two years later, a former prime minister of France is admitting that the state of emergency has cultivated a hysterical atmosphere that brought ethnic and religious tensions to a fever pitch.

The immediate target of Juppé’s remarks was the provocative comments of his main rival for the LR nomination, former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is building his campaign around appeals to neo-fascistic sentiment and the worship of French ethnic identity.

Last Monday, Sarkozy said: “If one wants to become French, one lives as a Frenchman. We will no longer tolerate an integration that doesn’t work, we will demand assimilation.” In a reactionary and bizarre reference to ancient Gaul, the region of Europe encompassing most of present-day France that was first inhabited by Celtic peoples, Sarkozy declared, “Once you are French, your ancestors are the Gauls.”

This statement violates fundamental juridical principles that French citizenship is a legal and not an ethnic or blood relationship, and flies in the face of France’s large ethnic Arabic, African, Italian, and Portuguese populations. Sarkozy’s promotion of views that French identity is a blood tie echoes the conceptions of Charles Maurras of the anti-Semitic Action Française movement before World War II. They are in line with the views of his top advisor, Patrick Buisson, a former editor of the far-right Minutemagazine who is known as a devotee of Maurras.

Juppé’s remarks reflect growing concern in sections of the ruling elite that, amid the deepest crisis of European and world capitalism since the 1930s, their longstanding promotion of anti-Muslim and law-and-order prejudices has taken on entirely new dimensions.

Since 2003, French bourgeois politicians of all stripes have backed bans on the veil in the public schools, or on the burqa. Such anti-Muslim campaigns were promoted not only by right-wing forces, but also by the PS and its pseudo-left allies like the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), Lutte Ouvrière(Workers Struggle, LO), and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Left Front.

Today, after nearly a decade of intense economic crisis, however, and mounting anti-Muslim sentiment after the Paris terror attacks and under the state of emergency, the level of tensions are far higher. Calls for banning the burkini or dismantling refugee camps in Calais reflect the growing emergence of politicized anti-Muslim nationalism as a key force in French bourgeois politics.

Sympathizers of the Action Française, which formed the key basis of the Nazi-collaborationist regime in Vichy, play increasingly visible roles as advisers and associates of the PS and the pseudo-left. In particular, Mélenchon developed close ties with both Buisson and far-right journalist Eric Zemmour, whom the NPA-linked news site Médiapart also promoted.

The defense of democratic rights in France and across Europe cannot be left to any faction of this utterly corrupt and reactionary political establishment. This is a task that falls to the working class, mobilized in struggle on a socialist program.

Juppé himself was at pains to reassure Le Monde that his limited criticisms of anti-Muslim hysteria did not mean that he would not firmly crack down on Muslims and the population at large. “Of course, I am aware of how serious the situation is,” he said, citing Montaigne Institute polls purporting to show that “over two-thirds of French Muslims accept the laws of the Republic. … but one quarter of them do not.”

Juppé’s claim that one-quarter of French Muslims—well over one million people—are in rebellion against France’s legal system is ludicrous. By making it, Juppé showed that he himself helps stoke law-and-order hysteria against Muslims. He went on to call for “undertaking a major campaign of de-radicalization, together with the leaders of the Muslim community.”

Moreover, while he expresses his reservations over anti-Muslim hysteria, Juppé has no viable alternative to propose, and he himself approves measures targeting Muslims and immigrants. While distancing himself from more outrageous anti-Muslim incidents like the expulsion of a Muslim student from school for wearing a long skirt or the banning of burkini swimwear on beaches, Juppé supported banning certain types of Muslim dress.

Juppé falsely presented such bans not as appeals to racism, but as simple police measures. He told Le Monde, “On the niqab, the State Council took a position: it must be banned not for religious reasons, but because it is contrary to the need to identify all faces in any public location. [But if one accepts religious bans,] The next thing that is posed is the question of bans on veils in universities, on ‘burkinis,’ or even one day on long skirts…”

The basic lines of Juppé’s police-state and austerity policies are virtually indistinguishable from those of Hollande and the PS, and there can be little doubt that—should he be elected—he will also rely on anti-Muslim rhetoric, as Hollande did, to disorient popular opposition.

Juppé plans an escalation of law-and-order measures and a prison build-up. As he told Le Monde, “I propose to create prison places for 10,000 new inmates, and to launch under the authority of the justice ministry a penitentiary police that will carry out intelligence work in the prisons and support prison guards. Finally, we need prison compounds to fight radicalization.”

With France’s economy stagnating, its budget deficits are set to rise. It therefore has to implement further budget cuts to keep the deficit below the 3-percent-of-GDP limit set by the European Union. Juppé is therefore vowing to carry out deep attacks on social spending, should he come to power.

“After the election, we won’t be at 2.7 percent but 3.5 percent if you look at all the [current PS] government’s promises,” he said. “From the start of my term in office, I will launch major structural reforms that have been too long delayed, like setting the pension age at 65 or deregulating the labor market. Overall, I will make €80 billion in spending cuts so we can finance €30 billion in tax cuts and €50 billion in structural reduction of the deficit.”

Obama vetoes bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi government

Evan Blake

On Friday, US President Barack Obama vetoed a bill passed unanimously in Congress that is intended to allow Americans to sue foreign governments alleged to be responsible for terrorist attacks in the US. With overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill, titled “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), Congress is expected to override Obama's veto later this week.

The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month, in the aftermath of the release of 28 pages of secret government documents detailing the role of the government of Saudi Arabia in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. It has been sponsored by organizations representing September 11 victims and their families who aim to sue the Saudi government.

Spurred on by the Pentagon and CIA, as well as a desire to maintain close ties to the Saudi regime, the Obama administration opposes the bill for a number of reasons. Above all, increased litigation on the 9/11 attacks threatens to further expose the fraudulent character of both the official investigation into the attacks, as well as the so-called “war on terror” launched in their aftermath.

The attacks provided the pretext to initiate longstanding plans to wage aggressive wars in pursuit of the oil resources of the Middle East, as part a broader effort to maintain American imperialism's hegemony throughout the region and the Eurasian continent as a whole. Through the “war on terror” begun under Bush and deepened under Obama, the US has destroyed entire societies from Afghanistan, to Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria, in the process killing over a million people.

The central lies deployed by the Bush administration in 2003 to justify its attack on Iraq were that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.

In reality, the country most deeply implicated in the attacks was Saudi Arabia, home to 15 out of 19 of the hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden. Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks were confirmed by the 28-page segment from the report issued by the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” released to the public last July. The 28 pages had been stowed away in a Capitol Hill basement vault since 2002, with only members of Congress allowed to read them, barred from taking notes or discussing their content with the outside world.

The redacted document begins by stating, “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government.” It goes on to detail that at least two of the hijackers were “provided substantial assistance” by Omar al-Bayoumi, whom the FBI identified as a Saudi intelligence agent, while some hijackers received paychecks for no-show jobs from a company financed by the Saudi Ministry of Defense.

In order to maintain official ties to Saudi Arabia—alongside Israel, Washington's principal Middle East ally for over 50 years and the largest buyer of American weapons—these facts had to be suppressed. While claiming without any evidence that Iraq bore responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the US was forced to bury real and substantial links to the Saudi regime.

During the buildup and launching of the war in Iraq in 2003, many of the same congressmen now professing their desire to find justice for the 9/11 victims supported the campaign of the CIA and Saudi monarchy to keep the Saudi role a secret by suppressing the 28-page document. The present bipartisan congressional support for JASTA is thus a cynical and hypocritical political maneuver.

The release of the document and the passing of JASTA coincides with the 2016 presidential election campaign, in which the two candidates have been jockeying for the support of the military and are both campaigning on aggressively “antiterror” platforms, portraying the US as virtually under siege. Both Clinton and Trump released statements criticizing Obama's decision, saying they would have signed the bill into law.

The support of the candidates and Congress for the bill is also a manifestation of the deepening rift between the US and Saudi Arabia. Last year, against the wishes of the Saudi regime, the Obama administration began a rapprochement with Iran through the signing of a nuclear agreement. Most recently, there have been rising tensions between Washington and Riyadh over US foreign policy in Syria and the broader Middle East.

At the same time, the country’s continuing importance is highlighted by the fact that influential sections of the national security apparatus were able to pressure Obama to veto the bill, as part of an effort to maintain good relations with Riyadh. A bipartisan group of former national security officials, including President George W. Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley and attorney general Michael Mukasey, President Bill Clinton's secretary of defense William Cohen, and Richard Clarke, a national security aide to both Clinton and Bush, penned an open letter to Obama urging him to veto the bill.

They wrote, “The harm this legislation will cause the United States will be both dramatic and long-lasting,” and if enacted, the bill “will most certainly undermine our relationship with one of our most important allies, Saudi Arabia, and damage our relationship with the entire Middle East.”

While not explicitly naming Saudi Arabia, Obama made clear in his veto letter that the bill threatened US foreign relations. He writes, “A number of our allies and partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the bill. By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their cooperation on key national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions.”

In his veto message to Congress, Obama also expressed concern that setting this precedent in the US “could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials—including our men and women in uniform—for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties.”

In other words, if similar legislation were enacted in virtually any country in the world, lawsuits could be brought against the US government to demand reparations for decades of imperialist slaughter. In the past quarter century alone, American imperialism has laid waste to entire societies, killing and displacing millions of innocent people and creating the largest refugee crisis since the end of World War II.

Yale World Fellows Programme 2017 for Mid-Career Emerging Leaders

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International (Any country other than the United States)

To be taken at (country): Yale University, USA

About the Award: Applications to the Yale World Fellows Programme are accepted from across sectors and around the world.  Each class of Fellows is a unique group: geographically balanced, and representative of a wide range of professions, talents, and perspectives.  The 2017 program will run from mid-August to mid-December.  Fellows are expected to be in residence at Yale for the duration of the program. 

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Bee Mid-career stage: Fellows are at least five, and typically not more than 20, years into their careers, with demonstrated work accomplishments, and a clear indication of future contributions and excellence.  The average age of a Greenberg World Fellow is 39, though there is no minimum or maximum age limit.
• Be fluent in English: An excellent command of the English language is essential.
• Be a citizen of a country other than the United States: While dual citizens are eligible, preference is given to candidates whose work is focused outside the US.

Selection Criteria: 

• An established record of extraordinary achievement and integrity;
• Commitment to engagement in crucial issues and to making a difference at the national or international level;
• Promise of a future career of leadership and notable impact;
• Special capacity for critical, creative, entrepreneurial, and strategic thinking;
• Likelihood to benefit from participation in the Program and to contribute to global understanding at Yale;
• Commitment to a rigorous program of activities, to full-time residence at Yale for the entire duration of the program, and to mentoring students and speaking frequently on campus

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: 

• A taxable stipend to cover the costs of living in New Haven
• A modest, furnished one- or two-bedroom apartment for the duration of the program
• Medical insurance
• Round-trip travel from home country

Duration of Fellowship: mid-August to mid-December.

How to Apply: 

• Please note that application for admission to the Yale World Fellows Programme is completely an online process. There are no paper forms to complete or mail.
• Prior to the deadline, you may work on your application at any time and submit it when you are ready. After creating an account and accessing the online application, you can upload materials and request your letters of recommendation.
• Most questions about the program and the application process can be answered by reviewing this website and the common questions.  If your question is unanswered, you may contact staff at applicant.worldfellows@yale.edu. Please do not send multiple emails regarding one issue, and please do not email staff individually. We thank you for your patience in allowing staff adequate time to thoughtfully process your inquiries.
• Please visit Fellowship webpage to be notified when the application for the 2017 programme will be available.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Maurice R. Greenberg World Fellows Programme