9 Nov 2016

Trump’s victory and the debacle of American democracy

Joseph Kishore

The victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election is a political earthquake that has exposed before the entire world the terminal crisis of American democracy. Such is the degeneration of bourgeois rule that it has elevated an obscene charlatan and billionaire demagogue to the highest office in the land.
Whatever conciliatory phrases he may issue in the coming days, a president Trump will lead a government of class war, national chauvinism, militarism and police state violence. In addition to the executive branch, all the major political institutions in the United States—including both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court—will be in the hands of the far right.
Under Trump, America will not be made “great again.” It will be driven into the dirt.
Media commentators, none of whom foresaw this outcome, fell back on now routine explanations focused on the voting patterns of various racial and identity groups. They all ignored the fact that the election became a referendum on the devastating social crisis and decay in the United States, which Trump was able to channel and direct to the right.
Who and what is responsible for the victory of Trump? First, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, which were unwilling and incapable of presenting a program that could attract any significant popular support.
Clinton waged her campaign on the lowest and most reactionary level. She combined claims that Trump was an agent of Putin—aimed at creating the framework for aggression against Russia—with denunciations of the working class as racist and “privileged.”
Second, the administration of Barack Obama, elected eight years ago on pledges of “hope” and “change.” Obama won the support of large sections of the working class, including white workers, bitterly opposed to social inequality and the Bush administration’s policies of war and social reaction.
During two full terms in office, Obama presided over unending war, a historic transfer of wealth to the ruling class, and the continued erosion of the living standards of the vast majority of the population.
Obama’s signature domestic program, the Affordable Care Act, was an assault on health care packaged as a reform. In the final weeks of the election, millions of workers discovered that they are facing double-digit increases in health care costs. This was likely far more important in affecting the outcome of the election than the actions of FBI director James Comey in reviving the Clinton email scandal.
Third, the trade unions, which for the past four decades of increasing social inequality have worked systematically to suppress the class struggle and maintain the political stranglehold of the Democratic Party. They have as well assiduously promoted reactionary economic nationalism, which is in line with Trump’s own platform.
Fourth, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and those organizations that promoted him. Sanders’ craven capitulation to Clinton—the logical outcome of his strategy of channeling opposition into the Democratic Party—ensured that opposition to the status quo would be monopolized by the political right. The most significant Trump upsets came in states where Sanders had defeated Clinton by large margins in the Democratic Party primaries.
Behind all of this was the central ideological role of identity politics and the systematic effort to conceal the real social divisions within society. The relentless and obsessive focus on race and gender over the past four decades has been used to give the Democratic Party a left cover for a thoroughly right-wing political agenda at home and abroad. At the same time, it articulates the interests of the most privileged sections of the upper-middle class.
The notion that the basic divisions in society are along the lines of race and gender is not only politically reactionary, it is fundamentally false. The Democrats and Clinton were hoisted on their own petard. They not only lost in regions that are predominantly poor and white, but also suffered from a decline in voter turnout in majority black regions, as African-American workers and youth saw no reason to back the candidate of the status quo.
The coming period will be one of shock, outrage and increasingly bitter struggles. It will not take long for workers, including those who voted for him, to realize what they have in a President Trump. At the same time, the explosive divisions within the state apparatus expressed in the election will emerge in new and more violent forms.

Iskander-M in Kaliningrad: The Changing Equations of Deterrence

Adarsh Vijay


The Baltic Coast has descended, again, into a quandary against the backdrop of the placement of the Iskander Missile System in the Kaliningrad Oblast, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland. Concerns about Russian attempts at “nuclearisation” are increasing in its backyard. This move, which has already invited skirmishes and diatribes in the region, is bound to have varying repercussions. The implications of this altered strategic landscape can be decoded under the following heads: Was Moscow’s action a reciprocation to any geopolitical stimulus? Does it hold the prospects of escalating risks in the region? If so, are there options available to minimise the expected tensions?

Emerging Strategic Quagmire
The move comes at a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is expanding its wings across the Baltics. The US interests in this region are purely guided by NATO’s commitments to its member states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Washington is apprehensive of the Russian revisionist tendency that seeks to retrieve the erstwhile Soviet territories, and which caused alarm bells with the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The consequent fear among the NATO countries over the likelihoods of further aggressive policies by Russia had induced the former to redevise its style of presence on its eastern flank. 

The White House has been wary of the fate of their Baltic counterparts, which were once part of the former USSR. A check over the security of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius has been brought within a first-of-its-kind deterrence mechanism. The deployment of an enhanced four-battalion sized troops in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland as decided at the NATO Summit at Warsaw (2016) reflected a change from the earlier policy of “reassurance” as promised at the Wales Summit (2014) against possible threats posed by Russia. The galloping presence of NATO in the Baltic Republics since the Crimean annexation under the pretext of joint-military exercises and drills had already been a perplexing concern for the Russians. 

NATO vis-à-vis Russia: an Offensive and Defensive Equation
The installation of 9K720 Iskander, a short-range and nuclear-capable tactical ballistic missile system, in the Kaliningrad; home to the Baltic Sea Fleet, during the first week of October 2016 can be viewed as the materialisation of a belated, but apt, reaction. Nonetheless, the Kremlin underplays fears about a possible nuclearisation of Baltic sphere and a direct military confrontation against the West. The placement of this mobile missile system reveals the chances of relocation in due course and it has been projected as part of the routine military drills of the Russian Armed Forces. Despite this claim by Moscow’s defence ministry, the NATO members see this as a provocation. Iskander with its range of 440 miles brings even Germany, a NATO member, within its scope of target. 
The arrival of an E-3A AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft on 13 October at the Siauliai airbase in Lithuania was a natural counter-reaction of NATO. The situation seems to be even more tense when seen in conjunction with the altercations between the US and Russia over the ongoing Syrian War.

Solutions as Uncertainties
Should Russia invade any of these Baltic NATO allies on its western border, the alliance would have no option but to invoke Article V of the treaty that sanctions a collective action against the aggressor state. By considering the precedents of failures with regard to non-coercive measures such as sanctions that were adopted in the wake of the Crimean annexation, a military response is what the NATO might rely upon in a next crisis. The Iskander-M, which is known as SS-26 Stone in the NATO circles, has been placed as a reaction to the US missile establishments in Poland. What makes the alliance suspicious is the hesitance of Moscow to be transparent in its policies with respect to the region. Apart from that, the military geography also stands in favour of Russia in the event of a conventional battle. According to a report of the RAND Corporation, the optimum time that the NATO could buy, in a hypothetic crisis, to avert the entry of Russian forces into the Baltic capitals is 60 hours. It is also unthinkable to ensure the presence of a permanent combat troops from NATO countries on the eastern flank owing to the lack of unanimity among the member states. Therefore, what seems feasible as of now is the stationing of rotational troops across the region in defence of the Baltics. NATO would also have to consider an additional withdrawal of forces from Germany to Poland and beyond as conventional deterrence continues to be the only means for tackling a Baltic crisis. As a mutual withdrawal from force-restructuring and postures is unlikely, the only effort that can prevent NATO and Russia from a collision is to let the deterrence-building measures continue without any disruption.

8 Nov 2016

Women’s Leadership Accelerator for Women in Digital Journalism 2017 – University of Southern California

Application Timeline: Applications close: 15th November 2016
Participants notified: mid-December
Women’s Leadership Accelerator: Feb. 5-10, 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): USA
About the Award: The Accelerator, to be held Feb. 5-10, 2017, at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, is open to 25 promising women leaders who are pushing innovation in their organization.
In addition to learning leadership skills and tools for navigating change, participants will focus on a challenge specific to their careers, whether an obstacle to overcome or an aspirational goal to achieve, either within their organizations or as an independent project.
The tuition-free program offers:
  • A focus on developing leadership and management skills, with special attention to challenges faced by women in media
  • Discussions, deep dives and one-on-one mentoring from some of the top women leaders in digital journalism
  • Proven creative approaches to pushing innovation in newsrooms
  • Practical, targeted guidance to working through individual challenges
  • Open, candid discussions about leadership, work-life balance and problem-solving in the newsroom
  • The opportunity to build a cohort of peers to serve as a strong career-long support system
wla-pic-1
Type: Entrepreneurship, Training
Eligibility: 
  • The programme is open to English-speaking women from around the world.
  • The Accelerator, supported by a generous grant from the Dow Jones Foundation, is open to practitioners working in digital media, including freelancers, entrepreneurs and independent journalists.
Selection Criteria:  ONA will screen candidates for potential, need and diversity across ethnicity, age, geography, technology platforms and skill sets.
Number of Awardees: 25
Value of Programme:  Thanks to the generous support of lead funder, the Dow Jones Foundation, and support from Google, the Women’s Leadership Accelerator training is tuition-free. We also provide breakfast, lunch and some dinners throughout the week. Participants will cover their own travel and accommodation costs. ONA has secured a hotel within walking distance of USC Annenberg that with a special room rate of $175 a night, so an estimated budget for accommodations is $1,000 ($875 for five nights, plus taxes and any hotel fees).
We realize that not everyone has a newsroom to fund them or an organization with a budget for professional development, so we’re happy to be able by offering a limited number of travel stipends to participants who need them.
Duration of Programme: Feb. 5-10, 2017
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Provider: Online News Association

Mid Sweden University Masters Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 16th January, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Sweden
Eligible Field of Study:  The Mid Sweden University Tuition Fee Scholarship is aimed at top academic students from countries outside the EU/EEA (and Switzerland). Students who have applied to the following study programmes at Mid Sweden University starting autumn semester 2017, and who are required to pay tuition fees are welcome to apply for a Mid Sweden University Tuition fee Scholarship. The scholarships can be applied for by applicants of the following programmes:
A fee waiver of the tuition fee with 70 000 SEK:
  • Master (one year) in Tourism Studies, 60 higher education credits
  • Master programme (one year) in Business Administration, Marketing and Management, 60 higher education credits
A fee waiver of the tuition fee with 140 000 SEK:
  • Master in Tourism, 120 higher education credits
A fee waiver of the tuition fee with 250 000 SEK:
  • International Master’s Programme in Computer Engineering, 120 higher education credits
  • International Master’s Programme in Ecotechnology and Sustainable Development, 120 higher education credits
  • Master’s Programme in Embedded Sensor Systems
Type: Masters
Eligibility: All students who have applied to a study programme at Mid Sweden University starting autumn semester 2017, and who are required to pay tuition fees are welcome to apply for a Mid Sweden University Tuition Fee Scholarship.
  • The applicant must be citizen of a country outside the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
  • The applicant must be required to pay a tuition fee.
If awarded a scholarship the Scholarship holder is obliged to:
  • Pay the tuition fee according to the tuition fee invoice. If payment is not made on time the scholarship will be withdrawn.
  • Enter into a written scholarship contract with Mid Sweden University before starting the studies.
  • Confirm his or her citizenship by means of a passport photocopy before starting the studies. Inform Mid Sweden University if personal conditions change and the student is no longer required to pay a tuition fee. The scholarship will then be withdrawn for that part of your studies.
  • If the scholarship holder does not enroll at Mid Sweden University, the scholarship will be withdrawn.
  • If the scholarship holder intermits his/her studies at Mid Sweden University, the scholarship will be withdrawn for the remaining part of his/her studies.
  • If the scholarship holder wrongly has stated that he or she met the conditions for the scholarship, by a misunderstanding or for another reason, the scholarship will be withdrawn.
Selection Criteria: The scholarships are awarded on the basis of academic excellence.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: 
  • The application for studies must be made no later than January 16, 2017, at www.universityadmissions.se.
  • The applicant must be admitted to one of the above mentioned programmes starting in the autumn semester 2017.
  • The application for the scholarship is done by filling out an online application.
  • The academic excellence of applicant will be assessed in accordance with the supporting documents submitted when applying for admission at Mid Sweden University.
  • The applicants do not have to send in the supporting documents again.The application form can be found here.
    Last day to apply for scholarship is February 12, 2017.
Award Provider: Mid Sweden University

NCF Foundation PhD Grants for Conservation Researchers in Nigeria 2017

Application Deadline: 9th December, 2016.
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
Type: PhD, Research Grants
Eligibility: 
  1. Candidates must be Nigerian citizens.
  2. Candidates must have M.Sc. Degree or equivalent qualification in Biological Sciences, Social Sciences or Law (Environmental Law/Protection) but related to environmental resources management.
  3. Candidates must have secured admission into a Nigerian university towards a PhD degree in any of the fields stated in No. 2 above.
  4. Candidates must develop acceptable research proposals that meet NCF’s vision and mission.
  5. Proposals must have correlation with local and national environmental conservation challenges and issues.
Selection Criteria: Candidates will be selected based on (among others) the quality of their research proposal.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
How to Apply: No paper application will be considered.  Applicants should not submit more than one proposal for consideration.
Applications must be submitted online via given website with the following:
  • A progress report (on letter head paper) from the applicant’s Project Supervisor(s) stating how far he or she has gone in his or her research work and his/her role in the initial review,  as well as the relevance to the  objectives of the grant is a very essential condition for considering any application.
  • 200-word justification, with relevance to natural and environmental resource management and biodiversity conservation.
  • A 3,000-word project proposal to be submitted should reflect the Title, Introduction/Statement of Problem, Objectives, Methodology and Expected Output etc.
  • Curriculum vitae (not more than 2 pages detailing research and work experience).
  • Scanned copy of admission letter.
Note: Reference letter is an equivalent of a Progress Report from the Supervisors(s).
Visit Programme Webpage for details
Award Provider: The Nigerian Conservation Foundation, Chevron Nigeria Limited
Important Notes: Please be informed that all applications will be acknowledged while only successful candidates will be contacted by the Foundation.

30 University of Edinburgh Global Research Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st February 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International students
To be taken at (country): University of Edinburgh UK
Subject Areas: All fields offered at the university
Type: PhD
Selection Criteria
  • Applicants must be of outstanding academic merit and research potential.
  • Although candidates with an upper second class honours Bachelor’s degree (or the overseas equivalent) can be considered, in order to be competitive you should really have a first class Bachelor’s degree supplemented by an excellent Master’s degree.
  • Other factors such as financial status, nationality and the proposed field of study are not taken into account.
Eligibility: The Edinburgh Global Research Scholarship is open to overseas students undertaking a research degree and may be held in any field of study. Applicants must be liable to pay tuition fees at the rate applicable to overseas students and must have already applied for admission to a full-time PhD research programme of study.
  • The University of Edinburgh will not generally consider candidates who have already obtained a PhD, or formal equivalent, as a result of direct research training.
  • Students already on programme can not be considered for these awards.
  • Please also note that if you have applied for consecutive registration where you will start your Master’s programme of study in 2016 and your PhD the following year in 2017, that you will not be eligible to apply for an award in 2017.
  • Edinburgh Global Research Scholarships cannot be held concurrently with fully-funded scholarships such as a Commonwealth Scholarship, or a Marshall Scholarship.
Number of Scholarships: 30
Benefits: Each award covers the difference between the tuition fee for a UK/EU graduate student and that chargeable to an overseas graduate student. The awards do not cover maintenance expenses.
Duration: Subject to satisfactory progress, the awards are tenable for up to three years.

How can I Apply?
The closing date for applications is 1st February 2017.
Please note you will not be able to access the online application form unless you have applied for admission to the University of Edinburgh.
The online scholarship application form is located in EUCLID and can be accessed via MyEd our web based information portal at https://www.myed.ed.ac.uk
When logging in to MyEd, you will need your University User Name and password. If you require assistance, please go to http://www.ed.ac.uk/student-systems/support-guidance
Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details
Important Notes: All applicants will be notified of the outcome by the end of May 2017.

(LSTM) Masters Scholarships for Medical Doctors from Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: Thomas Mark scholarship application forms will be sent only to applicants holding a conditional offer for the MTP. Applications for the MTP are accepted all year round, however, candidates wishing to apply for the Thomas Mark scholarship must apply for the MTP by midnight 30th November 2016 and return their scholarship application form by midnight 31stDecember 2016.
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM), Liverpool (UK)
Eligible Field of Study: MSc in Tropical Paediatrics
About the Award: LSTM’s MSc in Tropical Paediatrics produces graduates who are experienced, committed, informed, proactive and capable of taking substantial and leading professional roles.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: To be considered for one of the scholarships, applicants must be:
  • A national of a developing country
  • Working currently in a developing country and planning to return to work in a developing country upon completion of the programme.
Selection Criteria: Applicants are required to demonstrate a strong interest in research, evidenced by published papers and conference presentations.
Value of Scholarship: The scholarship will cover tuition fees, flights, accommodation, and a living allowance.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Eligible students offered a conditional place on a course will automatically be sent a scholarship application form.
Award Provider: Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

At Risk of Being Dupes: Life in Russia Under Sanctions

David Smith-Ferri

Here in Russia, where I have been traveling as part of a small delegation organized by Voices for Creative Nonviolence the people with whom we have spoken have no illusions about war and its effects. “We remember what war is like,” Nikolay, a scientist and businessman, told us. “We have a genetic memory,” referring to close relatives – parents, grandparents – who passed on their experience of the Great Purge and/or the siege of Leningrad, when nearly a million Russians died of starvation and disease because Germany cut off all imports and exports. “Three of my grandmother’s brothers and four of my grandfather’s brothers died in the war. My mother was born in 1937. She was lucky to survive the war. She lived in a village that the Nazis overran on their approach to Moscow. They bombed and burned it. Half the village burned. She just happened to be in the other half of the town when they set it on fire. Many of her friends died.”
On our last evening in St. Petersburg, we were glad to have dinner at a Georgian restaurant with a young Russian woman whom we had met the day before at a friend’s home. Alina is bright and open and unselfish. In rapid-fire English with a slight British accent, she spoke passionately about the harsh effects of Russia’s worsening economy and its causes. “The drop in global oil prices and the sanctions against Russia are hurting our economy. And it’s causing a lot of pain for people. Especially for elderly people who are on a fixed income. And it’s worse outside of the cities, where salaries are really low, but the cost of living isn’t so different (from the cities). You’ve only been in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but it’s really bad in the provinces. If you went there, you wouldn’t believe it.” This confirmed what we’d heard when we met days earlier with Russian social workers. Alina told us that “food in Russia is cheap for foreigners and expensive for Russians, and it’s getting worse. I spend almost half my salary on food. And transportation and housing are really expensive, too.”
I’m reminded of travel to Iraq which I undertook in the mid-1990s when small groups of U.S. and British people went to Iraq in defiance of federal law and in opposition to a brutal international economic embargo. We were portrayed as fools playing into the hands of the “enemy.”   Mainstream media convinced people that Saddam Hussein was not only a threat to vital U.S. interests in the region but also a person with imperial ambitions who would stop at nothing to accomplish them. Comparisons were made with Hitler, as if the means at his disposal were comparable, despite the fact that the Iraqi army, including its vaunted Republican Guard, had collapsed in a matter of weeks when the U.S. invaded in 1991, and the economic embargo had strangled Iraq’s economy and destroyed its ability even to care for itself, let alone pursue regional domination.
All of this, of course, was widely understood by the U.S. media, but it didn’t stop an energetic and unyielding portrayal of Saddam Hussein as a credible threat to the world. And so U.S. people, who surely could have handled a more complex analysis, came to accept and believe this. More, they came to see the economic warfare as a point of honor, U.S. foreign policy once again working for the benefit of the world (even if the world wasn’t grateful!), including Iraqi people who clearly needed help deposing a cruel and dangerous dictator.
This failure of the U.S. media to break its addiction to governmental propaganda provided necessary cover for U.S. foreign policies that caused hundreds of thousands of children under the age of five to die from preventable diseases, primarily related to water-borne infections. They died in large numbers day after day, month after month, year after year, unnecessarily, while their desperate parents held them, while exhausted doctors could do nothing to save them because they couldn’t get the once easily-obtainable antibiotics and rehydration fluids.
Despite the magnitude of the carnage in Iraq, despite the heart-rending scenes playing out daily in hospitals and homes, despite easy access to abundant and reliable information and images, the mainstream media (with notable exceptions in later years) averted its eyes and stuck to its narrow obsessive-compulsions.  And the children died As early as 1996, UNICEF published a report stating that 4,500 Iraqi children under the age of five were dying each month, victims of a brutal, lethal economic warfare.
The U.S. levied sanctions against Russia in 2014, stating they were in response to Russian military actions in Ukraine, and today the White House openly identifies increased sanctions as a possible response to Russian support of the Syrian government. Just as the American media ignored the effects of the sanctions regime on ordinary Iraqis, so today it fails to consider the plight of ordinary Russians when analyzing the success of sanctions. An October 26th article in the Chicago Tribune noted that sanctions are implicated in a 3.7% contraction of the Russian economy in 2015, with a further contraction expected over 2016, but the author failed to consider possible hardships on Russian people, as if economies somehow only effect government revenues and not people’s lives.
While the current sanctions regime may strike people in the U.S. as a justifiable, tempered, nonviolent policy, it begs many questions, not least of all: who gives the U.S. the right to do this? Of course, this is a forbidden question. The U.S. right to levy sanctions against Russia and to pressure European nations to participate is as sacrosanct as its right to build military bases in countries along Russia’s border. Does anyone in the media question that? It is as sacrosanct, apparently, as the U.S. right to engage in military action in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else it chooses.
So, if Russia deserves to be sanctioned for its actions in Europe, does the U.S. not also deserve to be sanctioned for building these bases and participating in NATO military exercises in countries bordering Russia? Why are Russian military actions in Syria different than U.S. military actions in Syria and elsewhere in the region? Who was there to sanction the U.S. for its role in the horrible bombing of the MSF hospital in Afghanistan and the bombing of hospitals in Yemen? Who sanctions the U.S. when its drones bomb a wedding party or a civilian convoy, or when targeted assassinations kill innocent civilians, as they often do? Or when U.S. airstrikes kill civilians, as happened just days ago in Kunduz, Afghanistan?
U.S. people can learn something important from our Russian counterparts – that is, ordinary Russians who are at least as opposed to war as we are. They seem to understand the double standard operating in mass media and the danger it poses. But until we see it and start asking difficult questions, we are at risk of being dupes, not of Vladimir Putin but of our own government.

Agencies of Fear

Andrew Cockburn

The intrusion of the FBI into the 2016 presidential election may have come as a shock to most people, but it should not have surprised anyone who has spent time in the Oval Office.  Stretching back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, presidents have learned, sooner or later, that while they may revel in the title of “Chief Executive,” their command of coercive bureaucracies, such as the FBI and the intelligence agencies, along with the military services, and others, is limited at best.
At worst, presidents may find these powerful institutions actively colluding with their political enemies.  Currently, we have credible reports of agents in the New York FBI Field Office defying their nominal superiors in the justice department to dig with zeal into the Clinton Foundation on the basis of nebulous leads from a partisan and largely discredited screed by a former Bush speechwriter.
Richard Nixon would have found this a familiar scenario.  Early in his presidency, he came to appreciate how little control he exerted over the assorted fiefdoms of the intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracies.  His solution was to set up a whole new police agency with extraordinary powers, the Drug Enforcement Administration, using the cover of a war on drugs, that would be under his direct control.  Recognizing this for the threat it was, the entrenched institutions struck back, crippling Nixon with media leaks, notably those from “Deep Throat”, deputy FBI director Mark Felt.
Sometimes the hobbling of executive power may emanate not from widely recognized killchain2instruments of power, such as the FBI, but from more obscure but nonetheless potent corners of the enforcement universe.  Thus the Obama Administration’s signature foreign policy achievement, the agreement to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment program, is currently being actively undermined by a little-known branch of the U.S. Treasury, OFAC, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which supervises the enforcement of US sanctions around the world.
Under the agreement hammered out by Secretary of State John Kerry in July 2015, Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program in return for the lifting of an array of economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other western powers in recent years.  The most onerous of these controls were those enjoining banks from doing business with nominated Iranian banks and other entities, with savage penalties levied on anyone who infringed the rules.  The effect has been to deter international banks from doing any business of any kind with Iranian banks, for fear of inadvertently triggering a billion dollar fine from the U.S. sanctions police.
Recognizing that the Iranians might lose faith in the agreement if promised rewards from the ability to trade freely with the rest of the world do not appear, the Obama Administration has taken steps to remedy the situation, or thinks it has.  Speaking recently at a ceremony in London honoring his role in negotiating the deal, Kerry announced that so long as banks make a pro forma effort to ensure they were not dealing with a sanctioned institution (there are still plenty of those) OFAC would not penalize them  even if it turned out they were wrong. “OFAC… has made it very, very clear that if you do due diligence in the normal fashion,” said Kerry, “and later it turns out it was some unenforceable entity that pops up, you will not be held accountable for that.”
Except that OFAC has different ideas.   As detailed by attorney Tyler Cullis, a specialist in sanctions regulations, writing in the blog SanctionLaw, OFAC states on its own website that the “normal” due diligence cited by Kerry is absolutely not “necessarily sufficient.” Instead, Treasury’s Acting Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Adam Szubin, OFAC’s boss, has made it clear that anyone doing banking business with Iran had better exercise “enhanced (my emphasis) due diligence,” essentially meaning they have to prove their counterparties are pure as the driven snow, or they will get it in the neck.
The consequences are predictable; international banks will deem it smart to pay attention to the sanctions cops rather than the diplomat and steer clear of Iranian business, with consequent disillusionment over the deal in Iran and the neutralizing of a key administration success.
As Nixon might have said, par for the course.

US-backed Forces Launch Raqqa Offensive as Terror Fears Grow in Europe

Patrick Cockburn

A Syrian Kurdish and Arab force backed by US air strikes has launched an offensive against the Islamic State’s de facto Syrian capital at Raqqa aimed at maximising pressure on Isis when it is already under attack in Mosul in Iraq. Anti-Isis forces advanced six miles in the first four hours of the attack, capturing many villages and farms.
The move against Raqqa, a city of 320,000 people on the Euphrates River, is by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which numbers about 30,000 fighters, of whom 20,000 are seasoned Kurdish fighters and 10,000 are drawn from the Sunni Arab population of northern Syria. The US is keen not to provoke Turkey which has denounced the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) as terrorists.
US officers say that one reason for seeking to isolate and capture Raqqa now is that it is at the centre of planning and execution of Isis terrorist operations against Europe, the US and the wider world and they fear such an operation is about to be launched. General Stephen Townsend, the US commander of Operation Inherent Resolve, which is aimed at eliminating Isis, said last week that “we know they’re up to something. And it’s an external plot; we don’t know exactly where; we don’t know exactly when.” He added that this uncertainty was creating “a sense of urgency.”
It would be keeping with Isis’ actions in the past that it seeks to counter-balance setbacks on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria by staging spectacular terrorist atrocities abroad that show that it is still to be feared and can strike when and where it wants. It carried out two suicide bombings in Iraq on Sunday killing 25 people and wounding 50 in the cities of Tikrit and Samarra.
The US-led war against the Caliphate declared after Isis captured Mosul in June 2014 has now reached a critical stage with Isis’s many enemies closing in on all sides. Iraqi troops, whose offensive against Mosul started on 17 October, are meeting strong resistance in the east of the city with one unit surrounded and cut off for a time when Isis fighters appeared behind it.
The assault on Isis in both Syria and Iraq is very much orchestrated by the US and dependent on US-led airstrikes to destroy Isis positions. This may be more difficult to do as Iraqi army units move into Mosul which may have as many as 1.5 million people still in it. Some are seeking refuge behind the advancing government troops, but the numbers on the main road east of Mosul did not seem very large on Sunday, possibly because it is too dangerous for people to leave their houses and the Iraqi Army has told them to stay there.
The opening of the Raqqa offensive brings with its political complications that may exceed the military difficulties because Turkey does not want Raqqa to fall to a force dominated by the YPG, which is the Syrian arm of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) that has been fighting a guerrilla war against the Turkey Army since 1984. The US has been trying to avoid an armed confrontation between the YPG and Turkey or Turkish backed forces, a possibility that has grown since Turkey had its local allies seize Jarabulus and a strip of territory along the Syrian-Turkish border in August.
The mainly Kurdish SDF will be moving into a fertile area north of Raqqa where the population is Sunni Arab. There are doubts among the Syrian Kurds about suffering casualties trying to take an Arab city, which they cannot keep, when they would prefer to move west and link up their present swathe of territory with the Kurdish enclave at Afrin further west, but this is being resisted by Turkey. The Syrian Kurds are doing what the US wants because their future is very dependent on US military and political support. The SDF said it had received weapons from the US, including anti-tank missiles, and some 50 US advisers are reported to be accompanying the advance to call in airstrikes.
The SDF spokesman Talal Sillo was quoted as saying that “we want to liberate the surrounding countryside, then encircle the city, then we will assault and liberate it,” he said. Asked about the possibility of intervention by Turkey or its local allies, he replied: “Of course, to begin the operation, we have made sure there will be no other forces but the SDF in the operation.”
Underlining the complexity of the present situation, an SDF official, Rezan Hiddo, said Turkey has been an “obstacle” to the Raqqa campaign all along. He said that if Turkey moves against Kurdish areas in northern Syria then the Kurds would stop their campaign directed at Raqqa, adding: “we cannot extinguish the fire in our neighbours’ house if our home is burning.”
Isis is using its traditional mixture of suicide car bombs, snipers, booby traps and Improvised Explosive Devices, but these no longer create the terror they once did. Counter-measures are more effective. Major General Maan al-Sadi told Iraqi state television that Isis fighters had launched more than 100 car bombs against his forces in east Mosul, which is only one of the fronts in the fighting. A Counter Terrorism unit came under attack from the rear after advancing into east Mosul, when Isis fighters emerged from houses behind them and isolated the convoy, preventing reinforcements from getting through. Surrounded and low on ammunition, they had to shelter in houses before they finally got out on Saturday. He Isis news agency Amaq released footage on Sunday of captured or destroyed military vehicles, including the burnt wreckage of a Humvee it said was taken in the eastern district of Mosul. Fighters shouted “Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest)” and unloaded ammunition and communications equipment.

Twenty Years of Dictatorial Democracy

James Bovard

The presidential campaign has mortified millions of Americans in part because the presidency has become far more dangerous in recent times.  Since 9/11, we have lived in a perpetual emergency which supposedly justifies trampling the law and Constitution.  And the illegalities will not end after Tuesday’s vote count.  Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have signaled that they will perpetuate power grabs in the next four years.
For generations, politicians have touted voting as a magical process which almost automatically  protects the rights of everyone within a 50 mile radius of the polling booth. But the ballots Americans have cast in presidential elections since 2000 did nothing to constrain the commander-in-chief.
Bush’s declaration in 2000 that America needed a more “humble” foreign policy did not deter him from vowing to “rid the world of evil” and launching the most catastrophic war in modern American history. Eight years later, Barack Obama campaigned as the candidate of peace and promised “a new birth of freedom.” But that did not stop him from bombing seven nations, claiming a right to assassinate American ciizens, and championing Orwellian total surveillance.
Bush was famous for “signing statements” decrees that nullified hundreds of provisions of laws enacted by Congress. Obama is renown for unilaterally endlessly rewriting laws such as the Affordable Care Act to postpone political backlashes against the Democratic Party and for effectively waiving federal immigration law. Both Bush and Obama exploited the “state secrets doctrine” to shield their most controversial policies from the American public.
While many conservatives applauded Bush’s power grabs, many liberals cheered Obama’s decrees. After 16 years of Bush-Obama, the federal government is far more arbitrary and lethal. Richard Nixon’s maxim – ‘it’s not illegal if the president does it’ – is the lodestar for commanders-in-chief in the new century.
There is no reason to expect the next president to be less power hungry than the last two White House occupants. Both Trump and Clinton can be expected to trample the First Amendment. Trump has talked of shutting down mosques and changing libel laws to make it far more perilous for the media to reveal abuses by the nation’s elite. Clinton was in the forefront of an administration that broke all records for prosecuting leakers and journalists who exposed government abuses. She could smash the remnants of the Freedom of Information Act like her aides hammered her Blackberry phones to obliterate her email trail.
Neither candidate seems to recognize any limit on presidential power. Trump calls for reviving the torture that profoundly disgraced the United States during the George W. Bush era. Clinton opposes torture but  believes presidents have a right to launch wars whenever they decide it is in the national interest. After Clinton helped persuade Obama to bomb Libya in 2011, she signaled that the administration would scorn any congressional cease-and-desist order under the War Powers Act.  She continues to tout the bombing of Libya as “smart power at its best.”
If Americans could be confident that either Trump or Clinton would be leashed by the law, there would be less dread about who wins on Tuesday. But elections are becoming simply coronations via vote counts. The president will take an oath of office on Inaugural Day but then can do as he or she damn well pleases.
We now have a political system which is nominally democratic but increasingly authoritarian. The proliferation of despotic precedents in the past 15 years would have horrified America’s Founding Fathers. The Rule of Law has been defined down to finding a single federal lawyer to write a secret memo vindicating the president’s latest unpublished executive order.  And Washington has never had a shortage of weaselly lawyers.
By the end of the next presidential term, America will have had almost a 20-year stretch of dictatorial democracy.  Washington’s disdain for the highest law of the land is torpedoing the citizenry’s faith in representative government. Forty percent of registered voters have “lost faith in American democracy,” according to recent  Survey Monkey poll.
The United States may be on the verge of the biggest legitimacy crisis since the Civil War. Whoever wins in November will be profoundly distrusted even before being sworn in.  The combination of a widely-detested new president and unrestrained power almost guarantees greater crises in the coming years.
Neither Trump nor Clinton are promising to “make America constitutional again.” But, as Thomas Jefferson declared in 1786, “an elective despotism was not the government we fought for.” If presidents are lawless, then voters are merely designating the most dangerous criminal in the land.

The Incapacity Of Indian Jails

Shrikrishna S. Kachave


I won’t be wrong if I comment that our Indian Jails have been a haven or a temporary home to many of the guilty, under trials and also to those, against whom the system has failed to prove the charges thereby spending their years of sorrow within the confines of darkness and doom.
When prison population goes beyond its authorized capacity of accommodation, it is known as Overcrowding. This overcrowding in the prisons is an important human rights issue as it forms the cause for the deterioration of the general living conditions of the prisoners. Thus, it further creates hindrances in the reformation process of the inmates. In such a scenario, the prison officers fail to implement correctional measures in the jail, which the inmates are otherwise ought to be reformed so as to enable them to live a dignified life in the society.
Most of the jails were built in the nineteenth century or at the turn of this century. They are in a state of disrepair and are overcrowded. The Shah Commission reports that on the eve of the Emergency, in as many as 15 of the 27 States and Union Territories, the actual population of the prisoners far exceeded the authorized accommodation. In Assam there were 7909 prisoners in accommodation meant for 4,930; Bihar- 38,407 as against 21,140; Madhya Pradesh-16,66 as against 12,388; Orissa-l0,222 as against 6,668; Mahaarashtra-19,786 as against 14,801; West Bengal-25,999 as against 20,237; Delhi 2,699 as against 1,273. And with the imposition of Emergency thousands more were added.
Whereas the total capacity of the jails in the country is 3,66,781, the total number of jail inmates as on 31-12-2015 are 4,19,623.  The Occupancy rate of our Indian Jails as in 2015 was 114.4% which clearly implies the apathy of our Jails. Out of this which 67.2% of the total inmates are under-trials.  So isn’t this in a way, a mockery of the Fundamental Rights bestowed to the accused by our Constitution. With the over-burdening and high pendency of cases every day, the judiciary is falling short not only of infrastructure but also of work-force to support it. As such, it is directly impacting the condition of the inmates in a bad way.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), D&N Haveli reported the highest overcrowding in prisons (276.7%) followed by Chhattisgarh (233.9%) and Delhi (226.9%).Also a total of 3,599 under-trials were detained in jails for more than 5 years at the end of the year 2015. Uttar Pradesh had the highest number of such under-trials (1,364) followed by West Bengal (294). Such statistics are enough to get oneself an idea of the startling condition of the jails in India.
Acquitted in Babri anniversary train blasts case, Nisar was among 3 who walked free in May 2016. He said, “I have clocked 8,150 days of the prime of my life inside the jail. For me, lie is over. What you are seeing is a living corpse”. “I was yet to be 20 years old when they threw me in jail. I am 43 today. My younger sister was 12 when I saw her last. Her daughter is 12 now. My niece was a year old. She is already married. My cousin was two years younger than me, she is now a grandmother. A generation has completely skipped from my life.” These words uttered by Nisar are a complete reflection of our criminal justice system which compels us to think of the system we live in.
In my conclusion, I would say that it is not the incapacity of the jails, but rather the inability of the state machinery which is lacking in its willpower to reform the present state of our jails, which sometimes has also been a home to the stalwarts viz. Politicians, actors and entrepreneurs amidst others, however to them with certain exceptions*.