Canadian Government Laboratories Program Visiting Fellowships for Promising, Emerging Scientists

Application Deadline: Rolling

Decisions are announced approximately three months after receipt of complete applications.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Canada

About the Award: Approved candidates to be offered a fellowship will be selected by the individual government departments. Successful applicants will be notified by NSERC or by the interested government department. Approximately three months after receipt of a complete application, departments may request additional information (e.g., interviews) before offering a fellowship.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

• You must have received a doctoral degree in the natural sciences or engineering from a recognized university within the past five years. Your application will be accepted if you are currently enrolled in a doctoral program at a recognized university; however, you must expect to complete all requirements for your degree (including the thesis defence) within six months of submitting your application.
• If you have withdrawn from the workforce and active research for maternity leave, or to raise a child for at least one year, after you received your doctorate, NSERC will extend the eligibility period to six years.
• You can apply only twice for a Visiting Fellowship in Canadian Government Laboratories.

You will not be allowed to take up your award until confirmation of completion of degree requirements is received. You may hold only one Visiting Fellowship.

There are no restrictions on the nationality of applicants, but awards are subject to a citizenship quota: two-thirds of awards must be made to Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Successful candidates who are not Canadians or permanent residents of Canada must satisfy Canadian immigration requirements.

Selection Criteria: Selection committees, appointed by the individual government departments, will be responsible for the pre-selection of applicants, recommending only the most meritorious applicants.

The selection committee will rate the applications according to the following criteria:

• academic excellence
  • scholarships and awards held;
  • duration of previous studies;
• research ability or potential
  • quality of contributions to research and development;
  • relevant work experience and academic training;
  • critical ability, capacity for critical thought and analysis;
  • ability to apply skills and knowledge;
  • judgment, originality, and curiosity;
  • initiative and autonomy;
  • enthusiasm for research;
  • determination and ability to complete projects within an appropriate period of time;
• communication skills
  • ability or potential to communicate scientific concepts clearly and logically in written and oral formats (e.g., quality of presentation of application, participation in the preparation of publications, special awards for oral presentations or papers);
• interpersonal and leadership abilities
  • professional and relevant extracurricular interactions and collaborations (e.g., mentoring, teaching, supervisory experience, project management, chairing committees, organizing conferences/meetings, and elected positions held);
• justification for location of tenure and potential benefits to the government department (e.g., specific skills or experience that relate directly to ongoing research in participating government departments).

Number of Awardees: The number of awards varies according to the budgets of participating departments and agencies.

Value of Award: $50,503 per year

Duration of Research: one year, renewable for up to two more years

How to Apply: 

• Form 200 – Application for an Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship, an Industrial R&D Fellowship or a Visiting Fellowship in Canadian Government Laboratories
• Terms and Conditions of Applying Form (form-fillable)

To create or access an application, select On-line System Login. To view forms and instructions, select PDF Forms and Instructions.

To complete the Terms and Conditions of Applying Form, select the link above.

Visit Research Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Visiting Fellowships in Canadian Government Laboratories Program is administered by NSERC on behalf of Canadian government laboratories and research institutions.

Fogarty Emerging Global Leader Award for Health Researchers in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) 2017

Application Deadlines: 

• Letter of Intent due dates: 30 days before the application due date (14th November, 2016)
• Application due dates: December 14, 2016, December 14, 2017, December 13, 2018

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income Countries

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: The Fogarty Emerging Global Leader Award aims to provide research support and protected time to a research scientist from a LMIC who holds an academic junior faculty position or research scientist appointment at an LMIC academic or research institution. Low-income, lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries are included.

The Fogarty Emerging Global Leader Award program is a new program and there are not yet any awards. You may review awards through International Research Scientist Development Award, Fogarty’s related career development program for U.S. scientists.

Type: Research

Eligibility: 

• Only low- or middle-income country (LMIC) institutions are eligible.
  • Income categories are defined by The World Bank Country and Lending Groups.
  • Country eligibility for Fogarty International Training Grants applies (See in link below)
• Candidates must be LMIC citizens.
• Candidates must hold an academic junior faculty position or research scientist appointment at the LMIC applicant institution and must have been in this position for at least one year at the time the application is submitted.
• Candidates are required to have both U.S. and LMIC primary mentors.
• Research should take place primarily in the LMIC.
• Individuals who have already received independent research funding are not eligible.
• Applicants should demonstrate that they are committed to an independent research career and justify the need for three to five years of mentored research experience in order to become an independent research scientist.

Number of Awardees:  Not specified

How to Apply: View full eligibility details in the program announcement and refer to FAQs before applying

Visit Award Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Fogarty

(IUSF) Scholarship+Internship for Young Sports Reporters 2017. Fully-funded to Taiwan

Application Deadline: 15th December 2016.

Successful candidates will be announced towards the end of February 2017.

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Taipei, Taiwan

About the Award:  For the 29th Summer Universiade in Taipei City, Chinese Taipei (19 to 30 August, 2017), the International University Sports Federation (FISU)once again will invite 12 aspiring young journalists from the five continents to the Games in Taipei alongside the athletes where they will receive specialized media training.

The International University Sports Federation launched this journalism education programme to provide young (sport) journalists with a unique training experience during FISU’s major multi-sport event, the Summer Universiade. All previous editions of the FISU Young Reporters’ Programme were a genuine success …

The Young Reporters’ Programme aims to include 21 to 25-year-old students or recent graduates in journalism/communications from the five continents of Africa (2), America (4), Asia (2), Oceania (2) and Europe (2) right into the middle of the Games for 14 days, with full access to the competition venues and MPC. They will be joined by their peers from Chinese Taipei.

FISU will nominate 12 (6 male & 6 female) Young Reporters on the basis of performance and promise. They could be last-year university students engaged in journalism/communications studies or young graduates ready to embark on a full-time media or communications career.

Type: Training

Eligibility and Details: 

• Training will be offered in print, photography, and online and new media reporting of live events throughout the Universiade.
• The Young Reporters will be required to participate in all training sessions and will be given daily multiple reporting assignments – photographers will be required the produce written content just as written media journalists will be required to make snapshots or produce video/audio content.
• The programme will be in English.
• Participants, between the ages of 21 and 25 years, will be university students engaged in journalism or communications studies, or young graduates ready to embark on a fulltime media career.
• Each successful candidate must sign an agreement setting out the conditions of course participation and the use of editorial material produced as part of the coursework.
• Essential technology, needed for the course (printers, internet, wifi, etc.), will be provided, but participants will be required to bring their own personal equipment (laptop computers, tablets, voice recorders, smart phones, digital photo and video cameras, etc.) as they seem fit to fulfil their assignments.

Selection Criteria: 

• Candidates will be between the ages of 21 and 25 undertaking full or part time studies towards a career in communications, journalism or other areas of news media.
• Recent university graduates working as interns or in similar training roles in established news organizations may also be considered. They will be outstandingly proficient in writing and presenting news reports in English.
• Candidates will be judged on their academic records, the recommendations of teaching staff or managers and should, above all, show real potential to succeed at their chosen media career.
• Evidence of excellence in coursework or in the media workplace must be established and provided with the nomination. Strong references will be required from their university or an employer (internship). Evidence of published work will be an advantage.
• Candidates must be able to travel on the required dates and be available to partake, full time, in the complete programme over the duration of the Universiade.
• Candidates must be willing to sign an agreement form setting out the conditions of their participation in the FISU Young Reporters’ Programme, which will include copyright free usage of their course content.
• Candidates must have a valid passport for international travel. Upon selection they will receive the necessary documents from the Taipei OC for their visa if needed.
• The final decision on the suitability of nominated candidates remains with FISU.
• Fluency in French, Spanish and/or Russian (in addition to English) will be considered an asset.
• Experience in high performance sport (as a competitor, official, coach, team manager etc.) will also be considered an asset.

Number of Awardees: 12

Value of Scholarship: The International University Sports Federation (FISU) will meet the cost of economy return air tickets to Taipei City from the participant’s home city’s nearest airport. Accommodation and meals as well as transportation between venues will be provided by the Taipei OC.

Duration of Scholarship:  14 days

How to Apply: Individuals interested in applying are asked to submit in English:

– Current and detailed CV with date of birth and photo accompanied by covering letter;

– Current address, E-mail address and Skype address;

– Two letters of reference from academic or professional contacts;

– An A4 page text (300 to 500 words) that could serve as an intro page for a book entitled: ‘Major Sporting Events: Pitfalls for Young Reporters?’

Applications reaching FISU after the deadline or incomplete applications will NOT be taken into consideration.

All applications should be sent to media@fisu.net in pdf format. An intake interview might be conducted via Skype for the final selection round to assess the English proficiency of the candidates.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: International University Sports Federation (IUSF)

Important Notes:  Applications will be reviewed by the FISU Media and Communication Committee, chaired by Verena Burk, FISU EC Member

The Infamy of the Palestinian Elites: An Imminent Split within Fatah?

Ramzy Baroud

The Fatah movement is involved in a massive tug-of-war that will ultimately define its future. Though the conflict is between current Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, and once Gaza strongman, Mohammed Dahlan, is in no way motivated by ending the Israeli Occupation, their war will likely determine the future political landscape of Palestine.

The issue cannot be taken lightly, nor can it be dismissed as an internal Fatah conflict. The latter is one of the two largest Palestinian factions, the largest within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and has single-handedly pushed Palestinians into the abyss of the ‘peace process’ and the great Oslo Accords gamble, which has come at great cost and no benefits.

Moreover, Fatah embodies Palestine’s ruling elites. True, Abbas’ mandate expired in 2009 and Dahlan has been accumulating massive wealth since he fled the West Bank in 2011 (following his public feud with Abbas) but, sadly, both men wield substantial authority and influence. Abbas runs the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah with an iron fist and with the full consent and support of Israel and the United States, while Dahlan is being actively groomed by various Middle Eastern governments, and possibly Israeli and US powers, as the likely successor of the aging Ramallah leader.

They are both indifferent to the harsh reality experienced by their people on the ground.

A limited uprising, known by some as the ‘Knife Intifada’ and others as ‘al-Quds Intifada’, is teetering on the brink, with no serious efforts by the Palestinian leadership to, at least, try to harness Palestinian energies towards a sustainable, long-term popular uprising. On the contrary, Abbas has done his utmost to ignore the Palestinian people’s cry for help and for an astute, courageous leadership.

Instead, Abbas continues to perceive his ‘security coordination’ with Israel as ‘holy’, while continuing to crackdown on Palestinian resistance and on his own Fatah opponents and their supporters.

He is yet to designate a successor, despite the fact that he is 81-years-old and suffers from heart ailments.

This has signaled an opportunity to Dahlan, who has been accused of involvement in various shady Arab affairs. Dahlan has been aching for a comeback from his villa in Abu Dhabi. In a recent New York Times article, Peter Baker, who interviewed Dahlan, described part of his wealth:

“His spacious home here in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, features plush sofas, vaulted ceilings and chandeliers. The infinity pool in the back seems to spill into the glistening waterway beyond.”

Dahlan’s amassing of wealth goes back to his years in Gaza, when he was the head of the notorious Preventive Security Service, itself formed and trained with the help of the US, the CIA in particular, according to various media reports. Its torture techniques were criticized repeatedly by international human rights groups.

Dahlan remains unrepentant: neither apologetic about his unexplained wealth, nor for the Gaza crackdowns which ended when Hamas deposed him and his movement in 2007, resulting in a short-lived civil war.

‘Two things that I am not denying,” he told the NYT. “That I’m rich. I will not deny it. Ever. And that I am strong, I will not deny it. But I work hard to increase my level of life.”

Explaining what many perceive as a brutal reign in Gaza, he dismissed it, saying that he “wasn’t head of the Red Cross,” at the time.

A Human Rights Watch report expounded on the extent of the crackdown that commenced soon after the PA took charge of the Occupied Territories in 1994. For example, “during the first eight months of 1996, at least 2,000 Palestinians were arrested” by the PA police. The rate is almost as high as arrests carried out by the Israeli army. “The arrests were arbitrary,” according to HRW and no courts or due process was ever part of the procedure, which, almost always, involved torture.

Sadly, the legacies of Abbas and Dahlan are largely predicated on such behavior, and their current conflict is mostly concerned with personal power struggles that involve just them and their followers.

Abbas, who is slowly losing the traditional Arab allies who once supported him against Hamas, and is relegated by Israel – which is trying to arrange the post-Abbas Palestinian leadership – is trying to explore new alliances. He has recently visited Turkey and Qatar. In Qatar, he met with top Hamas leaders, Khaled Meshaal and Ismael Haniyeh.

Hamas is not being courted by Abbas to end the protracted and disconcerting Palestinian feud for many years, but rather to counterbalance earlier moves by Dahlan to pander to Hamas.

Dahlan is involved in various ‘charity projects’ including financing mass weddings in impoverished Gaza. But it is not Dahlan’s money that Hamas is seeking; rather the hope that he mediates with Egypt to ease movement on the Rafah-Egypt border.

With a growing clout and rising number of benefactors, Dahlan’s resurrection is assured, but imposing him on an embattled Fatah faction in the West Bank remains uncertain.

To preclude Dahlan’s attempt at regaining his status within Fatah, Abbas’s PA forces in the Occupied West Bank have been conducting arrests of Dahlan’s supporters. The latter’s armed men are retaliating and clashes have been reported in various parts of the West Bank.

Moreover, Abbas has called for the seventh Fatah conference to be held sometime later this month, where the Abbas faction within Fatah is likely to rearrange the various committees to ensure Dahlan’s supporters are weakened, if not permanently removed.

Considering Dahlan’s strong support base, and his ability to win followers using his access to wealth and regional allies, a move against his followers is likely to backfire, splitting the party, or worse, leading to an armed conflict. Despite Israel’s intentional silence, there are also reports that Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who was tied to Dahlan repeatedly in the past, is keen on ensuring the return of Dahlan at the helm of Fatah.

Tragically, the power struggle rarely involves ordinary Palestinian people, who remain alone facing the Israeli military machine, the growing illegal Jewish settlements, the suffocating siege, while persisting under an unprecedented leadership vacuum.

This is one of the enduring legacies of the Oslo Accords, which divides Palestinians into classes: a powerful class that is subsidized by ‘donor countries’ and is used to serve the interests of the US, Israel and regional powers, and the vast majority of people, barely surviving on handouts, and resisting under growing odds.

This strange contradiction has become the shameful reality of Palestine, and regardless of what the power struggle between Abbas and Dahlan brings, most Palestinians will find themselves facing the same dual enemy, military occupation, on the one hand, and their leadership’s own acquiescence and corruption, on the other.

Eradicating Black Economy or Encouraging Cashless Economy

Jayashubha

The announcement of withdrawal of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes is being described as a masterstroke, a surgical strike on the Black money holders and one tough decision in Indian economic history which will change the world. It is being said that this will put an end to Black money and hit the backbone of terror. The logic that is being used is – black money is held in cash usually in the form of Rs. 500 /1000 notes, are usually kept at home and not deposited in banks – this decision will make black money holders to deposit in banks – the increased bank balance will raise alarm bells – income tax authorities will track and catch hold of excess money. As some commentators have described, black money is not necessarily stored but is in circulation or may take a converted form – a property disproportionate to income, gold or other form of assets. It may also be invested in stock exchanges, businesses etc. Hence the assumption of stagnant black money does not remain valid.

The question that arises is a) whether there is a hidden agenda behind the decision leave apart its impact on reduction of black economy; b) is it being done for the sake of promotion of a cashless economy – where corporates dealing with credit cards, debit cards, ecommerce would get an opportunity to grow as consumers would be made to make shift to cashless transactions – is  a facilitative environment being created for them; c) is it being done for encouraging larger retail enterprises where cashless transactions dominate in place of smaller retailers where cash transactions dominate  –  it is to be noted that India allowed 100% FDI in retail ; d) will it lead to a change in financial behavior of middle class consumers – as they make shift from Rythu Bazaars to Reliance Fresh, Kirana stores to Big bazaars / Walmarts; e) will it affect the small traders, street vendors and large sections of poor who largely deal with cash based transactions and who will find it consumers being lesser attracted to them.

Going by the logic of surgical strike on Black Money is concerned, the following question arises: –

• Does Black Money essentially exist in the form of Rs. 500 / 1000 notes only?
• If existence of excess fake Rs. 500 / 1000 currency in the economy is the reason for the same, what is the guarantee new fake note with excess denomination (Rs. 2,000) will not emerge later?
• What if the black money has been converted into a foreign currency and invested in Banks outside? How can this decision help in bringing it back?
• What if the black money has been utilized to build assets in India or abroad or invested in businesses? How can this decision help in checking that?
• Does Black money exist only in paper form in the form of notes? Does it not exist in paperless form? Is not existence of surplus money in Banks disproportionate with cash flow a Black money? Does a shift from currency (500/1000) to a paperless form make it white?
• As per the claims of the Government, for every 10 lakh Rs. 500 notes, there are about 250 Rs. 500 notes which are fake? This is about 0.00025% of the total currency available? No doubt this too has to be definitely curbed. But will it not lead to inconvenience to large population who fall outside the Black economy
• The exchange process (Rs. 500/1000 to Rs. 100) in the coming days will mean that there has to be sufficient supply of Rs. 100 notes. Is the supply sufficient enough?
• If the black money has been accumulated due to corruption and financial misappropriation through usage of genuine currency, how can these decisions put an end to the same? Can the usage of genuine currency (with black transactions) will make it white?
• What about those who are in the list of Panama papers? Will they be targeted? Are they in the list because of fake 500 / 1000 notes?
• Will the Black money lying in Swiss Bank be brought back? This was promised during 2014 election campaign? Will the decision help in bringing it back?
• How will the tax evasions be controlled through this action? While on the one hand government incentivizes conversion of black money into white through voluntary disclosure scheme, on the other hand it talks of fighting black economy?

The current decision seems to be to make a shift to a cashless economy rather than a surgical strike on Black Money.

Australian foreign policy strategists discuss US-China nuclear war

Patrick Kelly

A public discussion in Melbourne last Thursday provided a chilling insight into the calculations of a layer within the Australian foreign policy and military establishment that now anticipates that US-China strategic rivalry is likely to trigger a war between the nuclear-armed powers.

The panel discussion was organised by La Trobe University and titled “How to respond to China’s rise?” The main speakers were Hugh White and Linda Jakobsen.

Jakobsen is formerly of the Lowy Institute and currently a visiting professor at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre, which was created in 2006 to promote the US-Australian alliance and Australian involvement in US-led wars of aggression.

White has a long record within the military-intelligence apparatus, having been an advisor to former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a senior official in the defence department and an intelligence analyst with the top-level Office of National Assessments. More recently he has worked with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the Australian National University.

White opened the meeting by repeating the criticisms he has previously levelled at Washington’s “pivot” to Asia, which has seen an aggressive attempt to militarily and diplomatically isolate China as a means of maintaining US imperialism’s domination of the entire Asia-Pacific region.

In 2012, White wrote The China Choice: Why America Should Share Power, opposing the Australian government’s participation in the Obama administration’s reckless confrontation of Beijing. He remains the most prominent critic of the “pivot” from within the Australian foreign policy establishment. His remarks on Thursday, however, underscore the fact that this minority position within the ruling class is no less militarist and pro-war than the dominant rival camp, which backs an unwavering commitment to the US strategic alliance and Washington’s confrontation of China.

The public event was billed as a debate between White and Jakobsen, with the latter defending current US and Australian government policies. Yet far more united the two speakers than divided them.

Speaking of the pivot and the associated geostrategic calculation that the Chinese government will accept subordination to US imperialism, White declared: “Let’s be absolutely clear—I really hope this policy works… I love US primacy. It’s been terrifically good for Australia. I love the rules-based order in Asia which it has supported. It has given us the forty best years in Asia’s long history. And if it could last forever, no-one would be happier than me.”

Having whitewashed Washington’s bloody record in the region—including waging brutal wars of aggression in Korea and Vietnam, and backing countless right-wing dictatorships—White expressed regret that the situation had irrevocably changed. “Wishes don’t make policy,” he concluded.

White reviewed both China’s economic expansion and the decline of US global power. He pointed to a series of US strategic initiatives in the past 15 years—including Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, “keeping the Russians in a box,” and “containing China”—that “all failed.” Given this, he stated, there was no legitimate grounds to expect Beijing to “back down” in the face of US threats and provocations.

He continued: “I take seriously the risk of war. A lot of people find that odd—because they think, how could this possibly come to war, how could that be in anyone’s interest? Well it wouldn’t be, just for the record, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Anyone who is very confident that escalating rivalry between the US and China, over who is the leader of the Asian order, will not result in war must be very confident that one of them will back off. And the question is: who are you expecting to back off? If neither of them does, then that’s how wars start. That’s what happened in 1914.”

After having raised the spectre of another world war, White gave short shrift to Jakobsen’s assurances that the US-China relationship was highly “stable and mature.”

He told the meeting: “There’s surprisingly little serious strategic communication [between the US and China]. Very important people can meet in very expensive rooms and drink very glamorous mineral water, and still say nothing to one another of substance. And I see very little evidence that the United States and China have had a serious discussion about their nuclear relationship.”

White repeatedly warned of the danger of a nuclear war between the two powers.

“The scary thing is that the mutual expectation [of Washington and Beijing] that the other will back down will carry up through an escalating conventional conflict to the nuclear threshold,” he stated. “One of the reasons why that’s a real danger is that nobody knows what the nuclear threshold is. This is one of the big differences between the situation in Asia today and the situation in Europe during the Cold War. Everybody [then] knew what the threshold was. It was very clear what it was you had to do—if you started up your T-72 [tank] and drove it through Checkpoint Charlie, you were going to start a nuclear war. It was geographically defined by a line down the middle of Europe, to the nearest metre.

“But nobody knows what the equivalent line in East Asia is today. And I think there is a risk that both sides in a conflict, as it starts to escalate, as it easily would, will find themselves worrying about what the other guy would do, and start to think, well maybe I have to move first…”

These remarks point to the urgent need for the working class to intervene against the rapidly escalating danger that US imperialism and its allies, including the Australian government, will trigger a third world war that would see incalculable devastation around the world.

White inadvertently pointed to the ruling elite’s conspiracy of silence on the war danger. “Australian political leaders are much more conscious of the seriousness of the strategic rivalry between the US and China than they have ever expressed publicly,” he explained. “Our political leaders don’t speak in private as they do in public. They don’t really assume that the United States and China are just getting on fine. They know this is a really serious power political rivalry, the outcome of which is far from clear.”

Confronted with the spectre of a nuclear holocaust, White’s proposed response is as reactionary as it is utopian. He advocates a vast expansion of military spending—with the additional resources inevitably paid for by the working class—to allow a more “independent” Australian imperialism to somehow pressure Washington to cede geostrategic dominance in East Asia to China.

The only realistic perspective, however, is for the working class of Australia to unite with their class brothers and sisters in the US, China, and internationally in a joint political struggle based on the perspective of socialist internationalism against war and against the capitalist system that gives rise to war.

Canadian spy agency concealed mass data intelligence-bank from courts

Roger Jordan

In a damning ruling issued last Thursday, Federal Court Judge Simon Noel sharply criticized the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the country’s premier spy agency, for concealing the existence of a mass data collection program for over a decade.

CSIS established the Operational Data Analysis Centre (ODAC) in July 2006. The facility gathers metadata on a vast and unspecified number of Canadians, including email addresses, telephone numbers, and IP addresses of anyone who has been in contact with a person targeted by CSIS. This information is kept indefinitely, even after the targeted individual is no longer deemed a threat to national security.

In his ruling, Noel pointed to the extraordinary fact that, despite being tasked with authorizing CSIS warrants for data collection, the courts had no idea ODAC existed. “The Court had never before been fully informed of the existence of the program. The Court, during the hearings, learned that the program had been in existence since 2006 yet it had never heard nor seen any evidence on the matter,” he stated.

The judge emphasized that this represented the second time in three years CSIS had breached its “duty of candour,” i.e. had lied, to the courts. In 2013, Justice Richard Mosley found that CSIS systematically lied for years in a series of applications it made to the courts to secure authorization for wiretapping operations. The domestic spy agency had failed to disclose that it was collaborating with CSE (Communications Security Establishment), Canada’s foreign signals intelligence service, which is part of the NSA-led “Five Eyes” alliance and is formally prohibited from collecting information on Canadians.

CSIS director Michel Coulombe released a statement in which he insisted that politicians were informed about the work of ODAC. “The creation of ODAC ... was presented to the Minister of Public Safety in July, 2006, explaining the requirement for advanced analytics and the ability of ODAC to retain data, including metadata, for extended periods of time,” Coulombe said. “The minister was also briefed on the program in March, 2010.”

Coulombe added that all access to the illegally collected data has been halted. Significantly, however, the store of metadata has not been destroyed, but continues to be expanded because CSIS has other means of increasing its volume. Provisions in Bill C-51, passed by the Harper Conservatives with the support of the Liberals in 2015, mean that CSIS can collect data from 17 government departments without a warrant, including the Canada Revenue Agency, the border service and CSE. As Noel noted, this meant CSIS now has free access to such information as Canadians’ tax returns.

Stockwell Day, the former Conservative Public Safety Minister in the first Harper government, claimed ignorance of the program in an interview with CBC. Current Liberal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale asserted he only became aware of CSIS’ illegal activities several weeks ago when he received a version of Noel’s judgement.

Such denials are hardly credible. Concern about the indefinite holding of metadata was first raised in a Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) report issued in January. SIRC is the watchdog tasked with overseeing CSIS’ activities and is made up of government appointees. In a further report issued this fall, SIRC accused CSIS of breaching the condition that it only collect data which is “strictly necessary,” saying instead that the intelligence agency was ingesting data in bulk.

The court ruling confirmed that Day was briefed on the operation in July 2006. While no information has yet been made public on what Goodale knew, even New Democratic Party (NDP) public safety critic Matthew Dubé felt obliged to note that it was highly likely he was briefed upon taking office. The NDP made a show of opposing Bill C-51 during the 2015 election, while at the same time offering to participate in a coalition government with the Liberals, who played a key role in instituting much of Canada’s draconian anti-terror legislation and backed the anti-democratic Bill C-51 at every stage during its passage through parliament last year.

Regardless of what precise details were known by politicians, responsibility for the systematic violation of the law and the privacy rights of Canadians by CSIS lies with successive governments for granting vast and unprecedented powers to the national security apparatus. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Chretien-Martin Liberal governments implemented anti-terrorist legislation that undermined longstanding democratic principles such as habeas corpus and the right to remain silent.

In relation to the collection of information, a doctrine was developed by the Conservative government that metadata from Canadians’ emails, cellphones and internet use is not constitutionally-protected private communication and is thus fair game for the intelligence services. Government spokesman repeatedly claimed that metadata is innocuous, yet it is universally recognized by computer and security analysts that the collection and analysis of metadata enables state spy agencies to construct an extremely detailed picture of the day-to-day activities and beliefs of anyone under surveillance.

Under Bill C-51 , CSIS was granted “disruption powers,” allowing the agency to break virtually any law in actively intervening to “disrupt” vaguely defined public security threats, so long as they don’t deliberately cause “bodily harm” or violate someone’s “sexual integrity.”

One of the few limitations placed on CSIS’ disruption powers is the requirement it obtain a court warrant if any of its planned disruption operations breaches the Criminal Code or Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The latest revelations only demonstrate how worthless such a provision is, given that the spy agency routinely lies and deceives the courts.

Trudeau’s Liberals, aware of the deep-seated hostility to such authoritarian powers, feigned opposition to the Bill C-51 but still voted in favour of it in parliament. Trudeau proclaimed during the election campaign that a Liberal government would repeal several of the legislation’s most controversial aspects and establish a special parliamentary committee to provide “oversight” of the intelligence agencies.

More than one year after taking power, the only concrete step the Liberals have taken toward realizing these bogus promises is to introduce a bill creating an oversight committee, staffed with carefully vetted parliamentarians, with severely limited rights to review past intelligence operations.

Any other steps have been delayed pending the outcome of the phony public consultation that Goodale announced in September. The document the government issued to guide this “consultation” fully embraces the reactionary “war on terror” narrative that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have used to justify a series of bloody military interventions around the world and attacks on democratic rights at home. It also lauds the intelligence agencies as bastions of democracy. The document’s introduction dishonestly proclaims, “National security institutions in Canada are professional, responsible and effective in the work they do. They work within a well-defined set of legal authorities and respect Canadian law.”

Goodale’s reaction to the latest revelations was decidedly low key. While issuing an obligatory slap on the wrist to CSIS, mainly for public consumption, he made no call for the removal of Coulombe or any other senior intelligence figures despite their systematic violation of the law.

Instead, he released a statement in which he suggested the Liberals may be prepared to further undermine democratic rights so as to permit CSIS’s Orwellian activities to be deemed legal. “The CSIS Act is now more than 30 years old and showing its age as global affairs, threat profiles, technology and public expectations have rapidly evolved,” Goodale wrote in his statement.

The response of SIRC makes a mockery of the Liberals’ claims that parliamentary oversight will do anything to restrain the intelligence agencies. The watchdog agency charged with monitoring CSIS activities first drew attention to the illegal holding of metadata in January 2016, i.e. almost a decade after the practice began.

In response to the court ruling, SIRC chairman Pierre Blais expressed his full confidence in Coulombe, issuing a statement declaring, “he’s doing a good job” and insisting that the head of CSIS had not deliberately misled the courts.

Auto maker Nissan given “support and assurances” by UK government

Jean Shaoul 

The European Commission (EC) has indicated a possible investigation into the deal struck last month between the UK Conservative government and Japan’s auto-manufacturer Nissan.

Nissan is to build two key models at its Sunderland plant after it was given “support and assurances” over the possible impact of Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). Business Secretary Greg Clark confirmed that one such assurance is that the government will seek tariff-free access to EU markets for the car industry, while denying that a “cheque book” was involved. The plant employs 7,000 people.

Any such agreement may be in breach of EU rules against providing unfair state aid to companies, which govern the UK until the conclusion of Brexit. An EC spokesperson said, “The UK authorities have not notified any support to Nissan for assessment under our state aid rules and we’ve therefore not taken any formal view of this matter.”

The deal was announced just weeks after CEO Carlos Ghosn threatened that Nissan would only build the Qashqai and the X-Trail SUV models in Britain if he received a guarantee of compensation to offset the cost of any trade tariffs should Britain leave the EU’s single market. At stake is a double-figure tariff on thousands of car components imported from the EU and on the export of more than half the production lines to the EU.

The decision prompted a storm of protest from other auto manufacturers in Britain, along with the aerospace, defence and pharmaceutical industries and the financial institutions—all denouncing the “secret deal”, demanding to know what assurances had been given and insisting on similar concessions for themselves. All these companies are concerned about regulation, the ability to recruit foreign staff, access to science funding as well as trade barriers.

Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed Nissan’s announcement as “fantastic news” and a vote of confidence in the UK. It is nothing of the sort. It sheds light on the politically servile relationship between the government and major corporations and financial institutions. Post-Brexit, all of them are lobbying Downing Street, demanding promises and policies to ensure their continued and increased profitability that can only come from the increased exploitation of the working class in a global race to the bottom.

Just four days later, the government was forced to admit that it had made a written commitment to support Nissan, but denied that it had made any special concessions. It outlined some of the details of its letter to Nissan, but declined to publish the agreement because it contained “commercially sensitive information.”

Clark told the BBC’s “Andrew Marr Show” that there had been “lots of communications between us” at the highest levels. The government’s key objective in its negotiations with the EU would be to secure continued tariff-free access to the Single Market, he stressed. His letter apparently outlined four elements of the government’s support for the auto industry: continued support for “competitiveness”, an increase in small and medium sized firms involved in the industry’s supply-chain, the backing of research and development, as well as seeking “unencumbered” trade.

Commentators have seized on this as indicating that the government, which seemed to be leaning in its public comments towards a “Hard Brexit”, including losing access to the Single Market, was in reality seeking a “Soft Brexit”, or customs union with the EU at least for key sectors.

However, this is not in the government’s power to deliver. Sectoral deals are a non-starter with the EU, since others would follow suit, presaging the collapse of the EU under a mess of protection and subsidies. Furthermore, the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) “most favoured nation principle” means that Britain would have to offer tariff-free access to the rest of the world as well.

The EU has already indicated that the primary condition for Britain’s customs-free access to the Single Market is dependent on the acceptance of the free movement of people and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. May has rejected both of these in deference to the Conservative Party’s most xenophobic right wing.

Even if the government were to accept these conditions without splitting the Tory party, it is still far from clear that it will be able to reach an agreement with the EU over access to the Single Market.

Crucially then, the government’s only bankable pledge is open-ended commitment to fund training and skills, regional relocation grants, scientific research and keeping industry “competitive.” The least that can be said of the first three assurances is that it will end up costing the earth for the taxpayer and must come at the expense of other social expenditure. This is under conditions where the Institute of Fiscal Studies has forecast lower tax receipts than expected in last March’s budget, due to weak growth and increased borrowing of £25 billion by 2019-20.

At the same time, “keeping the industry competitive” and “bringing home the supply chain” lost to international rivals means a pledge to enforce a low-wage regime, along with the removal of what remains of the social safety net to ensure the acceptance of slave labour conditions, and a dictatorial regime to enforce it.

This has done the trick for Nissan, which has said it wanted to develop Sunderland into a “super plant” that would build more than 600,000 cars a year. Didier Leroy, the chief competitive officer and executive vice-president of Toyota, which has a large factory in Derbyshire, also said that he had “trust in the UK government that it will offer fair treatment” for companies when negotiating its exit from the EU.

Jaguar Land Rover, the largest auto manufacturer in the UK, admitted that it too had been “reassured” by the government about access to the free market during private discussions.

It is believed that the government has promised to protect farmers, construction industries, care homes and the National Health Service that are dependent upon low-wage migrant workers. The big banks are also determined to retain the free movement of their staff and the ability to sell their services across Europe.

This is the real meaning of post-Brexit Britain: a bonanza for big business and financial elite, who can afford to lobby the government, via an escalating offensive against the working class, for innumerable forms of State Aid outlawed under EU law, and sweetheart deals.

The trade unions for their part have welcomed Nissan’s announcement, as did Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who made only qualified remarks, with concerns about a secret deal between the government and the corporations and the importance of equal treatment for all industries and manufacturers.

Homeland Security resumes deportation of Haitian immigrants

Jake Dean & Clodomiro Puentes

Following an announcement last month by United States Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson suspending the deportation of Haitians, the government has quietly resumed its policy of deportations. Already, planeloads of Haitian nationals are being flown back to Haiti.

On September 22, the US government announced that it was ending a six-year moratorium on deportations of Haitian citizens instituted in the wake of the devastating 2010 earthquake. While US officials claimed that this shift in policy stemmed from a supposed improvement of conditions in Haiti, there real reason was the arrival of growing numbers of Haitians on the border between Tijuana and San Diego.

Just weeks later, in the face of the devastation caused by Hurricane Matthew in October, Homeland Security again reversed its policy, renewing the moratorium on Haitian deportations. The decision was then lauded from both sides of Congress and various humanitarian organizations.

In a letter to President Barack Obama signed by more than 50 members of Congress urging a reversal of his original decision to resume deportations of Haitians, the members cynically struck a pose of disinterested humanitarianism. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, called for a halt to the policy until a degree of internal normalcy could be attained in the Caribbean island nation, stating: “Haiti is a deeply impoverished country and there is no question as to the devastation caused by Hurricane Matthew. Haitians living in the United States should be granted short-term relief from deportation until the situation in their home country stabilizes.”

At an event in Mexico City, Johnson first announced the decision to temporarily resume the suspension of deportations. “We will have to deal with that situation, address it, be sympathetic to the plight of the people of Haiti as a result of the hurricane,” he said. This comes from an administration that has deported upwards of 3.2 million people. Johnson did not wait long before he evinced his real intentions, stating, “But after that condition has been addressed, we intend to resume the policy change.”

Evidently, the ravages caused by the recent hurricane, not to mention the continuing effects of the 2010 earthquake, have, in Johnson’s eyes, been “addressed” in a matter of days. Such shifts in policy are part of a long-standing strategy of the Democrats to falsely pose as the friend of immigrants, and in this case were clearly calculated with the 2016 elections in mind.

The Miami Herald Tuesday quoted officials of the Haitian National Police, which is in charge of meeting deportees upon their arrival in the country, as reporting that the first planeload of Haitian immigrants who had reached the US-Mexico border arrived in Port-au-Prince last Thursday, and a second landed on Tuesday, US Election day. A police spokesman said that the Haitians had been admitted into the US solely in order to imprison them, put them through removal proceedings and then ship them back to Haiti.

These new deportations, coming just five weeks after Hurricane Matthew, with millions still facing homelessness and hunger, was initiated secretly, without any public notification.

Initially, the Department of Homeland Security had stated on September 22 that deportations would begin for those Haitian immigrants who had overstayed their temporary protected status (TPS) first granted them in 2010 following the 2010 earthquake. The Department of Homeland Security issued 18-month TPS to Haitian nationals that allowed them to live and work in the US, although it did not include a path to citizenship. Currently, there are nearly 58,000 Haitians who are living in the US under TPS.

Far from helping the impoverished Haitians, a mere 75 people are accepted each day into the US as more than 300 arrive daily into Mexico, according to Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission. Upon arriving at the Tijuana-San Ysidro border, Haitians are given a paper slip with a due date to appear for processing, many having dates forcing them to wait up to five weeks. More than 40,000 Haitians are expected to make the dangerous trip to the US-Mexico border.

Some 85,000 Haitians migrated to Brazil in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. At the time, the Brazilian economy benefitted from a commodities boom fueled in large part by Chinese demand. Just as Brazil sought to play a leading role in the UN’s MINUSTAH “peacekeeping” mission in Haiti, the better to bolster its international prestige and consolidate its role as a regional power, the Brazilian ruling elite was eager to snap up a new supply of lower-paid immigrant workers and began offering work visas to Haitians in 2012 under the guise of humanitarian good will.

Jean Veniel, a 38-year-old construction worker and painter, spoke to WSWS reporters in Tijuana on the dismal prospects facing Haitian workers and youth. “The corrupt [Haitian] government isn’t offering any help. For professionals, there’s nothing for them, no careers waiting for them, there’s no place for them in Haiti. The lack of work, education, healthcare – all these things that we don’t have are basic and important for the country’s development.”

Brazil’s newly installed president, Michel Temer, also played the humanitarian card at a UN summit in New York in late September, claiming to have taken in 95,000 refugees, the vast bulk of whom were Haitians fleeing the devastation of their country. This is all for public consumption. That the government began issuing visas at all after a two-year delay is telling. Far from a benevolent humanitarian gesture, the basic indifference of the Brazilian ruling class, as much as the American, was underscored in the squalid living conditions that the Haitian immigrants were provided upon arriving in 2010, as well as the hundreds of cases of Haitians working in conditions of slave labor reported by Brazil’s Ministry of Labor.

Where once it was able to absorb and exploit Haitian labor under a humanitarian guise, the blows of Brazil’s own ongoing economic crisis have forced the Brazilian ruling class to dispel with this pretense and now mercilessly expel Haitian immigrants from the workforce.

As a result of layoffs, lack of job prospects and absence of any significant social programs to assist them, the tens of thousands of Haitian migrant workers initially taken in are left with few other options than to leave Brazil and make the more than 7,000 mile trip to the US.

On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September, US officials reportedly entered into discussions with Brazil’s President Temer on the possibility of forcibly deporting the Haitians now gathered on the US border back to Brazil.

WSWS reporters spoke to Haitian immigrants in Tijuana on the conditions that compelled them to take this costly and perilous journey.

“Nicaragua was really tough,” a former 19-year-old soldier told WSWS reporters. “All I remember is being on a boat for nine hours in the middle of the night, it was freezing, it was disorienting. And in Guatemala the police there saw me and would demand money, it was corruption, corruption, corruption… I’ve been here waiting to cross into the United States for about two months. I’ve spent thousands of dollars trying to get here. My father sold his house, my friends got money together just to send me over here.”

Vicent, 30, a construction worker, said: “I’ve been here for three weeks. Like everyone else here, I’m looking for a better life, looking for work. After the 2010 earthquake, everything was destroyed and there was no work anywhere. I lost my three-year-old in the earthquake. I was in Brazil for about three years, working in construction, but after a while there was no work in Brazil and I had to leave. I’m hoping I can find work in the United States. A roof, a house, being able to share a meal with your family without trouble -- that’s all we’re looking for.”

The stranding of Haitian workers at the US-Mexico border is a product of the ongoing worldwide economic crisis. The misplaced hopes in the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as a base for capitalist stabilization has been largely abandoned. The economies of the US, Mexico, Brazil and Haiti, although in many respects differing in quality and magnitude, remain in a general slump, and the immigration policies of all the major nation states have grown increasingly punitive. In the end, it is the international working class that is made to pay for the irrationality of such a political and economic set-up.