UK: May government pins its hopes on Trump presidency

Robert Stevens

Formed as a result of the deepening crisis in British ruling circles following June’s unexpected referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU), the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May is looking to secure its global interests through developing the closest possible relations with US President-elect Donald Trump.

In response to the November 8 election, May issued a statement effusively welcoming Trump’s victory, as opposed to the more cautious statement issued by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “Britain and the United States have an enduring and special relationship based on the values of freedom, democracy and enterprise,” she wrote. “We are, and will remain, strong and close partners on trade, security and defence. I look forward to working with President-elect Donald Trump.”

In remarks that left no room for a misinterpretation of the trajectory of the British government toward a transatlantic alliance with Trump—at the expense of Europe—last Thursday Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson aimed his fire at Merkel and other EU leaders who expressed concern and even opposition to Trump’s election.

“It’s time that we were overwhelmingly positive about the possibilities here and I may respectfully say to some of my beloved European friends and colleagues that I think it’s time we snapped out of the doom and gloom about the result of this election and the collective whinge-orama that seems to be going on in some places,” Johnson said. “In our country, I think we should recognise that this is an opportunity. I think we should take what the president-elect has had to say about his feelings for our country at face value.”

Johnson followed up his attack on other EU states by boycotting an “emergency” meeting of European Foreign Ministers Sunday, called at the instigation of Berlin. The meeting was also snubbed by the French foreign minister. May government sources dismissed the meeting as “huffing and puffing” designed to allow EU officials to posture as opponents of Trump.

In rushing to endorse Trump, Johnson and the anti-EU wing of the Tories have amplified Trump’s statements—made during the US election campaign—supporting Brexit and pledging that under his presidency the UK would receive a favourable trade agreement with the US. This is contrasted to the statement by outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama, who said, during his trip to the UK last April, that if the UK voted to leave the EU it would go to the “back of the queue” in terms of trade agreements.

Placing its fortunes in the hands of a reviled and unstable figure such as Trump is a measure of the government’s political desperation. It does so under conditions of ongoing protests in the US against the validity of his victory and an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis in the UK, with the government forced to appeal to the Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse a High Court ruling that May cannot trigger Article 50—the formal means to exit the EU—without Parliament voting on it first.

The court case and the judicial decision was shaped by powerful sections of Britain’s ruling elite who have demanded above all a “soft-Brexit” deal preserving access to the Single European Market. May and Johnson might calculate that Trump’s backing will strengthen their negotiating position, but it is a high-risk strategy. Even former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, while slavishly backing the US to the hilt as the junior partner in the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the “war on terror,” portrayed himself as a “bridge” between the US and Europe due to the importance of continental trade with Europe.

Moreover, even as May mortgages her future to the Eurosceptic wing of her party, she undermines her own dwindling authority. This week Nigel Farage, the interim leader of the far-right UK Independence Party (UKIP), along with the party’s financial backer Aaron Banks, became the first leaders of a European political party to meet Trump at his Trump Tower penthouse in New York.

As leader of UKIP, Farage spearheaded the successful “Leave” campaign in the referendum, focusing on anti-immigrant xenophobia. The then Tory Prime Minister David Cameron was forced to call the referendum to assuage his party, which was split on the issue of remaining in the EU. Much of the Tories wider base was supportive of UKIP’s anti-EU stance, with Cameron haemorrhaging support to Farage’s party. Farage has since developed close ties with his fascistic co-thinker Trump, who invited Farage to speak alongside him at an election campaign rally in Mississippi in August.

May’s government was thrown onto the back foot by Farage’s latest meeting with Trump. Her official spokeswoman stated, “We have established routes of engagement with the president-elect and his team. Our diplomatic staff have been building those contacts and links in the run-up to the election.”

The spokeswoman claimed, “The president-elect talked [to May] about enjoying the same relationship Reagan and Thatcher did,” adding in a pointed reference to Farage, “I don’t remember there being any third person in that relationship.”

The Guardian reported Monday, “There have been reports of a cabinet split in which some ministers urged May to use Farage’s links to Trump.”

In reality, while May bends over backwards to insist that the much vaunted “special relationship” between the US and the UK remains intact, there is no indication that Trump views the UK as a critical ally. According to media reports, May was forced to wait until Trump had called a host of other countries before he deigned to speak to the British prime minister following his election victory. Trump spoke to the leaders of India, Japan, Australia, Egypt, South Korea, Mexico, Israel and Turkey first. Ireland’s leader Enda Kenny also received a 10-minute call before May.

In her speech to the annual Guildhall banquet Monday night, May glowingly referred to the “new president-elect in the US who defied the polls and the pundits all the way up to election day itself.”

She added that the UK’s departure from the EU would not see “Britain stepping back from the world, but an example of how a free, flexible, ambitious country can step up to a new global role in which, alongside the traditional trading blocs, agile nation states like Britain can trade freely with others according to what’s in their own best interests.”

“We will also use the strength and size of our economy to lead the way in getting out into the world and doing new business with old allies and new partners alike,” she added.

In reality, the Brexit vote has severely undermined the UK’s use-value to Washington and therefore its continued ability to punch above its weight on the world arena. That is why May sought to portray Britain’s role within the US-led NATO military alliance as the pivotal issue. Britain, said May, “is the only country in the G20 to meet its commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence and 0.7 percent of gross national income on overseas development …”

The UK “is a leading member of the coalition supporting Iraq to defeat the scourge of Daesh [ISIS]; that has agreed to send 800 troops to Estonia as part of NATO’s presence in eastern Europe.” The UK is also involved in “Nigeria in the fight against Boko Haram; and … reinforcing its commitment to peacekeeping forces in South Sudan, Somalia and Kosovo.”

The UK has pitched itself as the main opponent of German plans for the creation of a European Army and guarantor of the hegemony of NATO. Alongside its trailing after Trump, it is a stance that will only sharpen political antagonisms with the EU’s economic and political powerhouse, Berlin.

Leading SPD politician to become German president

Peter Schwarz

On Monday, after weeks of behind-the-scenes wrangling, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) decided to support the candidacy of Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier for the office of federal president.

Nothing should now stand in the way of the current foreign minister being elected to Germany's highest public office. The Social Democratic Party (SPD), CDU and CSU control nearly three quarters of the votes in the Federal Assembly, which will elect the president on February 12, 2017. The Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) will probably also support Steinmeier. Only the Left Party has announced that it would stand its own candidate.

The agreement on Steinmeier took place a few days following the US presidential election, and was obviously influenced by the result. The victory of Donald Trump has triggered a shock in Germany.

Big business is preparing for turbulent times ahead, when a protectionist course prevails in Washington and this sets a global precedent. German industry is dependent on exports, second only to the Chinese. Germany's current account surplus will reach a historic record of 8.8 percent of GDP this year. In foreign policy, the German government is reckoning with sharp international tensions and an increased in military conflicts if Trump implements just a fraction of his campaign announcements.

Both the crisis in the export industries and the increase in military operations will exacerbate social and political tensions within Germany and accelerate the alienation of broad sections of the population from the political elites. Against this background, the agreement on Steinmeier, justified by the CDU chairman and Chancellor Angela Merkel as a “rational decision,” sends out a dual signal.

Firstly, Steinmeier, like no other German politician, embodies the policy of welfare cuts and militarism with which the German ruling class is reacting to the global crisis of capitalism.

As head of the chancellery of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD), he drafted the “Agenda 2010” welfare and labour “reforms,” and thus bears primary responsibility for the exponential growth in precarious forms of work and the related decline of wages and benefits. In the meantime, just half of all those working in Germany are in full-time jobs with social insurance.

As foreign minister of the present grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD, Steinmeier tirelessly argues for German great power politics and the return of German militarism. A milestone in this respect was the speech he delivered on February 1, 2014 at the Munich Security Conference.

A culture of German military restraint, Steinmeier said, should “not become a culture of standing aside. Germany is too large to comment on world politics only from the sideline.” Steinmeier did not stop at words. The same month, he played a leading role in the coup in Ukraine, which, resting on fascist militias, replaced a pro-Russian regime with a pro-Western one headed by a billionaire oligarch.

Second, with the selection of Steinmeier, the grand coalition is closing ranks. The agreement on a common candidate is a clear signal for a continuation of the governing coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD after the federal elections in autumn 2017.

The election of the president, who has largely ceremonial duties, has always served to set the course for future government coalitions in Germany. For example, the election of the SPD politician Gustav Heinemann with the votes of the FDP prepared the election of Willy Brandt as the first Social Democratic chancellor in the Federal Republic of Germany. Based on his supposed “independence,” the president also fulfils the task of providing support for official politics beyond the immediate government camp.

The so-called “people's parties”—CDU, CSU and SPD—have dramatically lost voters in recent years. In some state elections, even their combined votes are insufficient to form a majority. For this reason, there have been numerous scenarios outlined for a new coalition government at the federal level.

Sections of the CDU and the Greens, who already govern jointly in some states, are looking to form a so-called “black-green” coalition. According to media reports, Chancellor Angela Merkel had even proposed Winfried Kretschmann, the Green state premier of Baden-Württemberg, as a candidate for president. Kretschmann responded to the offer by praising Merkel to the skies, declaring that she was irreplaceable as chancellor.

But Merkel’s initiative failed due to opposition from the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, the CSU. At last weekend’s Green Party conference, delegates rebuked Kretschmann and other prominent advocates of a black-green coalition by voting down their resolutions.

Under these circumstances, the CDU/CSU intend to renew their proven alliance with the SPD in preparation for the coming period of social upheaval, following Trump’s election as US president. The Greens, who have no fundamental differences with the government’s policies, remain in reserve to step into a future coalition in a period of crisis.

The same is true for the Left Party. In recent months, leading representatives of the Left Party, the Greens and the SPD, supported by SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel, had brought an alliance of these three parties at federal level into discussion. This met with enthusiasm in the Left Party, above all, which is ready to do anything as long as it is rewarded with ministerial posts at the Berlin cabinet table.

But such a project appears too uncertain for the ruling elites at the moment. To counter the expected social and political convulsions—at least momentarily—they are relying on proven mechanisms. As early as 1968, a grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD had adopted emergency laws when confronted with massive protests. And in 2003, when Chancellor Schröder prematurely ended the “red-green” coalition in face of massive discontent with Agenda 2010, the grand coalition took over the implementation of these anti-working-class policies. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the CDU and SPD worked closely together to save the banks and shift the burden onto the population.

The nomination of Steinmeier has been met with enthusiasm by sections of the liberal, formerly democratic, petty bourgeoisie, who, given Trump's election victory and the rise of right-wing parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD), yearn for order and a strong state. For example, Heribert Prantl, domestic policy editor of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, has been gushing in his praise of the SPD politician.

Prantl described the president as a “defender of the social and constitutional republic” and emphasized, “This was rarely as necessary in West German history as it is today.”

Steinmeier's nomination for this office, Prantl continues, is “a demonstration of the community of democrats” and “a victory for reasons of state.” The SPD politician was “prepared in domestic policy terms and well versed in foreign policy.” He had the talent of “an honest broker,” which “cannot be valued highly enough today.” He was “anti-Trump” and an “anchor of experience.” Prantl concludes, “The hopes that are linked to a Federal President Steinmeier are not small.”

However, many other media outlets have expressed skepticism.

The pro-union Frankfurter Rundschau fears that a president “who feels so committed to the poorly regarded consensus of the so-called middle,” would widen the gap between the establishment parties and the general public.

“What Germany needed, was a sort of a democratic anti-Trump,” writes Stephan Hebel. “Not in the sense that he simply defends the establishment against the right-wing populists. Rather, it would be better to have [some]one who, given the anger at the failure of the establishment parties, which is not entirely without reason, can give a voice and even better, a democratic direction.”

The pro-Green Party taz makes a similar argument. “While large sections of society no longer feel represented by the political class, someone would become president who, like no other, is a typical professional politician,” writes Martin Kaul.

The conservative press attacks the CDU/CSU for not standing its own candidate with a clear right-wing profile. “This 'lack of an alternative' does no good to Germany's political system, which like never before is being challenged by populists of all kinds,” Berthold Kohler wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “In this respect too, it would have been better if the Union [CDU/CSU] had sent its own candidate into the race.”

And Ulf Poschardt rages in Die Welt, “The elite achievers have no political representation in the federal government, the chattering elites—the warning sign of Trump or not—are continuing as usual. They have understood nothing. In the end, this includes the charming President-to-be ... It is becoming dark in Germany.”

One thing is clear from all the commentaries: The establishment parties are joining forces behind Steinmeier because they are preparing for fierce social and political conflicts.

Trump’s win provokes nervousness and bravado in Beijing

Mike Head 

China’s ruling elite has initially responded to Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election with a combination of appeals for dialogue, warnings of global instability and nationalist rhetoric.

On the one hand, the Beijing regime is clearly anxious to reach an accommodation with Trump and his aggressive “America First” agenda, arguing there could be a mutual “win, win” outcome for both ruling elites. At the same time, it is preparing for an historic collision.

Trump’s campaign threats to name China a “currency manipulator” from day one of his presidency and to impose punitive 45 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, and his plans to boost US military spending, especially on the navy, have generated calls in state-run media outlets for China to be ready for all-out trade war and military confrontation.

Publicly, Chinese President Xi Jinping congratulated Trump and told him the world’s two largest economies shared responsibility for promoting global development and prosperity. “I place great importance on the China-US relationship, and look forward to working with you to uphold the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation,” Xi told Trump by phone.

But the People’s Daily, the main official mouthpiece of the Beijing regime, ran editorials that sent different messages, depicting the United States as dysfunctional and crippled. A November 8 editorial described the election as “the most dark, chaotic and negative one in the past two centuries,” with the candidates smearing each other “in the most despicable and uncivilised ways.” It concluded: “Such chaos and disorder tells the world that the US is ‘sick’ when it comes to the nation’s own economy, society and politics.”

A November 11 editorial said Trump’s rise had “plunged the world into a period of deep uncertainty,” compounded by his “contradictory statements and lack of details.” It held out hope that Trump would recognise the “critically important” need to “strengthen the relationship” because “America’s strength depends on China’s strength.”

Yet the same editorial warned that Washington’s “pivot” to Asia—a concerted drive to militarily and economically dominate over China—was unlikely to “fade under Trump.” Instead, it would “have a harder edge.” The newspaper noted that the Pentagon had been pushing for a stronger military presence in the region, and “could get its way” with Trump in office. “Trump has already stated his intention to increase defense spending, and his vision for national security includes adding 350 ships to the US Navy,” it said.

Editorials and commentary in Global Times, a more openly nationalist state-controlled media outlet, were more belligerent. A November 11 article declared that “China should stand ready to fight back” if Trump rolled out protectionist measures.

“Trump regularly railed against China during the campaign, blaming the country for US job losses and proposing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports,” the article commented. “Although campaign rhetoric is not necessarily consistent with policy after a candidate assumes office, China should be ready for any possible scenario when it comes to its bilateral ties with the US, including a trade war.”

The article insisted China would “not hesitate” to retaliate. “China is now a vital overseas market for American firms like Apple Inc., and in 2015 China’s imports of goods from the US reaching $149 billion, based on Chinese customs data. There is no doubt that the American economy would suffer a severe blow if China were in turn to impose a 45 percent tariff on US-made goods.”

A November 10 Global Times editorial asserted that, regardless of Trump’s “own tendencies,” the US was “not powerful enough to maintain its global hegemony.” However, “in the initial stage of Trump’s presidency, he might bash China to establish authority as a new commander-in-chief,” so “Beijing should be prepared for Trump’s blows” and “respond decisively and fearlessly.”

One feature of Trump’s victory has been hailed in Beijing—the killing off of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that the Obama administration had pursued as the economic spearhead of its anti-China “pivot.” The TPP, which excluded China, was designed to establish a US-led trade and investment bloc, battering down all national barriers to the domination of Asia-Pacific markets by American financial, technology, pharmaceutical and media corporations.

China will now step up its efforts to win support for a Beijing-led Asia-Pacific free trade area at this year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, to be held in Peru on November 19-20. Briefing journalists ahead of President Xi’s departure for the summit and a Latin American visit, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong warned that “trade and investment protectionism is rearing its head.” He said a trade pact was therefore essential “at an early date.”

For more than six years, China has proposed a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) and a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), but the Obama administration repeatedly pushed these plans aside in favour of the TPP. Li said Xi’s attendance at the summit showed China’s “confidence in promoting” its alternatives.

The FTAAP would cover all 21 members of APEC, while the RCEP would group the 10 members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand, but not the United States.

A November 11 Global Times article further drummed up Chinese nationalism, provocatively predicting the triumph of a “China-led Asia.” It proclaimed that China’s economic clout had “geographically fractured” the US pivot.

The commentary asserted that Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s recent declaration that he was “separating” from Washington, followed by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s purchase of navy vessels from China, had “put holes in Washington’s net around the Middle Kingdom.”

“It’s simple: US allies are being overwhelmed by China’s sheer industrial production, and infrastructure investment is more attractive than US foreign military base construction… Japan and South Korea may become isolated if the ASEAN countries continue to turn towards Beijing, and will have to decide what is more beneficial: US-led containment or collaborating with a China-led Asia.”

This bravado is designed to whip up nationalist sentiment, pitting Chinese workers against their fellow workers in America, throughout the region and internationally. While the Beijing bureaucrats and oligarchs will no doubt still seek to cut deals with Washington, Trump’s victory has spurred the rise of bellicose nationalist elements on both sides of the Pacific, intensifying the dangers of war between nuclear powers.

The Precarious Politics of Post-‘Liberation’ Mosul

Derek Verbakel

Progress is well underway for Mosul to be recaptured from the Islamic State (IS). Aided by US-led air and ground support, the anti-IS campaign chiefly involves the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); Kurdish Peshmerga; a collection of predominantly-Iran-backed mostly-Shia militias; and Sunni tribal fighters. ISF units have breached the city’s easternmost neighbourhoods, and while resistance is stiff, it nevertheless seems like only a matter of time until the IS is militarily defeated and, as many commentators present it, Mosul is thereby ‘liberated’. 

Yet, such triumphalist and reductive language framing the military campaign risks downplaying the fraught political conditions in Mosul and Ninewa Province more widely. Indeed, once the IS is dislodged, there will be underlying and unameliorated political issues that present even greater challenges to stabilising northern Iraq.

Tangled and competing interests drive various stakeholders who will not disarm once the IS is gone, and ultimately aim to translate hard-won gains into political advantages. The ISF – the only party authorised by Baghdad to enter Mosul itself – have worked unprecedentedly close with the Peshmerga, who have pledged to stay out; but this could change due to a shifting coalition strategy or unilateral decisions. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) wants to consolidate control of disputed territories claimed also by the central government in Baghdad. Like their previous actions, Kurdish security personnel may forcibly displace Arab families from their homes in contested areas, tilting the ethnic demographic balance.

Shia sectarian militias will seek a larger role in Iraq’s government and broader political society. They seem to have accepted Baghdad’s demand – restated by Sunni Arab and Kurdish politicians as well as Turkey and the US –  of refraining from entering Mosul. Yet some Shia militia leaders have proclaimed a religious duty to fight in Mosul, Iraq’s main Sunni Arab-majority city; and while their presence alone would inflame sectarian tensions, they might also rehearse past episodes of violence against Sunni civilians. 

Shia militias may also seek to establish a permanent base of operations in Tal Afar – like Mosul, a city to which Turkey claims historic and cultural ties. This would allow strategic access to aligned forces in Syria and more immediately challenge Turkey and its KRG allies' influence in northern Iraq. Under the pretext of defending Sunnis, Ankara has already threatened unilateral action against Shia militias, who it suggests will not only seek to raze Mosul, but also rid Tal Afar of its majority-Sunni Turkmen population. 

A broader power struggle is also escalating between Ankara and Baghdad over spheres of influence in northern Iraq. They have exchanged threats of war over Baghdad’s repeated, unheeded demands to withdraw Turkish troops stationed just northeast of Mosul since January 2015. While rebuffed by Baghdad and the KRG, Ankara has demanded a greater role in the Mosul campaign, and last week aggressively shored up forces facing the Iraq border. Along with containing advances by Shia militias and the IS, above all, Turkey’s presence in Iraq aims to quell trans-border nationalist aspirations of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), labelled terrorists also by the KRG. Also seeking to augment Turkish influence in Ninewa is Atheel al-Nujaifi, a former provincial governor who heads a Sunni Arab militia trained and equipped by Turkey. Baghdad staunchly opposes Nujaifi’s intention to figure centrally in post-IS provincial politics.

To claim credibility as a national institution, the Shia-dominated Iraqi central government will need to reassert state power in ways acceptable to Mosul's inhabitants. This was not the case when in 2014, from outside perspectives, the IS overran the city with surprising ease and members and sympathisers began embedding themselves into Mosul’s social fabric. There occurred intermarriage with the population and joining the IS became a much-needed avenue to stable employment for many Moslawis. 

It will be tricky to determine who joined – whether earnestly, out of desperation, or not at all – and how to treat IS prisoners and families, as well as others who might feel unfairly branded as collaborators. There may also persist a degree of support for the IS. Having experienced alienation especially since 2003, Moslawis have tended to regard the central government warily; and so, engendering a sense of political enfranchisement, particularly among Sunni Arabs in a conflict-stricken city, will be difficult.

Beyond Mosul, there will also be crucial but divisive questions concerning the form of post-IS governance structures and security provision in Ninewa. Baghdad will face enormous pressure to address longstanding disputes regarding dispensation of territory, revenues, and powers to local authorities. Several agendas and frameworks are fiercely contested by Sunni and Kurdish leaders as well as minority communities who view Sunni Arabs as complicit in what many consider attempted genocide by the IS'. Violence will spike if armed groups seek to pre-emptively homogenise area demographics along ethnic or sectarian lines.

As such, troublingly absent is any consensus on what happens after the IS is displaced from Mosul and wider Ninewa - which will be the site of clashing interests pursued by several anti-IS groups unwilling to disarm or withdraw. There will be no unifying Iraqi nationalist political project to bridge inter-communal divisions and little trust among traumatised populations in new or reconstituted systems of governance. Vulnerable to self-serving interventions by external powers, this political minefield will be prone to further cycles of violence.

American Turbulence: Global Ramifications

Chintamani Mahapatra

By electing Donald Trump as the forty-fifth president of the US, the American people created history for the second time in less than a decade. The first was election of an African American as the president. What has surprised millions of poll observers and analysts is defeat of a seasoned politician by a political outsider with no administrative or political experience.

The campaign during the 2016 presidential race was negative, bitter and vitriolic to a degree unprecedented in American history. More significantly, the post-election reaction to Trump’s victory too is an unparalleled development. Thousands of students in various college campuses across the US and thousands of people in diverse American cities took to the streets venting their anger and frustration over the election outcome. Several political leaders around the globe also expressed their discomfort and displeasure over the election outcome in the US.

While all these are extraordinary developments, the next four years of the Trump Administration will be crucial for international security and stability. The Trump Administration’s approach to world affairs is uncertain and beyond credible projection, given how Trump is a political outsider and his equation with the Republican Party leadership is fractured.

This is particularly pertinent in view of the Republican Party’s emergence as the majority party in the US House of Representatives and the Senate. Unless Trump is able to establish dependableand cooperative ties with his party leaders, he will remain largely dysfunctional when it comes to putting forward his policy initiatives, towards domestic or foreign policy.

What Trump promised during his campaign, if implemented, would bring about a paradigm shift in American domestic politics and foreign policy; but even a fraction of it cannot be implemented without his ability to carry Congressional leaders with him.

There is widespread concern about the state of things to appear once Trump assumes office. During the campaign, he repeatedly attacked the American system as “rigged.”Will he now try tofix the system? During his victory speech, he made a tall promise to double the US’ GDP? It is not a feasible proposition.However, he is a businessman and will try to apply his business acumen and create an economic miracle.

Trump was largely responsible for the political polarisation in last eighteen months of the election season. Once he won the election, he called for national unity. He hinted that he would not drastically alter the country’s foreign policy. Will the American people and world leaders believe him and cooperate with his policies? Massive demonstrations against him in schools, colleges and cities across the US and international reaction to his electoral victory tell a different story.

Trump called for a wall across the US-Mexican border during the election campaign. Will he be able to build his promised wall to keep Mexican immigrants at bay? More significantly, will he be able to make Mexico pay for it? If the Trump Administration succeeds in crafting a new immigration policy, the deportation of millions of undocumented workers will take place.This would create enormous uncertainties within the US and would affect Washington’s hemispheric relationships.

Donald Trump has questioned NATO’s relevance and has demanded defence burden sharing by NATO members. Will the economic downturn in Europe encourage NATO members to increase their defense budgets? Trans-Atlantic ties will be in for some trouble. He also asked Japan and South Korea to make their own nuclear weapons for defence. Will Tokyo and Seoul have trust in Trump’s Asia Pacific strategy?

Trump’s views on Muslim immigrants and Islamist extremism will also be on test in the coming years. He promised to use his “secret plan” to defeat the Islamic State in West Asia. Can he make the US win a war in that region in the backdrop of the Afghan quagmire? Will he able to gain the support and confidence of the Muslim countries in fighting terror? 

Thus, the US ties with Europe, Latin America, West Asia, and the Asia Pacific are in for changes and not necessarily for better. Trump will certainly try to make America great again, but the cost of it for other nations is insofar unknown. However, Trump’s America is unlikely to disturb the apple cart of the Indo-US relationship. The strategic partnership between the two countries is mature enough to sustain short-term turbulence. Trade and investment cooperation, and defence and security ties between New Delhi and Washington are likely to experience an upward trajectory. 

What the Indian foreign policy establishment needs to be aware of are the challenges that may come as the after-effect of the Trump Administration’s ties with other countries and its impact.

ivoh Restorative Narrative Fellowship for Media Practitioners 2017

Application Deadline: 28th November 2016

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country):  USA

Eligible Fields: Media practitioners of all kinds — photographers, journalists, gamers, documentary filmmakers, marketers and those working at the intersection of media and the arts

About the Award: The media plays an important role in telling stories about tragedies, trauma, and communities or individuals who are facing adversities. And yet, too often, these are the main stories we see and hear from the media. Images & Voices of Hope is working to change that — by providing media practitioners with an opportunity to tell stories about how people and communities are finding hope, resiliency and restoration in the aftermath or midst of difficult times.

If this type of storytelling interests you and you have a strong story idea, we encourage you to apply for Images & Voices of Hope’s Restorative Narrative Fellowship.

ivoh’s fellowship is an extension of the organization’s work around Restorative Narrative — a genre of stories that show how people and communities are making a meaningful progression from a place of despair to a place of resilience. (You can read more about Restorative Narratives, and find related examples, here.)

The fellowship, which will run February 1 through August 1, will provide five fellows with a stipend to spend six months telling Restorative Narratives in various communities. As a fellow, you’ll have the opportunity to help change media — and the people and communities that media serves — for the better.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Media practitioners of all kinds — photographers, journalists, gamers, documentary filmmakers, marketers and those working at the intersection of media and the arts;
• Both freelancers and employed media practitioners can apply;
• Freelancers will be required to find a home for their projects, while those employed at media organizations can work on their fellowship project with the intent of publishing it on their organization’s website;
• ivoh requests permission to republish the work in its entirety – or if that’s not possible, a condensed version of it.

Number of Awardees: 5

Value of Fellowship: The fellowship provides:

• A stipend:  USD 2,500 stipend for financial support and to cover costs associated with their work for the fellowship. These costs may include travel, data analysis, research expenses, and more;
• High-level coaching: six months, fellows will receive storytelling coaching from Jacqui Banaszynski, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, longtime editor, and a professor at the University of Missouri;
• Training workshops: a chance to learn more about the restorative narrative genre, receive feedback on their projects, and engage in 1:1 coaching sessions with Jacqui. The first training workshop will be held in early March, and the second will be held in timing with ivoh’s annual media summit in late June;
• Speaking opportunity: to present their projects and share lessons learned during ivoh’s annual media summit, which attracts media practitioners from around the world;
• Ongoing recognition and support from ivoh: part of a growing cohort of Restorative Narrative Fellows from around the world. You will be introduced to past fellows and the larger ivoh community, which is comprised of individuals who care about how the media can help strengthen and empower people and communities

Duration of Fellowship: February 1 through August 1

How to Apply: If you are interested in applying, fill out the online application HERE. Applications are accepted through November 28.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: ivoh

US Government TechWomen Programme for Women in STEM Fields 2017

Application Timeline: 

• Application opens: 15th November, 2106.
• Application closes: 17th January, 2017.
• Semifinalists will be contacted via email in/around March 2017.
• Final decisions will be made no later than early May 2017.
• September 2017: TechWomen program begins in San Francisco, CA
• October 2017: TechWomen program concludes in Washington, DC

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, SierraLeone, South Africa, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe.

To be taken at (country): USA

Eligible Field of Study: Any STEM fields

About the Award: From the moment the Emerging Leaders arrive, they are immersed in the innovative, constantly evolving culture of Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. Emerging Leaders work closely with their Professional Mentors to design meaningful projects while exploring the San Francisco Bay Area with their Cultural Mentor and fellow program participants.

TechWomen Emerging Leaders will:

• Challenge themselves with new questions and concepts
• Collaborate with like-minded women in their fields on an innovative project
• Network with influential industry leaders
• Discover their own innovative leadership style
• Create meaningful friendships with women from all over the world
• Explore the diverse communities of the San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.
• Inspire the next generation of women and girls in their home countries

Type: Training/Fellowship

Eligibility: Applicants must

• Be women with, at minimum, two years full-time professional experience in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields. Please note that internships and other unpaid work experience does not count toward the two-year professional experience requirement.
• Have, at minimum, a bachelor’s degree/four-year university degree or equivalent.
• Be proficient in written and spoken English.
• Be citizens and permanent residents of Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Palestinian Territories, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe at the time of application and while participating in the program.
• Be eligible to obtain a U.S. J-1 exchange visitor visa.
• Not have applied for an immigrant visa to the United States or participated in a visa lottery in the past five years.
• Not hold U.S. citizenship or be a U.S. legal permanent resident.

Preference will be given to applicants who

• Demonstrate themselves as emerging leaders in their chosen professional track through their work experience, volunteer experience, community activities and education.
• Are committed to return to their home countries to share what they have learned and mentor women and girls.
• Have limited or no prior experience in the United States.
• Have a proven record of voluntary or public service in their communities.
• Have a demonstrated track record of entrepreneurialism and commitment to innovation.
• Demonstrate a willingness to participate in exchange programs, welcome opportunities for mentoring and new partnership development, and exhibit confidence and maturity.

TechWomen encourages people with diverse backgrounds and skills to apply, including individuals with disabilities.

Women committed to addressing concerns of global climate change and environmental issues are particularly encouraged to apply.

Selection: TechWomen participants are selected based on the eligibility requirements above. Applications are reviewed by independent selection committees composed of industry leaders and regional experts. Semifinalists may be interviewed by United States Embassy personnel in their country of permanent residence.

Number of Awardees: 100 women

Value of Scholarship: International travel, housing, meals and incidentals, local transportation and transportation to official TechWomen events are covered by the TechWomen program. Participants are responsible for the cost of any non-program activities in which they wish to partake, such as independent sightseeing and non-program-related travel.

Duration of Scholarship: The 2017 TechWomen program will occur over five weeks from September – October 2017. Due to the fast-paced nature of the program, arrival and departure dates are not flexible.

How to Apply: Interested TechWomen participants should apply based on the application requirements in link below.

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: US Department of State

Imperial College Fully-funded PhD Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Timelines: 

• Candidates who apply before 11th November 2016 and are awarded a scholarship will be notified by 31st January 2017. 
• Candidates who apply before 24th January 2017 and are awarded a scholarship will be notified by 31st March 2017. 
• Candidates who apply before 28th March 2017 and are awarded a scholarship will be notified by 31st May 2017. 

The earliest start date for funded places is 1 August 2017, the latest start date is 1 November 2017.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): London, UK

Eligible Field of Study:

About the Award: If you are a high performing undergraduate or Master’s student and have a strong desire to undertake a PhD programme at a world class research institution, you could be selected to receive full tuition fees and a generous stipend for a PhD place at Imperial College London. The President’s PhD Scholarships aims to provide up to 50 research students with great potential the opportunity to work within their chosen research field with the support of an excellent supervisor.

Opportunities for PhD funding via this scheme are extremely competitive, with higher than usual eligibility requirements. Applicants should be confident that they are able to demonstrate outstanding academic performance before applying for this scholarship scheme. Previous successful recipients of the scholarship have ranked highly in their class, often achieving grades of 85% or higher in their degree(s).

Type: PhD Research

Eligibility: 

1. Applications are accepted from talented candidates from Imperial College London, the UK and worldwide. There are no restrictions on nationality.
2. Candidates must be among the highest achievers in their undergraduate cohort, and in receipt of, or due to receive a first class UK degree or equivalent.
3. Candidates with Master’s qualifications should have achieved a distinction or, where this has yet to have been achieved, be able to provide evidence of high performance that will lead to a distinction. They should also hold a first class UK undergraduate degree or equivalent.
4. Candidates with degrees from overseas institutions are strongly urged to determine if their scores/grades are equivalent to the relevant eligibility criteria.
5. Prior to applying candidates must have made contact with a supervisor in an academic department at Imperial College London who has agreed to supervise their research project. Please note that supervisors are limited to supervise one scholar at any time. Please review the President’s PhD Scholarships – Unavailable Supervisors page for more information. Please note: current registered Imperial PhD students are not eligible to be considered for a President’s PhD Scholarship. The scheme is only open to new PhD applications.

Selection Process: Applications will be reviewed by a two-stage process:

1. Candidates meeting or predicted to meet the eligibility requirements will be reviewed by the Department to which they have applied. Departments will select a shortlist of the very best candidates to present to the Imperial College Selection Panel for consideration.
2. The final decision will be made by the Imperial College Selection Panel. The members of the panel are the Vice-Provost (Research) and the Faculty Vice-Deans for Research. The Panel will consider shortlisted candidates from all Faculties. Scholarships will be awarded to the candidates who show the most potential.

Successful candidates will receive written confirmation of their scholarship. Any offer of a PhD place will be conditional on final interview by the Department and (if applicable) on the candidate receiving the predicted qualifications.

Applicants not selected for the scholarship will automatically be considered for the PhD.

Number of Awardees: up to 50

Value of Scholarship: 

• Full funding for tuition fees
• A stipend of £20,800 per annum to assist with living costs
• A consumables fund of £2,000 per annum for the first 3 years of study
• A programme of bespoke opportunities and events delivered by the Graduate School

Duration of Scholarship: up to 3.5 years

How to Apply: The scheme will open for applications from early October 2016.

There is not a specific scholarship application form.  You should submit your application for admission to study at Imperial through our online admissions system and your department will put you forward for the scholarship based on academic merit and potential.

1. When prompted for a personal statement you must ensure that it consists of approx. 1000 words (maximum 2 pages) and outlines your academic and research achievements to date, explaining in brief your planned research project. The selection panel will not consider statements exceeding the 2 page limit. You may submit updated versions of this statement if required following application submission.
2. To be considered for the President’s PhD Scholarship scheme, applicants must select this option in the funding section of the additional questions tab within the online application form.
3. You must also meet any additional application requirements stated by your department of choice.

Eligible candidates will be advanced to the next review and selection process; please see the deadlines below.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Imperial College

Iran Launches Multiple Oil Projects In Ahwaz While Ahwazis Sink In Poverty

Rahim Hamid

Young unemployed people of Ahwaz have protested against widespread poverty and disenfranchisement during President Hassan Rouhani’s recent visit to oil facilities in Howeyzeh, west of Ahwaz, on 13th November.   The demonstrators, who came from the neighboring villages around the giant oil facilities, held up banners with slogans denouncing the heinous practices of confiscation of agricultural lands for the benefit of the Iran regime’s oil projects, as well as slogans against the racial discrimination to Ahwazi Arabs exercised by state officials in recruiting workers in oil companies.

Protesters are particularly concerned with the way in which, despite they are being located in an oil rich region, Ahwazi Arabs continue not to benefit from this and raised placards reading “our resentment is over the limit” and    “why our only share of the oil wealth is smoke, toxic gases, and unemployment”.  As is now well known, there have been outbreaks of disease as a result of environmental pollution caused by oil installations and rising unemployment, which has now reached record numbers.

Qassem al-Saadi, the Ahwazi MP in Iran’s parliament admitted in his recent speech that, in the areas of Khafajiyeh and Howeyzeh (Maysan), the percentage of Ahwazi workers at oil installations is 10% or less, adding that there are 83 oil, service, and urban companies active in the Maysan area, but all of these companies came from outside the Ahwaz region to make money, rather than invest in, the Maysan region.   Moreover, Ahwazi human rights sources have confirmed that, although around 8,250 workers are employed in the Maysan oil installations, Arab employees make up 5% or less, and they are mostly forced to work in low paid jobs as guards and janitors in the company offices.

A report of the Centre for Statistics in Maysan in July 2016 revealed that 66% of Ahwazis of working age in 2016 are unemployed.  Rouhani, in his recent visit, there, opened several new projects which will allow Iran to steal more Ahwazi oil in Maysan region, where according to the regime media’s own reports, investments in this sector have now risen to $6 billion.

Maysan region contains a large stockpile of crude oil estimated by studies to be more than 83 billion barrels. This stock is distributed among several fields as Iranian regime oil companies currently produce 300 million barrels a day. In recent months, many young Ahwazi Arabs in cities such as Muhammarah and Bandar-e Mahshor have committed suicide in protest against poverty, deprivation, deteriorating living situation, and rampant corruption in the region.

In recent months, many Ahwazi workers have been subjected to work stoppages, dismissal, termination of employment, and discrimination, forcing the Ahwazi population to sink further into economic poverty and suffering (over 85% of the population currently lives below the poverty line).

Companies dominated and chaired by Iranians who are racist have fired a disproportionate number of Ahwazi workers on several occasions during the last few of months.  This was in response to peaceful protests against the desperate situation facing the Ahwazi people, as detailed above. Many of the sacked workers have (illegally) not been paid their salaries, and their protests at backdated wages have gone unanswered, even though the average monthly payment of most of the sacked workers was a mere $ 290 per month.

These dismissals can therefore clearly be seen as nothing less than a ‘political purification’ of the oilfields as workplaces—or another form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ by the regime.  This systemic injustice and oppression of Arab workers even takes place against Arabic-speakers trying to use their native language while at work (it is standard policy for Farsi-speaking employers and administrators to punish those who speak Arabic in the workplace).

Persian employees working for industrial companies receive a wide variety of disproportionate benefits and support from the  government, and this enforces the increasing marginalization of the Arab people, establishing a mafia-like domination by Persians in the workplace. There is no opportunity for a union-type organization to address the issues facing the Ahwazi community, with all such bodies prohibited by law.

In clearer words, the regime mafia continues to violate the rights of the Ahwazi Arab workers, imposing barriers on them by restricting access to any civil society groups that might report the abuses, such as forcing Ahwazi workers to accept lower wages, longer hours, and ever-worsening work conditions.

The mafia family of regime has replaced Ahwazi workers with Persian workers across the board. In a pathetic attempt at appeasement, a token number of Ahwaz Arab workers are hired, but these few live in poor and marginal rural and urban areas in their home country, and are forced to accept significantly lower wages than their Persian colleagues for doing the same job, nor do they have the same labor rights or benefits.

The denial of job opportunities and the absence of a steady income due to discrimination in the private sector and state-owned businesses have driven many Ahwazi Arabs to work as street vendors.  It should also be noted that making ends meet as a street vendor is near-impossible.To make matters worse, the municipal authorities frequently target the poorest of the Ahwazi vendors, who are mostly women and therefore facing double discrimination, using the excuse that the women do not have a formal license for operating as street vendors.

In recent months, the municipal authorities and security forces have brutally mistreated, arrested and confiscated the goods of Ahwazi street vendors and cut off their income, leaving them in limbo and facing destitution. A history of such measures has forced millions of Ahwazi Arabs to live as outcasts.

In this video we can see how the Iranian security forces beat and arrested Ahwazi Arab workers in Mahshor city after the Ahwazi workers protested in front of the petrochemical company because they had not received their wages for six months.  A number of jobless Ahwazis were also brutalized for joining in the demonstration, demanding equal employment rights and an end to the regime’s apartheid-style racial discrimination.  Regime personnel arrested and beat them before forcibly dispersing them.

Ahwazi people also face a multitude of other problems.  Despite the fact that the Ahwaz region houses over 90% of Iran’s oil and gas resources, they endure levels of poverty, malnutrition, slum housing, unemployment and illiteracy comparable only with the poorest states in sub-Saharan Africa.

This video shows how sadly a poor and hungry population of Ahwazi Arabs in Falahiyeh city who are gathered in front of a bank are rushing to receive monthly cash subsidy of around $12 for a person.

To sum up, Ahwazi people have been systematically excluded from and segregated in every aspect of life; they have been neglected and isolated from mainstream society and denied access to social, economic and educational opportunities. Many of the poorest Ahwazi communities have been pushed into adopting unofficial and underground economies, and even into crime, simply to survive.

In Ahwazi urban areas, the regime, under its colonial urban planning, has constructed ethnically-segregated developed neighborhoods solely for Persian settlers in line with the deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing in Al-Ahwaz.  This also leaves Ahwazi Arab populated areas neglected and resembling deprived rural villages rather than city neighborhoods, without even paved roads, public lighting or street cleaning.

Due to their Arab ethnicity, Ahwazis are denied all rights, as discussed above, brutally persecuted, subjected to outrageous racial discrimination, forced displacement, political repression and compulsory assimilation.

They are banned by law from any form of peaceful protests and from forming trade unions, political parties or establishing media outlets. With anti-Arab racism endemic in Persian culture, Persian immigrantswho are settled in Al-Ahwaz by the regime and have been granted the whole socio-economic privileges, treat Ahwazi Arabs as little more than chattels, inferior beings at best.

The ongoing international silence on human rights situation in Iran amounts to a lethal weapon empowering the hands of the Iranian regime, the constant oppressor of people in the country, particularly Ahwazi Arab people who see all their wealth being stolen while they are left in growing economic impoverishment and treated with injustice solely because of their Arab ethnicity. The plight of Ahwazi people has long been neglected by the international community, with very few exceptions. Iran has occupied the lands of these people and dominating them by committing atrocities. Their struggles should be better supported by international human rights activists to pressurise the Iranian regime to grant the demands of this long oppressed nation.