28 Dec 2016

Panic at America’s malls: Class tensions at the breaking point

Eric London

The scenes of chaos and panic that played out at more than 15 shopping malls across the United States on Monday convey the tense and explosive character of social life in America at the end of 2016.
What began as one of the busiest shopping days of the year ended with large-scale evacuations, dozens of arrests, numerous injuries and entire malls on police lockdown.
Heavily armed police cleared crowds of youth at a number of shopping malls, primarily those located in working-class neighborhoods. Bystander video shows hysterical shoppers running away as police armed with assault rifles and military helmets move in to subdue large groups of youth.
Though there is no indication that the gatherings of young people were coordinated, a remarkable pattern emerges from what can be pieced together about the separate events.
In the early evening, as the malls reached peak activity, hundreds of young people began to converge in what the youth billed as “fights” in social media posts. Small scuffles broke out between individual young people, most of whom were on winter break from high school, and the crowds grew larger.
Word passed and a mood of panic set in. Rumors of shooting incidents spread rapidly. Jittery onlookers interpreted loud noises as gunshots. There were many reports of people shouting, “Gun!” People were injured as thousands sought to flee the crowded malls for the perceived safety of their cars.
At a mall in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a local news program reported “chaotic panic and everybody running all at once” after the sound of a chair slamming into the floor was mistaken for gunfire. An eight-year-old and a 12-year-old were injured in the evacuation as police surrounded and entered the mall.
In Garden City, New York, where seven people were injured, eyewitnesses described a “stampede” after dozens of people called police, erroneously believing a shooting was taking place. In Newport News, Virginia, a local news organization reported that people “were running out of the mall screaming; some people feared for their lives after they heard rumors that someone was running around the mall with a gun.”
Police cleared two malls in Memphis, Tennessee and arrested seven youth after fights and false reports of shootings. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, youth set off firecrackers and “kicked off a wave of panic,” according to a CNN report. In Brentwood, Ohio, outside Cleveland, police placed a mall on lockdown and arrested a young person “for attempting to strike an officer that was dealing with another disorderly patron.” Police used pepper spray to disperse the crowd.
Five young men between the ages of 14 and 16 from Hartford, Connecticut, a largely impoverished city, were arrested at a mall in nearby Manchester, where officers called in backup from neighboring jurisdictions and descended on the facility to break up gatherings of hundreds of youth. Similar events took place in Farmington, Connecticut; Aurora, Illinois; Fort Worth, Texas; Syracuse, New York; Monroeville, Pennsylvania; Tempe, Arizona; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Aurora, Colorado, where police reported that over 500 youth “surrounded an off-duty officer” who was attempting to detain another youth.
Meanwhile, the city of Chicago was hit by the most deadly wave of shooting violence in twenty years, with 53 wounded and 11 killed on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. As DNAInfo reported, “Behind this year’s surge is a toxic mix of cuts to social services, unemployment, hopelessness…”
Just hours before the mall disorders took place, and after the devastating weekend in Chicago, Obama was interviewed on CNN by David Axelrod, his former campaign manager. Amidst much laughter and mutual flattery, Obama touted his presidential tenure and presented himself as a fighter for social justice. “I would argue that during the entire eight years that I’ve been president, that spirit of America has still been there in all sorts of ways,” he declared.
In his end-of-the-year press conference on December 16, Obama spoke of “how far we’ve come over the past eight years,” before adding that “by so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. That’s a situation that I’m proud to leave for my successor.”
The mall eruptions expose as a lie the saccharine picture of America painted by the corporate press and Obama as his administration draws to a close. That mini-riots took place in fifteen different locations located hundreds of miles from one another shows that something is profoundly wrong with America.
Monday’s free-for-all in Aurora, Colorado took place at the same mall where James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others in July 2012. Since Obama took office, 122 people have been killed in school shootings alone. The response of the government has been two-fold: empty banalities and the militarization of the police.
Though concerns for their immediate safety may have provoked shoppers to take flight, the underlying anxieties are rooted in social relations that are dominated by the vast levels of economic inequality that loom over every aspect of life in the United States.
The outbursts of violence and fear took place against the backdrop of a holiday season ritualized by the media to conceal the brutal fact that all human relations are mediated through the buying and selling of commodities. While this process reaches a fever pitch at Christmas—the make-or-break period for retail profits—the commodification of human relations, with the general tension and frustration it produces, is essential to all social relations under capitalism.
The United States is a country dominated by a financial oligarchy, both economically and politically. The vast majority of the people have no outlet for expressing their own social interests. All of the official institutions, including the corporate-controlled media, the two big-business parties and the trade unions, are dedicated to stifling social opposition and generating higher corporate profits.
Half of all high school students—those fifteen years of age and younger—have never lived a day when the United States was not at war. Completely abandoned by the political establishment and hostile to the wars, poverty, state surveillance and police violence that have dominated their entire conscious lives, those youth who were old enough to vote in the Democratic primary contests voted for the self-proclaimed “socialist” Bernie Sanders by a nine-to-one margin over Hillary Clinton.
In his interview with Axelrod, Obama did not even address the character of the incoming Trump administration, which is promising to be the most reactionary in US history. In three weeks, Trump and his cabal of billionaires, evangelicals, generals, fascists and close relatives will control the executive branch. The incoming administration has promised a nuclear arms race, an assault on Social Security, Medicare and public education, and the deportation of millions of immigrant workers and their families.
This holiday season, the vast majority of workers share neither the complacent and cynical optimism of Obama, nor the blind bullishness of the stock market. What took place in America’s malls on Monday provides an inkling of the profound social shocks on the horizon for 2017.
The mood that predominates in America as the year concludes is one of nervousness and frustration combined with an emerging combativeness that has yet to find a progressive political expression. What is needed is a movement of the working class to direct the coming social explosion in a revolutionary and socialist direction.

Indonesia: Secularism and Domestic Politics

Navrekha Sharma



Jakarta’s popular, dynamic (and by all accounts, clean) Governor, Basuki “Ahok” Purnama, a Christian of Chinese descent, is on trial for saying, at a recent election rally to vote in the next governor, that his critics were deceiving the public by misusing a Koranic verse to suggest that Muslims must not be ruled by non-Muslims. His statement went viral - in a somewhat  distorted form - which propelled Muslim vigilante groups (hitherto considered 'fringe elements' in Indonesia) centre stage. 

However, in three colossal rallies held between October and December 2016 to demand Ahok’s prosecution for blasphemy were also hidden motivations of revenge: from slum-dwellers recently evicted in a clean-up drive or bureaucrats he had been tough with etc. Also (barely) concealed were ambitions for the next governorship of Jakarta and for the next presidency, through a stratagem of embarrassing President Jokowi - former governor and running mate of Ahok - into not seeking a second term in 2019. A trial court is expected to pronounce its verdict early in the new year.

Knowledgeable commentators agree that the governor’s remark was off-the-cuff, perhaps even a trifle careless, but most certainly without malicious intent. Nevertheless, a 100 per cent conviction rate under Indonesia’s blasphemy law of 1963 (dormant until democracy returned in 1998 and then used only by President SB Yudhoyono, who first caused shock waves by banning the Ahmadiyah) foretells a grim future not only for Ahok but also for Indonesia’s image as a modern, secular and pluralist democracy, a role model for the Muslim world. 

Ahok’s rivals for governorship, Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono and Anies Baswedan, are ambitious men with powerful connections. Yudhoyono is the son of a former president and from the military himself, while the latter is a protégé of Gen Prabowo (Soeharto’s erstwhile son-in-law), whom Jokowi defeated in 2014’s presidential race. The president initially ignored the  protestors but when this brought the mob close to transferring its rage onto him, he chose to briefly share the platform with them, from where he expressed his confidence in the laws of the land. The gesture deflected the pressure (and also isolated his friend Ahok). However, conferring this degree of legitimacy upon thugs and vigilantes could prove costly for the country.

To say that Indonesia is a difficult country to govern is understating the problem. A vast and sprawling archipelago of 17,000 islands, it presents enormous cultural and ethnic diversity that has produced several successive ideological streams called aliran. In 1957, when armed militiamen and cadres of the Darul Islam were running amok in West Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi - encouraged in their subversive designs by a Communism-obsessed CIA - Soekarno overthrew Indonesia’s first (and cacophonous) parliament and stopped the constituent assembly from debating a new federal constitution. So began Indonesia’s ''guided democracy” and its forty year-long tryst with dictatorship. Between 1957 and 1997, under two successive authoritarian presidents (Soekarno and Soeharto), even publicly discussing aliran issues was forbidden lest national unity be endangered. Of course Indonesia in 1957 was a very poor country without strong economic fundamentals, which have since made it the darling of global investors. 

Mark Twain once said that although history may not repeat itself, it sometimes rhymes. Democracy since 1998 has introduced unfamiliar strains into once regulated and predictable Indonesian lives. The presidential election two years ago saw disturbing signs of a popular yearning for the return of strong man Soeharto, when his ex-son-in-law Prabowo came within a whisker of victory. Is it outlandish then to worry that the expected results of the on-going trial could put a sharp brake on Indonesia’s still young, still secular democracy, and either radicalise its society completely or restore its military to its former status of underwriter of domestic peace and development? A third and very 'Indian' option of muddling through  democracy exists of course, but is it desirable? 

In a tightly connected world and given the significant parallels of history, geography, culture and  majority-minority balances - in the last aspect, almost  exact mirror opposites - India and Indonesia have strong mutual interests (and the required - if latent - empathy), to understand each other's frustrations with democracy. While the bilateral dialogue on maritime security issues is now well-established, both India and Indonesia need to stop shying away from introducing sensitive domestic issues into the bilateral agenda for discussion. Prime Minister Modi raised the issue of corruption with President Jokowi during the latter's recent visit to India, which is a good beginning. They should now go further and talk of inclusive governance, gender relations, poverty, federalism, electoral reforms, etc. And of secularism (and the respective interpretations of it), the most critical issue on which two young democracies (one less young  than the other) will be tested.

26 Dec 2016

105 Developing Solutions Masters Scholarships in UK for African and Commonwealth Countries 2017

Application Deadline: 24th March 2017 (12 midday UK time)
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All countries in Africa and the Commonwealth (See list of countries below)
To be taken at (country): University of Nottingham UK
Eligible Fields of Study
  • Faculty of Engineering,
  • Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
  • Faculty of Science,
  • Faculty of Social Science
About Scholarship: Founded in 2001, Developing Solutions is The University of Nottingham’s flagship international scholarship programme for  postgraduate masters courses.
University of Nottingham
Type: Masters degree
Eligibility: You can apply for the Developing Solutions scholarship if you:
  • are a national of (or permanently domiciled in) AfricaIndia or one of the countries of the Commonwealth listed below AND
  • are classed as an overseas student for fee purposes AND
  • have not already studied outside of your home country AND
  • are not currently studying at a University of Nottingham campus or are not a University of Nottingham graduate AND
  • already hold an offer to start a full-time masters degree programme, including MRes, at Nottingham for September 2017 in an area of study within the:
    • Faculty of Engineering,
    • Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,
    • Faculty of Science,
    • Faculty of Social Science
  • Priority is given to candidates who have not previously studied outside of their home country. Students currently studying in the UK are not eligible to apply.
Number of Scholarships: 105 Developing Solutions scholarships available for 2017 entry:
  • 30 x 100% tuition fee
  • 75 x 50% of tuition fees 
Value of Scholarship: 100% tuition fee and 50% tuition fee
Duration of Scholarship: For the one year masters program
Eligible Countries: Nationals of (or permanently domiciled in) Africa, India or one of the countries of the Commonwealth listed below:
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Montserrat, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn, St Helena, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa.
How to Apply: You’ll need to first apply for admission for Masters degree and be registered as a full-time student at the university. It is important to go through the Application requirements before applying.
Scroll down the page and click on View guidance on completing your online application and apply 
Scholarship Providers: The University of Nottingham
Important to Note: Application for admission to study at Nottingham should be received at least six weeks before the scholarship closing date to allow time for our Admissions office to process the application and confirm your offer, before you can apply for the scholarship. Any application for admission to study submitted later than six weeks before the scholarship closing date is not guaranteed to be processed in time.

Beijing Government Scholarships for Undergraduate, Masters & Doctoral International Students, 2017/2018

Application Deadline: All application materials should be handed to the relevant university or college before the end of February every year | 
Offered annually? Yes
Accepted Subject Areas: Courses offered at Chinese higher institutions in Beijing
About Scholarship
The Beijing Government Scholarship (BGS) was established by Beijing Municipal Government, aiming to provide tuition fees fully or partially to the international students studying or applying for studying in Beijing. Its administrative office is the International Cooperation and Exchange Office of Beijing Municipal Commission of Educations, which is in charge of project establishment, review, acceptance and daily management of the Beijing Government Scholarship Program. The international students applying for the Beijing Government Scholarships shall normally submit relevant materials to the universities in Beijing that he/she hope to apply by the end of February every year.
Beijing Government Scholarship
Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified
Eligibility
1) Applicants must be non-Chinese nationals in good health.
2) Educational background and age limit
  • Applicants for undergraduate studies in Beijing must have completed senior high school with good grades and be under the age of 30. Applicants for Masters degree studies in Beijing must have Bachelor’s degree and be under the age of 35. Applicants for Doctoral degree studies in Beijing must have Master’s degree and be under the age of 40.
  • Applicants for advanced studies must have an undergraduate degree or be in the second year of a university course and be under the age of 50. Applicants for long term language study must have a high school diploma and be under the age of 60.
  • Visiting scholar candidates in Beijing must have a Masters or higher degree or hold academic titles of associate professor or higher, and be under the age of 50.
3) Requirement for the applicant’s language proficiency is based on the requirement of the academic programs and determined by the individual higher learning institution.
4) An applicant receives financial support from other Chinese government scholarship programs or organizations/agencies would not be eligible for the Beijing Municipal Government Scholarship for International Students
Number of Scholarships: several
Scholarship Benefit
The Beijing Municipal Government Scholarship for International Students only covers tuition fees. According to the applicants’ status, the allowance for scholarship students can be classified into 5 types:
  • 40,000 RMB/year for a Doctoral degree
  • 30,000 RMB/year for a Masters degree
  • 20,000 RMB/year/ for a Bachelor degree
  • 10,000 RMB/year for a Senior training or long term language program
  • 5,000 RMB/year for Exchange students or students with outstanding contributions to international education in Beijing.
Duration of Scholarships
  • Applicants for Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral Degrees in Chinese universities and colleges in Beijing region: duration of scholarship should be under 4 years.
  • Applicants for Chinese language training or relevant advanced studies in Chinese universities and colleges in the Beijing region: the duration of scholarship should be under one year.
  • Scholars and international students for specialized training in Chinese universities and colleges in Beijing region: the duration of scholarship should be under one year.
  • Exchange students or students with outstanding contributions to international education in Beijing: the duration of scholarship should be under one year.
Eligible Countries: International  and developing countries students
To be taken in (country): Applicants may choose institutions and specialties from the Chinese institutions of higher education in the Beijing region.
How to apply
For specific application means, you can consult the government departments and relevant institutions responsible for dispatching students abroad in your country, Chinese embassies or consulates; or directly apply to the universities qualified to issue such scholarship in Beijing.
Visit scholarship webpage for details
Sponsors: Beijing Municipal Government – International Cooperation and Exchange Office of Beijing Municipal Commission of Educations

JFUNU Scholarships for PhD Students from Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 28th April 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes
About Scholarship: The Japan Foundation for United Nations University (JFUNU) Scholarship is available for outstanding applicants from developing countries who can demonstrate a need for financial assistance, and they will be considered as candidates for the award of the scholarship.
The programme addresses pressing global issues of sustainability, climate change, development, peace-building, and human rights through an innovative interdisciplinary approach that integrates the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The programme is intended for recent graduates, professionals, and practitioners, offering the unique opportunity to study at a global university within the framework of the United Nations. It provides students with the knowledge and skills to make important contributions towards solving global issues, whether through employment by UN agencies, other international organizations, governments, civil society, or the private sector.
Type: PhD Scholarship
Selection Criteria and Eligibility
  1. Applicants must be from developing countries who can demonstrate a need for financial assistance.
  2. Applicants who are currently living in Japan under a working visa are NOT eligible for the scholarship.
  3. Applicants who want to pursue a second PhD degree at UNU-IAS are not eligible for the scholarship.
Scholarship benefits: The JFUNU scholarship covers the full tuition fees, and provides a monthly allowance of 150,000 JPY for living expenses for a maximum of 24 months. Travel costs to and from Japan, visa handling fees, and health/accident insurance costs must be covered by the student.
Duration of sponsorship: For the maximum of 24 months
Eligible Countries: Citizens of developing countries  listed in the latest OECD DAC list
To be taken at (country): United Nations University ISP Japan
How to Apply: Apply Online
Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details
Sponsors: The Japan Foundation
Important Notes: Please note that the JFUNU scholarship is highly competitive and offered to a very small number of students who are granted admission to UNU-ISP. Thus, applicants are strongly encouraged to apply for other funding opportunities from the government of their own country, private foundations, or international funding agencies.

Cities of Death: History, Pollution and China’s Smog

Binoy Kampmark

Cities are the monsters of civilization, the accrual of various factors of organisation that stress development and advancement.  The latter two terms are often impossible to gauge except by comparison with other cities or States. We are left with the consequences of these thanatic drives, where life will itself suffer because the better variant of it is supposedly around the corner.
This means the pollution of waterways from the belching efforts of progress. It means dangerously high levels of invasive, cardiovascular threatening dust particles. It means a thriving industry of masks, and a city populace looking distinctly like platoons of bacteriological weapons inspectors. These problems are merely the new, grander manifestations of old.
The human species has been rather expert in the business of pollution for millennia, the epitome of which is the centralising, toxic spilling city.  In May this year, the World Health Organisation released data showing that more than 80 per cent of cities across the globe face prohibitively unhealthy air.  Levels of ultra-fine particles of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5s) were found to be highest in India, a country having 16 of the world’s 30 most polluted cities.[
For all that, the traditional assumption that Homo sapiens only became industrially rapacious to the environment after the nineteenth century, leaving the earth’s atmosphere to its gradual doom, is a neat fallacy. Much of a head start was already being given in the days of antiquity.
Célia Sapart of Utrecht University, along with a team of researchers from the US and Europe numbering 15, found in 2012 that a two-hundred year period between the zenith of the Roman Empire and China’s Han dynasty saw much earlier contributions to greenhouse cases than thought.  In the scheme of things, these anthropogenic stabs at the environment were on a pygmy scale to what took place after 1750 – but the aspiration was already there.
As the team contribution to the journal Nature observed, “Atmospheric methane concentrations have varied on a number of timescales in the past, but what has caused these variations is not always understood.”
What the researchers found in examining 1,600 foot-long ice cores taken from Greenland was that two civilizations were particularly busy on the score of pollutants, with methane being the notable culprit. Large-scale agriculture, and extensive metallurgy around 100 B.C., made their fair share.
As Sapart explained, “The ice core data show that as far back as the time of the Roman Empire, human [activities] emitted enough methane gas to have an impact on the methane signature of the entire atmosphere.”
The Romans of antiquity kept methane producing livestock (goats, sheep, cows) in decent number; the Chinese of the Han period engaged in an expansion of rice production, a process also responsible for the production of methane.
Rates of deforestation “show a decrease around AD 200, which is related to drastic population declines in China and Europe following the fall of the Han Dynasty and the decline of the Roman Empire.”  When human populations fall off, environments, sadly, improve.
No country illustrates these problems better than China. China, assemblage of miracles, growth and the desire to outpace rivals; where things are done to gargantuan scale, often with selective environmental oversight.  The cost to citizens, not to mention their environs, has become telling.
As Greenpeace East Asia notes through the toxic cloud darkly, “Millions of people in China are breathing a hazardous cocktail of chemicals everyday.  These chemicals are caused by coal-fired power plants, factories and vehicles, and are responsible for heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, birth defects and cancer.”
Despite the seemingly dreary nature of the observation, attempts have been made in China to rein in the problem.  Again, treating it as much as a competition as a matter of civic duty, the authorities managed to push numerous cities out of the top 30. The country now only claims to have five in the list.
Well and good, which is what made this month rather jarring.  Stifling, lethal smog engulfed Beijing, and good deal of northern China.  Images of the cities proved to be post-apocalyptic.  Flights were cancelled, highways shut.
In a recent study by researchers at Nanjing University noted in the South China Morning Post, covering 74 cities and the deaths of 3.03 million people recorded in 2013, a staggering 31.8 per cent were attributable to smog.  China’s cities have become death catchments.
The response to this toxic mayhem?  The levying of environmental protection taxes on industry, to commence in 2018.  “Tax revenue,” came the dry statement from the Finance Ministry, “is an important economic means to promote environmental protection.”
The rates, outlined by Reuters, will entail 1.2 yuan ($0.17) per unit of atmospheric pollution, with 1.4 yuan per unit of water pollution, and 5 yuan per tonne of coal waste.  “Hazardous waste” will attract a tax of 1,000 yuan per tonne.
These amounts, or details of the new law, are hardly being delivered from a unified front.  The bureaucrats are fighting acrimonious turf wars, from the State Taxation Administration to the Ministry of Environmental protection.  In this age, it will take far more than levies to reduce the pollution of cities, a problem that was even faced, albeit unsatisfactorily, in Han China and ancient Rome.

Do the Tragedies of Syria Signal the End of Arab Revolutions?

Robert Fisk

Just as the catastrophic Anglo-American invasion of Iraq brought an end to epic Western military adventures in the Middle East, so the tragedy of Syria ensures that there will be no more Arab revolutions. And it’s taken just 13 bloodsoaked years – from 2003 to 2016 – to realign political power. Russia and Iran and the Shia Muslims of the region are now deciding its future; Bashar al-Assad cannot claim victory – but he is winning.
“Aleppo must be taken quickly – before Mosul falls,” a Syrian brigadier announced to me with a wan smile in the country’s army headquarters in Damascus. And it did, scarcely a month later. There were – and still are – little Aleppos all over Syria in which the government and its armed “jihadi” opponents are playing “good guy” and “bad guy”, depending on who is besieging whom. When the Sunni militias end their siege of little Shia towns like Faour, the civilians flock to government lines. It’s reported as a slightly incomprehensible local dispute.
But when the regime’s forces storm into eastern Aleppo, it’s deplored around the world as a war crime. I’ve grown tired of repeating that, yes, war crimes are committed on both sides, and Bashar’s forces are no squeaky clean military cadets – although these days, we have to remember that 42 Royal Marine Commandos were not that squeaky clean in Afghanistan. But the story of Aleppo is still being re-threaded into old loops, the brave but largely “jihadi” defenders disguised as nondescript “rebels”, their opponents compared to Milosevic’s Serb killers or Saddam’s gas-bomb pilots.

All this will soon end. Russia realised that Obama and the weeping liberals of Europe were bluffing about the overthrow of Bashar – who, unlike Putin’s Ukrainian ally in Kiev, did not run away – and backed his army. The Economist made fun of Syrian soldiers because they supposedly couldn’t march in step when Moscow staged a military parade at its Syrian air base. But you don’t have to march like the Wehrmacht to win battles. The Syrian Arab Army – its real name, which is increasingly used, I notice, by the usual mountebanks who pose as “experts” on the satellite channels – boasts that it has fought simultaneously on 80 fronts against Isis, Nusrah and a clutch of other “jihadi” armies (and Free Syrian Army men who changed sides). Which, given the infractions and bulges in front lines, is probably true, but perhaps not a military record to be proud of. It’s one thing to recapture Palmyra from Isis, quite another to lose it to Isis again in the middle of the battle for eastern Aleppo.
Syrian soldiers have a lot of time for their Hezbollah militia allies – who used to turn up on the battlefield better armed than the Syrians themselves – but are less enamoured of the Iranian “advisors” who supposedly know so much about open warfare. I have been present when an Iranian officer called a Syrian general “stupid” – in this case, the Iranian was probably right – but Syrian officers are far more battle-trained and experienced than the Revolutionary Guard from Tehran who have sustained – along with their Afghan and Iraqi Shia allies – far more casualties than they believed possible.
So after almost five years of battle, the Syrian army is still in action. The Nusrah and Isis forces surrounding the government sector of the eastern Syrian city of Deir ez-Zour will almost certainly be its next target — after the retaking of Palmyra, but long before the Isis capital of Raqqa, which will probably be retaken by Washington’s Kurdish allies. And it is the Syrian army which will most likely have to rebuild the new Syria when the war eventually ends. It will certainly decide the future of the country.
That doesn’t mean the overthrow of Bashar. Neither among his official opponents nor his mortal jihadi enemies nor the corrupt and corrupted political opposition in Turkey is there anyone who can challenge him on the ground. Even if they were successful, you can be sure that the same prisons and dungeons in Syria would be in operation within 24 hours to lock up and torture the “new” opposition to a “new” regime. Besides, Vladimir Putin has suffered enough humiliation after Isis’s second success in Palmyra – after the Russians staged a victory concert of peace in the Roman city only a few months ago. He is not going to permit the defenestration of Bashar al-Assad.
Oddly, Western leaders remain stupefyingly unaware of the nature of the real struggle in Syria, and even which warlords they should support. Take the impotent François Hollande, who chose to tell the United Nations in September that Russia and Iran must compel Assad to make peace, because they would otherwise, along with the regime, “bear the responsibility for the division and chaos in Syria”. All well and good. Yet only two months earlier, the same Hollande was demanding “effective action” against the Islamist Nusrah front – among the defenders of Aleppo, although most of us decided not to tell our readers this – on the grounds that Isis was in retreat and Nusrah stood to take advantage of this. “That is beyond dispute,” Hollande pompously remarked of Isis’s “retreat”. That was before the retaking of Palmyra by the same ISIS brigands.
But perhaps Hollande and his European allies – and Washington – are so besotted with their own weak and flawed policies towards Syria (always supposing they can decide what these are), that they do not realise how power moves across battlefields. Instead of whinnying on about Russian brutality and mixing this in with Iranian cruelty and Hezbollah mendacity, they should be taking a close look at the mostly Sunni Muslim Syrian army which has been fighting, from the very start, against its mostly Sunni Muslim “jihadi” enemies. They have always regarded Nusrah – our “allies” in eastern Aleppo, since they are paid by our Gulf chums and armed by us — to be more dangerous than Isis. The Syrian army are right. Here, at least, Hollande must surely agree with their conclusion.
Yet the power of illusion matters more to us. If the West can’t retake Mosul from Isis, they could hardly have stopped the Syrians retaking eastern Aleppo. But they could easily encourage the Western media to concentrate on the beastly Russians in Aleppo rather than the fearful casualties inflicted on America’s allies in Mosul. The reporting on Aleppo these past weeks has sounded much like the accounts of British war correspondents in the First World War. And the Russians could encourage their own tame media to concentrate on the victory at Aleppo rather than defeat at Palmyra. As for Mosul, it’s mysteriously vanished from our news. I wonder why?
And how many died in Palmyra? And, for that matter, how many were really captive in eastern Aleppo? Was it really 250,000? Or was it 100,000? I came across a news report a few weeks ago which gave two overall statistics for fatalities in the entire Syrian war: 400,000; then, a few paragraphs later, 500,000 Well, which is it? I’m always reminded of the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam in 1940 when the Allies announced that 30,000 civilians had been killed. For years, this was the authentic figure. Then after the war, it turned out that the real figure – though terrible enough — was only around 900, 33 times less than the official version. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, what Syria’s statistics really are?
And if we can’t get those right, what are we doing interfering in the Syrian war? Not that it matters. Russia is back in the Middle East. Iran is securing its political semi-circle of Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut. And if the Gulf Arabs – or the Americans – want to reinvolve themselves, they can chat to Putin. Or to Assad.

Russia’s Search for a New Ground in Pakistan

Adarsh Vijay



Russia is all set to rebuild its relations with Pakistan, a move that could be a game-changer for both Pakistan and South Asia. Given the dynamic strategic parameters in South Asia and a policy transition that might overcome the long drawn US-Russia Cold War rivalry that had also disconnected Russia from Pakistan, Moscow is now busy resetting the balance of power in South Asia. What induces this new attitude? Does the move lead to derail the Russian proximity with India? Is Moscow making a wrong choice?
 
Pakistan: Russia’s Emerging Imperative
The Russian experiment with Pakistan is purely a product of Moscow’s emerging strategic calculus. Moscow's move could also be read as a sign of proscribing the growing rapprochement between Washington and New Delhi. Through this move, Kremlin seems to be signaling to India to reconsider its increasing camaraderie with the US and to re-tilt relations in Russia's favour.
 
Moscow's refusal to call off its first-ever bilateral military exercise with Pakistan on India’s request, following the terrorist attack on the military base in Uri in September 2016, revealed the change in Moscow’s psyche. In another instance of this change, at the Heart of Asia conference held in Amritsar, India, on 3 and 4 December 2016, the Russian Envoy disapproved of branding Pakistan as a “terrorism-sponsoring state.” Similarly at the October 2016 BRICS Summit in Goa, India, Russian President Vladimir Putin made no mention of Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism which India had specifically emphasised upon at the meeting.

However, Moscow’s policy is also indicative of the vitality it associates to Islamabad’s cooperation in the efforts to stabilise Afghanistan. Kabul’s stability is an add-on to peace in Central Asia. Russia’s hunt for sprawling markets in the region to sell Russian-manufactured goods is threatened by the political instability and the dangerous security situation in Afghanistan. While Pakistan will play an indispensable role in the Afghan peace process, Russia can also take Pakistan’s help to leverage its commercial linkages in the region in the long run.

Is Moscow at Cross-purposes with New Delhi?
Russia is wise enough not to keep India in abeyance. Yet, the rapprochement between Moscow and Islamabad will create apprehensions for New Delhi. However, Russia remains India’s largest arms supplier and so long as this relationship thrives, Russo-Indian ties might still remain strong. The recently concluded Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) between Washington and New Delhi has been a wake-up call for Moscow. The agreement gives the US access to some of India’s military facilities, including air and sea port establishments, for refueling and replenishment to meet logistical needs. It similarly gives the Indian military access to some US military facilities for the same purpose. To Kremlin, the LEMOA with India reflects the US’ intentions for containing both Russia and China in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
 
In a hypothetical scenario in which India moves into the American sphere of influence and distances itself from Russia, it would be critical for Moscow to ensure a strong foothold in the IOR. The new template has invoked a sense of caution for New Delhi. Moscow is clear about the fact that the Russian proximity with Pakistan would serve an alarm for India. This new strategic layout might synergise the traditional amity between India and Russia, which obviously realigns US-India relations.
 
Pakistan: The Emerging Balancer?
Pakistan’s leverage in South Asia grows through its "all-weather friendship" with China and ties with the US, and now with the Russian rapprochement. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has offered Pakistan a strong economic and political fall-back in the event of deteriorating relations with the US.
 
Russia is likely to empower Pakistan with a higher degree of strategic autonomy in its relations than the US does. Apart from the recent joint military exercises, Islamabad had also been working on finalising the procurement of Su-35 aircrafts from Moscow. Interestingly, a Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation statement denied any negotiations in this direction. In spite of this setback, Islamabad managed to clinch the deal for the delivery of four Mi-35 attack helicopters from Moscow. Although Russia has dismissed claims of secret negotiations with Pakistan for joining the CPEC, Russia would still be interested in accessing the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, given that Russia is mostly surrounded by cold waters. Kremlin’s interest in linking the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) project with the Chinese Silk Road was misinterpreted as Russia’s claim to be part of the CPEC. It is to be seen whether the ‘rumours’ about the Russian interest and stakes in the economic corridor would indeed materialise.
 
The complex setting in which South Asia operates makes this evolving Russia-Pakistan relationship an unpredictable one. The US President-elect, Donald Trump, has already hinted at a pro-Russian attitude and the new US administration might even soften Moscow’s perception of the US-India relations. Nonetheless, it is perhaps premature to analyse the exact nature of the emerging Russian endeavours in Pakistan and their repercussions. Even then, it would only be a relief for New Delhi if Islamabad does not indeed substitute it as Moscow's South Asian friend.

Sri Lankan Foreign Policy: Diaspora and Lobbying

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera



No foreign policy - no matter how ingenious - has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.”

Henry A Kissinger

7 December this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Pearl Harbour attack – a reminder of a history of imperialism and fascism, and how the world order moved toward bipolarity with the onset of the Cold War. Now, China and many other countries, some with nuclear weapons capabilities, are emerging as the new powers in a multipolar world. According to Professor Amitav Acharya of the School of International Service, American University, "a multi-polar world includes many powerful individual groups apart from governments." The US however remains a superpower. Its foreign policy could undergo dramatic adjustments with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. His recent phone call to the Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen - not a standard practice since 1979 - has hinted at this change.

In a threatened neo-liberal world order, Sri Lanka should craft its foreign policy to suit the international environment of the day. Sri Lanka was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). During the period when smaller nations had to commit allegiance to either the US or the Soviet Union, Sri Lanka’s first women Prime Minister, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, showed courageous leadership to the world, and her foreign policy was guided by a combination of interests, values and power.  

Today too, President Sirisena’s government has balanced the country’s relations with the west and the east. The Asia-centric foreign policy spelled out by the president clearly prioritises relations with Asia while balancing the rest. Sri Lanka has a policy of equidistance with global powers including India, China and the US. While gaining support from foreign governments, the Sri Lankan government should also reach out to the three million-strong Sri Lankan diaspora, which includes Sinhalese, Tamils and other ethnic groups who live overseas. 

The term ‘lobby’ in this case implies a loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to achieve a positive outcome for their nation of birth. A lobby might not be a unified movement with a central leadership, and individuals within the coalition might also disagree on certain issues. Certain sections of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora are still engaged in lobbying for a separate homeland, ‘Eelam’. A diaspora has the ability to maneouvre the nation’s policy so that it advances their interests. Voting for candidates, writing and commenting, making financial contributions and supporting individuals who could contribute to achieve their goals are among the diasporas’ key functionalities. 

Sri Lanka’s diaspora is pivotal for three reasons. First, a Sri Lankan diaspora that is re-aligned with the county helps to project the country’s positive image. What is therefore required is a re-alignment strategy that opens strong communication channels for whoever is disconnected from Sri Lanka for various reasons. Second, the diaspora could act as a powerful lobby, hitherto an untapped asset. Third, the diaspora could contribute to economic prosperity if Sri Lanka opens its doors to expatriates with professional expertise to join the ailing government enterprises and assist other sectors of the economy and to bring investments.

To benefit from the support and strength of the diaspora, Sri Lanka can learn a lot from Israel. The Israeli diaspora is a much larger and powerful group that receives huge donations and assistance from the US. This diaspora also acts as a lobby group and exerts influence on US foreign policy. The Chicago School scholar, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen M Walt of Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School, have brilliantly explained this in their book, ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’: “Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.” 

The overseas Indian diaspora is yet another example of a group that contributes immensely to the Indian economy, especially through the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Indians account for the second largest student population in the US, after the Chinese. 

The Sri Lankan diaspora too can become a positive force. The communal riots in Sri Lanka’s history led to a brain drain. Even today, many youngsters are leaving the country because of political uncertainty and weak economic conditions. The emigrating population is in fact a loss of wealth and resource for the nation. The diaspora should be transformed into a valuable lobby group instead of spending millions on lobby firms. 

It is important for Sri Lanka to take strategic steps in readjusting its foreign policy in a multipolar world, and these steps should include an important role for the Sri Lankan diaspora. Rather than wasting resources on projects like building the tallest Christmas tree in the world and re-painting the yellow pedestrian crossing lines to white in the name of beautifying cities, it is important to focus on critical issues facing the common people and the nation.

24 Dec 2016

ISIS and the Far Right: a Joint Assault on Multicultural Countries

Robert Fisk

There is something infinitely naive in our pursuit of the identity of those behind the massacres which Isis is committing in Europe. Yes, we need to know the names. Sure, we need to know what their wives or parents thought. Did they know? How did the perpetrator of Monday’s Berlin truck killings communicate with Isis? Or did he merely imbibe their political instruction manual? After the Bataclan mass murders and the lorry slaughter in Nice, we asked the same questions.
But we didn’t bother to ask what Isis was trying to do. Was it a tactic of ‘terror’ – ‘terror’ being the pejorative word that enables us to avoid all rational thought in the aftermath of any bloodbath – or a strategy, a thought-through political attempt to produce a profound crisis in the societies of western Europe.
And the simple answer is that it was a strategy. The ‘grey zone’, a phrase invented by Isis almost two years ago, first made its appearance in the group’s French-language publications, obviously intended for those Muslims who make up perhaps 10 per cent of the population of France – the nation with the largest number of Muslims in Europe. Isis wanted to eliminate ‘the grey zone’ which it identified as those western – ‘Crusader’, ‘Christian’, etc – countries with a large Muslim immigrant community. Muslims should revolt against their European nations (or their host nations, if not actually citizens) and create conflict within the countries.
The intention was to provoke European states to “persecute” the Muslims within their frontiers in acts of reprisal for the mass killing of Western Europeans – presumably non-Muslim – civilians. In fact, it didn’t matter to Isis if their victims were Muslims – since the latter were mere ‘apostates’ who had accommodated to non-Muslim societies and adapted to their secular rules for economic or political advantage. In a mass flight from the vengeful ‘Crusaders’, according to a French edition of ‘Dabiq’ in early 2015, the Muslims of Europe would migrate to the Caliphate of the Islamic State” and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.”
In other words, they wished to provoke the non-Muslim people of Europe to reject their millions of Muslim fellow-citizens. An uprising among Isis followers – however few – would produce mass murder by the ‘Christians’ of Europe. That was – and obviously still is – the strategy. And it has had some success. The rise of far-right parties in both western and eastern Europe has a strong anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant detonation, and the hunt for political power by those who wish to discriminate against Muslims (or ‘persecute’ them) has been fueled by mass killings carried out in Isis’ name. Thus Angela Merkel, the angel of the one million refugees who sought sanctuary in Europe last year, is herself now dressing in the dark robes of Mephistopheles (by objecting, ironically, to the dark robes worn by Muslim women). Faustus, of course, was a character of German folklore long before Christopher Marlowe wrote about him.
It took years, and the terror assaults by the Germans which they had used in eastern Europe, before armed resistance to their rule became a serious problem for Nazi occupiers. And today’s western Europeans, however much the right may try to earn their votes with their anti-Muslim hatred, are not Nazis – much as Isis may wish them to be. The ‘Crusaders’ ceased to exist six hundred years ago. Millions of Muslims cannot be turned into ‘apostates’ because Isis identifies them as such. They wish to live in Europe.
Besides, the Muslims of the Islamic world had their chance of joining the Isis Caliphate last year. They could have walked, marched or trekked across the deserts to Raqqa and Mosul to join the ‘Caliph’ al-Baghdadi. But they didn’t. Instead, they took the train to Germany. Which remains the greatest defeat Isis has suffered in more than two years. Europeans can maintain that defeat by turning away from those of their non-Muslim fellow citizens – in effect Isis’ allies – who advance a policy of revenge and racism.

Syria, Russia and American Desperation

Margaret Kimberley

It is no coincidence that anti-Russian propaganda is being ramped up at the same moment the Syrian government is poised to retake its country from terrorists. Barack Obama and the rest of the war party are left to sputter nonsensical statements because their grand plan to realize the neocon Project for a New American Century is in very big trouble.
The American corporate media ignored the suffering of Syrians in the city of Aleppo until their captivity was broken by the Syrian Arab Army. Ever since 2012 ISIS and other terrorist groups sponsored by the United States, NATO, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have held thousands of people hostage there. Turks picked the region apart, raiding Syrian factories and transporting them piece by piece back to their country.
Now that the Syrians are retaking the city with the help of their Russian and Hezbollah allies, there is a steady stream of news about the Aleppo. All of it is meant to pull at the heart strings of uninformed people as the human rights industrial complex reliably goes about its dirty work. Human Rights Watch and other groups who work to promote United States foreign policy speak endlessly about war crimes. They didn’t say much when America’s allies were terrorizing Syrians but now they suddenly point fingers and always at the people who run afoul of regime change plans.
The five year-long effort to destroy the Syrian state has produced many victims in that country and it always threatened to spark a larger international conflict. The assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey could be such a moment. The gunman’s last words and obviously his actions were a call to jihad. Even one hundred years later the 1914 assassination in Sarajevo is not far from memory.
But the United States is the principal actor in this drama. None of the other nations involved in this crime would have acted absent American direction. All of the casualties, the sieges, the hunger and the frantic search for refuge can be placed at America’s feet. So too the death of the Russian ambassador. This international tangle is covered with American finger prints.
The Syrian government is determined to take back its country and the Americans and their allies are equally determined to thwart it. The recent successes of the Syrian army explain part of the desperation coming from Obama, the Democratic Party and corporate media. Blaming Russia kills several birds with one stone. It continues the propaganda war against a country that will not knuckle under and accept American hegemony. The hyper Russophobia was also an attempt to make the unpalatable and incompetent Hillary Clinton more appealing. And its continuation is being used by Democrats and Republicans to stop the incoming president from having any chance to improve relations with that country or curtail the regime change doctrine. The war party never sleeps.
Barack Obama’s last press conference was replete with lies and insults aimed at Russia and Vladimir Putin. He should have been embarrassed to say that Russia was “smaller,” “weaker” and “doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms.” He completed his bizarre rant by saying that Putin was “the former head of the KGB.” He was no such thing and of course Obama knows that. It isn’t clear if he expected anyone to believe him or if facing his failure carried him away to heights of rhetorical foolishness.
Obama thought that Hillary Clinton would win and complete his regime change plans. Not only did she lose and deprive him of his third term but the hollowness of his legacy is clear. Obviously “hope and change” was a marketing tag line meant to hide his commitment to the world wide neoliberal project.
Donald Trump will be president of the United States in just four weeks. That is a short period of time in which to pull off a soft coup. He will be inaugurated but team Obama want to make sure he cannot upend the status quo they work so hard to uphold.
While the Democratic Party rank and file are anxious about racism, immigration, Islamophobia, judicial appointees and voter suppression their leaders only care about maintaining imperialism. Obama and the rest of the democratic party are unworthy of the loyalty they engender. On January 20th thousands of people will head to Washington to protest Trump while the Democrats will be making last ditch efforts to help jihadists destroy Syria.
Some of the protesters ought to target their ire at Obama and the Democrats and not just because of their electoral failure. They ought to pledge an end to support for warmongering Democrats altogether. If it is true that Trump is a fascist he won’t be the first one in the White House. His predecessor fits that description just as well. But events may have spun out of his control. The fate of Syria may not be in American hands any longer. And that is why the desperation is so evident.