10 Jan 2017

Devastating HIV epidemic hits Russia

Clara Weiss

A quarter century after the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, an HIV epidemic, closely bound up with massive heroin consumption, is raging in Russia. It is a devastating indictment of the social catastrophe that was brought about by the restoration of capitalism.
According to Vadim Pokrovski, head of the Federal AIDS Centre in Moscow, around 850,000 Russians were diagnosed with HIV at the beginning of 2016. Another 220,000 have died of AIDS since the late 1980s. He estimates that another half-million Russians are infected, but not diagnosed, with HIV. An estimated 100,000 were newly infected in 2016.
This is by far the highest rate in Europe and constitutes almost 1 percent of the total population of Russia. The HIV epidemic has reached bigger dimensions only in sub-Saharan Africa. The development in Russia is contrary to the international trend: According to data by UNAIDS, the worldwide number of new HIV infections declined by 6 percent since 2010. Even in Africa, while the infection rate is still high, the epidemic is not spreading. By contrast, the number of new infections in the former USSR rose dramatically by 57 percent.
In several regions, HIV is now officially recognised as having reached the stage of an epidemic, with more than 1 percent of the population infected. This includes the oblast Sverdlov, where some 1.7 percent of the population have HIV, as well as the oblasts Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Cheliabinsk, Samara, Irkutsk, Perm and Krasnoiarsk.
Most of these regions were important centres of Soviet industry. In some areas up to 5 percent, often men between age 20 and 40, are HIV-positive, according to the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. Russian Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova has warned that the epidemic might get out of control by 2020, with the number of infected possibly rising by up to 250 percent.
The spread of the virus is made easier by the fact that there is little to no education about HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in schools and the public sphere. However, a more significant factor for this horrendous number of sick is the heroin epidemic that has been raging in the country since the 1990s.
The great majority of new HIV infections—54 percent according to official data, others estimate up to two thirds—are a result of the use of infected needles. Most people who are HIV-positive were or still are addicted to heroin. According to UNAIDS, in 2013 1.8 million Russians were injecting drug users, more than in any other country in the world.
The medical journal The Lancet reported that 90 percent of those drug users are also infected with hepatitis C and 24.6 percent of them with HIV. Although Russia’s population of 146 million comprises only 1.9 percent of the world’s total population, the country accounted for a third of the world’s total heroin deaths in 2010 (30,000). The Federal Agency for Drug Control reported that annually about 90,000 young people aged 15 to 34 die of drug overdoses. There are a total of between 8 and 9 million drug addicts in Russia, according to official numbers.
Given that many heroin addicts learn only later about their HIV infection, thousands of children are born every year with HIV, as their mothers cannot take the needed medication in time during their pregnancy to prevent the infection.
Even though the massive drug consumption has been recognised by the Kremlin as a problem—in 2009, the then incumbent president Dmitri Medvedev declared drug abuse a “threat to national security”—neither the sources nor the consequences are being seriously combatted. The reason is that this horrendous drug epidemic is a result of capitalist restoration, the social and historical basis for the ruling oligarchy.
The consumption of heroin exploded in the 1990s under conditions of a catastrophic social crisis. The scale of the socioeconomic disaster that hit millions of workers and youth virtually overnight is still difficult to grasp. The Russian GDP collapsed by around 40 percent, more than during the Great Depression in the US in the 1930s. The last time a similar economic breakdown occurred in Russia was during the Nazi war against the Soviet Union.
The hyperinflation, which amounted to 10,000 percent between 1991 and 1995, threw broad layers of the working and middle classes into extreme poverty. While a small layer of former Stalinist bureaucrats and rising criminals shamelessly enriched themselves, and mafia turf wars raged over the control of the raw material resources of the country, millions of workers could feed their families only by growing their own food or searching for it in the forest. Life expectancy declined dramatically, particularly for men, and the rates of child mortality and suicides rose rapidly. Between 1991 and 2015, an estimated 1 million Russians ended their lives with suicide.
Especially industrial centres like Yekaterinburg in the Urals and the “mono towns”—industrial cities that had been built around one or a few enterprises—were socially devastated. Workers on a regular basis had to work for months without receiving their salary, or only a portion of it. Unemployment, virtually unknown in the USSR, became a serious social problem for millions of families. In the countryside, people witnessed how the destruction of the kolkhoz (collective farm) system resulted in a collapse in agricultural production and the entire social infrastructure.
The social crisis was complemented by a political one: decades of Stalinism and its eventual collapse left the working class politically disoriented and without a perspective. The generation of 15- to 35-years-old, who are now forming the bulk of drug addicts and HIV-infected, grew up under these conditions of social devastation and political disorientation. The drugs have become the desperate response of millions to a situation where they lack any social and political perspective.
Access to heroin has been relatively easy in Russia since the 1990s. Neighbouring Afghanistan, destabilised by the war in the 1970s, became the centre of international drug trafficking and is now producing around 90 percent of all heroin produced worldwide. Given the short transport route, the substance was relatively cheap. Moreover, significant sections of the state apparatus, especially the police, were and still are involved in drug trafficking.
Experts estimate that over 40 percent of Russian GDP is still a result of the shadow economy, which comprises, apart from illegal profits from the energy sector, human and drug trafficking as well as prostitution.
Since the early 2000s, a highly poisonous heroin substitute has been spreading called “Crocodile.” It can be produced based on simple ingredients that anyone could buy in a pharmacy. Estimates put the number of those addicted to Crocodile since 2002 between 1 and 3 million. Their average life expectancy upon addiction does not exceed one year, and the death is usually extremely painful, as the drug corrodes the inner organs of the addict.
The government forbid the ingredients that were used to produce Crocodile in 2012, leading to a slight decline of the official numbers of addicts. However, the drug has now found its way to western Europe, Latin America and the US, where a heroin epidemic has developed as well in recent years due to the extreme social crisis.
At the same time, there are few countries where it is as difficult to rid one’s self of addiction as it is in Russia. This is, first of all, the result of the continuing social crisis, which has even worsened since the beginning of the Western sanctions in 2014. Second, the health care system, chronically underfinanced since the 1990s, offers almost no help to addicts.
According to the Moscow Times, in 2015 there were no more than four state institutions nationwide for the treatment of drug addiction, with a total number of places of just 200. The therapy of heroin addiction on the basis of methadone—internationally recognised as one of the most effective and least painful therapies for heroin addicts—is forbidden in Russia.

Over 100 inmates killed in wave of Brazilian prison massacres

Miguel Andrade

The new year has been marked by a series of prison riots in Brazil’s far north, with at least 102 inmates killed by other prisoners in highly coordinated acts. The first massacre on January 2 involved a 17-hour prison riot in the city of Manaus, capital of the Amazonas state, and ended with the slaughter of 56 inmates in a gang battle.
At least 27 of the victims were decapitated by riot leaders. The police reportedly kept away from ending the riots until prisoners had negotiated a settlement, ostensibly in order to avoid another tragedy like the infamous Carandiru riot in which São Paulo’s Military Police slaughtered 111 inmates in 1992.
Another riot at the nearby Purarequara Prisonal Unit (UPP) left four dead. More than 200 prisoners are thought to have escaped from both complexes in a simultaneous prison break.
On January 4 a third riot resulted in two deaths by firearm during fights between inmates. Later, on early Friday, January 6, a fourth inmate riot resulted in the murder of another 33 inmates in the Monte Cristo Rural Penitentiary, in Boa Vista, the capital of the neighboring Roraima state.
A fifth riot left four dead in the Manaus prison, which had received prisoners who survived the January 2 massacre and were believed to have been involved in the first attack.
The wave of massacres exposes the criminal character of the Brazilian government’s war on drugs, which is aimed at the country’s overwhelmingly impoverished population. The government has sought to cover up the true cause of the massacres: illegal and inhumane conditions for inmates in the country’s overcrowded prison system.
The Raimundo Vidal Pessoa jail, where the third massacre took place, had been deactivated in December 2016 by order of the oversight National Justice Council for human rights violations.
Federal authorities initially believed the Manaus riot was executed in order to cover up the murder of members of the criminal Capital’s First Command (PCC) group, based in southeastern São Paulo. The PCC is South America’s largest drug trafficking gang.
Under this theory, the massacres were part of a latent crime war which escalated dramatically last June when PCC “soldiers” murdered Jorge Rafaat Toumani, the drug lord of Brazil’s border region with Paraguay, in a fight over control of drug routes leading from the Andes to ports connecting to European drug markets.
In the Manaus and Roraima cases, abundant evidence showed the “gang war” theory to be unlikely. The local public attorney’s offices, charities and human rights organizations and family members of the dead have been quick to dismiss the authorities’ claims, pointing out that many dead were not related to the PCC or the FDN but were sexual crime convicts, a particularly endangered population of inmates usually subjected to “crime tribunals” inside the prisons in the name of “crime morality.” The state and federal governments have later admitted that at least half of the dead had no connection to the warring factions.
The government adopted this “gang war” theory to wash their hands of any responsibility for the particularly horrifying circumstances of yet another prison massacre in Brazil. The routine character of prison violence in the country is certainly one of the most brutalizing features of the country’s social life, conditioned in every aspect by its vast social inequality.
The COMPAJ compound holds three times its nominal capacity of 450 inmates, a figure above the already dire national average of 100 percent of overpopulation. Brazil has a total of 620,000 inmates, the world’s fourth largest prison population. According to Folha de S. Paulo, just last October, the National Justice Council (CNJ) found the prison “terrible for any attempt at rehabilitation, with no education, health care, social assistance or legal council for inmates,” an also routine conclusion of prison inspections. The COMPAJ is also a “pioneering experiment” of private management that the Michel Temer government declared as early as August 2016 should be expanded, according to O Globo.
The Roraima prison holds twice its capacity of 750 inmates, and had been visited in May 2016 by the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB). Among the most barbaric conditions found were open sewage systems and a virtual absence of health care. After the riot on Friday, a Folha de S. Paulo reporting team found that the so-called “kitchen wing” had been destroyed by a fire several years before and rebuilt as a shantytown, generating “private rights” over “rebuilt” cells under the gang-imposed “crime code” that dominates many prisons, creating further sources of conflicts among desperate inmates. The shantytown cubicles were reportedly sold to other inmates by those who were freed.
This dire picture extends all over the country. It is estimated that 40 percent of inmates in Brazil have not yet been convicted, being in indefinite “provisional” detention, a number almost the size of the prison overpopulation. According to OAB, in the case of the Roraima prison, a staggering 940 inmates are in “provisional” detention, and 180 of them have never even made a deposition on the circumstances of their arrests.
The most immediate reason for the overcrowding would be, according to a survey by the G1 news station, the approval in 2006 of the Drug Law that formalized Brazil’s “war on drugs.” Ostensibly designed to allow for the differentiation of drug trafficking and possession, it ended up increasing almost fivefold, from 31,000 to 138,000, the number of drug trafficking-related imprisonments.
The main mechanism for this massive repressive operation was the allowing in a large part for the corrupt, murderous and bigoted Military Police corps of each state to determine whether trafficking or possession was involved in any particular arrest. In 2015, G1 quoted the former National Justice Secretary Pedro Abramovay as admitting that the “detention for drug-related crimes are today a mechanism for criminalizing poverty.”
The appeal of these demagogic practices was further evidenced by the treatment given to the families of the dead who were left waiting for many days for news of the inmates and were subjected to a campaign of lies about the behavior, legal situation and conditions of the inmates.
Repressive policies responsible for mass incarceration are nonetheless set to deepen under the Temer presidency, the most right-wing in Brazil since the end of the US-backed military dictatorship. Temer’s justice minister, Alexandre de Moraes, infamously declared in a press conference in August 2016 that the country needed “less research and more weapons” to fight crime, in a reference to the toothless involvement of social sciences experts in security policies during the Workers Party (PT) governments of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff.
The declaration followed his nomination as justice minister after two years as head of São Paulo’s Military Police, the deadliest in the country, which kills more people per year than all police departments in the United States combined, despite the fact that the US has 7.5 times more people than São Paulo.
Moraes’s immediate response to the massacre was to announce the construction of new prisons to room 30,000 inmates and to suggest a law to make it more difficult for inmates to obtain probation.
Moraes’s actions are only part of an unfolding assault on democratic rights after the right-wing campaign that removed Rousseff. In late September 2016, a regional appeals court in São Paulo annulled the sentences of 74 police officers found guilty of murder in the 1992 Carandiru prison massacre, the deadliest in the country’s history.

Brexit deepens existential crisis of UK and European Union

Chris Marsden

Prime Minister Theresa May used her first interview of the New Year with Sky News to fend off criticisms of her government for having no plan over how to leave the European Union (EU) or for post-Brexit Britain.
She stated that her overarching concern would be to insist on ending free movement of EU labour even if this clashes with securing access to the single market. However, she then claimed that her demands for “control of our borders, control of our laws” would be met while securing the best possible trade deal with the EU. There was no “binary choice.”
Her statements failed to convince speculators, who fear a “hard Brexit,” leading to a drop in the pound to a two month low. By mid-afternoon, the pound fell 1.1 percent against the dollar and 1.23 percent against the euro.
May’s remarks were prompted by the January 3 resignation of the UK’s ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, a close supporter of May’s predecessor David Cameron who is in favour of Britain retaining EU membership.
Rogers left his post after sending a letter to other top civil servants urging them to challenge “ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking” and to “speak truth to power.” He did so on the eve of May’s expected triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty initiating Brexit, and in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on the government’s appeal over parliament needing to vote on doing so.
May has indicated that she will outline her “vision for Britain outside of the EU” in a major speech later this month timed around the Supreme Court verdict. The Daily Telegraph cited a minister declaring, "She needs to make clear that Britain is prepared to leave the single market or they [the EU] will try to screw us down.”
Prior to May’s intervention, the UK media was filled with reports stressing that predictions of economic disaster post-Brexit made during the June 23 referendum campaign were exaggerated and have been refuted by the performance in the economy in key sectors including manufacturing, construction and services.
The Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane went so far as to declare that “the economics profession is to some degree in crisis... In terms of many of the real things like pay and jobs, not much happened in course of last year, it was pretty much business as usual.”
This semi-official debate between the rival wings of the bourgeoisie in reality shows a crisis of political perspective in ruling circles that also, by constant repetition, serves as a means of disarming workers as to what they now face.
In reality, the New Year saw reports pointing out that “business as usual” for workers means wage cuts. Income growth in 2017 is projected to not keep pace with inflation, continuing a six-year pattern. Average earnings fell 9 percent between just 2008 and 2013. The rise in household consumption is fuelled almost wholly by growing personal debt, with each household now owing a record amount of £12,887, even before mortgages are taken into account.
More fundamentally, the broader political and economic situation facing Europe in the aftermath of Brexit and, of yet greater significance, the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, is dire and dangerous.
The row over what relationship the UK will have with the EU takes place under conditions where its very survival is threatened. This is the source of constant discussion within the EU’s own specialist publications and the continent’s ruling elites.
Brexit was not the cause, but an expression of the growth of national antagonisms between the major European powers under the impact of the growing economic crisis and the bitter competition between rival powers this feeds. In similar fashion, Brexit and the turn to “America First” policies by Trump have spurred on the growth of right-wing nationalist movements who exploit popular hostility to the EU and its austerity policies—most importantly in France with the far right National Front.
To these developments must be added the growing possibility that Italy may be forced out of the EU as a result of its banking crisis. Forbes business magazine warned that this could end in the break-up of the EU, which would be “a geopolitical disaster. All the demons that have been bottled up since [World War II] would be let loose.”
This warning was reinforced by Horst Teltschik, national security advisor to former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. “European integration was the peacemaking response of the Europeans to the catastrophe of two world wars,” he said. “We are witnessing an erosion of the EU with the euro crisis, with Brexit and the emergence of populist movements in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria or Italy and the authoritarian Eastern neighbours, especially in Poland, Hungary, Romania.”
He concluded by asking, “Should a core Europe go ahead? Suddenly, a defensive union is being discussed again, without a common foreign and security policy within sight...”
The combined idea of a “core Europe” and accelerated militarisation now dominates discussion in Germany. Most recently, writing in Project Syndicate, Joschka Fischer of the German Greens insisted that the EU faces the danger of disintegration “under the neo-nationalist wave sweeping the West.”
Trump, “an exponent of the new nationalism, does not believe in European integration,” he continued. He has an “ally in Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long tried to destabilize the EU by supporting nationalist forces and movements in its member states” and “continues to call into question America’s security guarantee for Europe.”
With NATO no longer to be trusted to respond to Russia’s efforts to reassert its “hegemony” over Eastern Europe, “Europe can credibly strengthen its security only if France and Germany work together toward the same goal... The old EU developed into an economic power because it was protected beneath the US security umbrella. But without this guarantee, it can address its current geopolitical realities only by developing its own capacity to project political and military power.”
What becomes ever clearer is that all efforts to encourage workers to back one or other capitalist camp within the UK—over for or against the EU—only facilitate the ongoing preparations for trade war and military conflict.
This is the essential political result of the activities of Britain’s pseudo-left groups—both those such as the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party which lined workers and youth up behind calls for a “Left Leave” vote in the June referendum and those such as Left Unity and Socialist Resistance which called for a Remain vote while spreading illusions that the EU can be reformed.
At its Third National Congress last October, the Socialist Equality Party passed a resolution, “For a new socialist movement against militarism, austerity and war,” which drew out the significance of our call for an active boycott in the referendum.
We explained that the SEP “was alone in advancing an independent political perspective for the working class” and that our “starting point was to define a policy that upheld the interests not only of workers in Britain, but in Europe and internationally.”
The SEP warned that the referendum was only the “most advanced expression of the failure of the post-Second World War project of European unification through which the ruling elites had sought to resolve the fundamental contradiction that had twice in the 20th century plunged the continent into war—between the integrated character of European and global production and the division of the continent into antagonistic nation states.”
We stressed, “The EU is breaking apart and cannot be revived. It is only through the creation of the United Socialist States of Europe, established as an integral component of a world federation of socialist states, that the vast productive forces of the continent can be utilised for the benefit of all’.”
The adoption of this perspective provides the essential response of the working class to the ever-deeper descent into social savagery and war.

US-Russian tensions sharpen over Syria

Jordan Shilton

A report in the Wall Street Journal yesterday reveals the highly explosive geopolitical situation that persists in Syria, notwithstanding the Russian and Turkish-brokered ceasefire earlier this month. The article notes that US and Russian warplanes frequently threaten to collide with each other in the skies above Syria and cites unnamed US officials who describe the region as an “international incident waiting to happen.”
According to the Journal, between 50 and 75 planes and unmanned drones from various countries operate in and around the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqa, while up to150 are regularly in the skies over Mosul in northern Iraq, where a US-backed offensive to recapture the city from ISIS has forced tens of thousands of civilians from their homes and led to large numbers of deaths.
While the Journal article attempts to pin the blame chiefly on Russia for a number of close calls between fighter jets, it is forced to acknowledge that the most serious incident over recent months was triggered by US warplanes. In mid September, during the first week of a ceasefire deal agreed between Moscow and Washington, US planes targeted a Syrian army position in Deir Ezzour in a move which effectively torpedoed the agreement. The air strike permitted Islamic State militants to attack the Syrian army position, which was well known to the US.
On Sunday, US forces conducted a rare ground raid in eastern Syria with the official aim of capturing ISIS operatives for interrogation. The special forces troops of the Expeditionary Targeting Force, which is based in Iraq, spent 90 minutes on the ground near Deir Ezzour, according to the Washington Post, and engaged in a fire fight with ISIS militants aimed at capturing unnamed leading personnel.
Reports diverged significantly on the number of casualties, with the US army claiming only two ISIS suspects were killed, while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based group affiliated with the anti-Assad opposition, alleged up to 25 ISIS militants had been slain.
Importantly, the article noted that the Pentagon normally keeps such operations secret and only confirmed the latest raid after a local activist web site reported on it. President Obama has substantially increased the numbers of special forces troops deployed to Iraq and Syria over recent months.
Washington’s deployment of ground forces demonstrates the readiness of the ruling elite to significantly intensify US involvement in Syria in a bid to uphold its predatory geopolitical and economic interests in the wake of the debacle suffered by the US-backed opposition in Aleppo. While incoming President Donald Trump has made vague pledges to improve relations with Russia so as to be in a better position to more directly confront China, the reality on the ground in Syria is that Washington and Moscow remain perilously close to a direct military conflagration that would quickly escalate into a broader regional war with the potential for the deployment of nuclear weapons.
The information on the US raid came to light the same day as it emerged that Russian aircraft have begun bombing Islamic State positions in northern Syria in support of a Turkish offensive near the town of al-Bab. Ankara is aiming to take control of the strategically-important location ahead of a coalition of Kurdish forces led by the YPG, which is backed by the United States and affiliated with the Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (PYD). Control over al-Bab would have broader significance for the impending assault on Raqqa, ISIS’ de facto capital in Syria.
A Monday article in the New York Times, which has assumed a leading role in the anti-Russian propaganda campaign, noted the increased cooperation between Moscow and Ankara with concern. “The deepening ties threaten to marginalize the United States in the struggle to shape Syria’s ultimate fate,” the newspaper warned, before going on to point out that Turkey’s recent offensive began without coordination with the United States and without assistance from US air strikes. The paper suggested that the Kremlin had decided to accommodate itself to Turkish advances in northern Syria, provided that Ankara does not openly confront the Assad regime.
In a move that sharply increases the likelihood of a clash in the area, Turkey reversed its initial opposition to US drones and aircraft flying over al-Bab to gather intelligence last week. This means American and Russian planes will now be flying in close proximity to each other over the town in pursuit of ever more explicitly conflicting goals. Even a minor mishap, let alone a deliberate escalation of the conflict from either side, could provide the trigger for a devastating expansion of the war with catastrophic consequences for the region’s beleaguered population.
The US raid coincided with renewed criticism of Russia by outgoing Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. He blasted Russia for doing “virtually zero” in the fight against ISIS. He went on to declare that Russia’s involvement in Syria “almost certainly made the ending of the Syrian civil war harder” because the Kremlin had failed to “help Assad move aside gently” and “bring the moderate opposition into the Syrian government.”
Carter then went on to make clear what he expected of a Trump administration in relation to Russia. Citing as fact the unsubstantiated allegations of Russian hacking of the Democratic Party in the lead-up to November’s presidential election, Carter said of the type of response that should be adopted, “I don’t think it should be military or purely military response. There has to be a response, and I think the steps taken so far probably represent the beginning and not the end, the floor, not the ceiling… I believe the price should be more.”
In truth, chief responsibility for the Syrian catastrophe lies with US imperialism, which systematically fomented the civil war with the aim of bringing about regime change in Damascus so as to strengthen its position in the energy rich Middle East against its geostrategic rivals. In the process, it actively encouraged Jihadist groups, with which the Obama administration cooperated in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Only when Islamic State militants crossed into Iraq and seized territory did it become a concern for Washington.
The United States will not be prepared to stand aside and allow other countries to decide on the country’s future, as Russia and Turkey have sought to do with the conclusion of a ceasefire covering a number of opposition groups and the Syrian government earlier this month. Peace talks are due to start in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, later this month.
On Monday, Assad pledged to be ready to negotiate everything at the talks, while insisting his government was seeking to assert its control over all of Syrian territory.
The ceasefire is already showing signs of faltering. In Wadi Barada, a valley which provides the capital its water supply, fighting has continued to rage between pro-Assad forces and opposition militias. The Free Syrian Army (FSA), a coalition of opposition groups, announced last week it was halting its participation in the ceasefire talks due to the attacks.
However, the Assad government states it is justified in attacking the opposition-held area. It accuses the opposition groups of deliberately tampering with the water supply for Damascus, leaving 5 million people with no access to water for three weeks. The government has also pointed to collaboration between the FSA and the al-Nusra Front, the extremist group formerly the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaida and not part of the ceasefire agreement, as justification for its attacks on Wadi Barada. The US-backed rebels in Aleppo similarly fought alongside jihadi fighters.

Obama's legacy of war, repression and inequality

Joseph Kishore

US President Barack Obama’s “farewell address to the nation,” scheduled for tonight, has been preceded by a concentrated media buildup on the theme of Obama’s legacy. This has included fawning tributes portraying the president as a brilliant orator, progressive reformer, visionary and man of the people.
Seeking to mold the narrative of Obama’s presidency, the White House put out a video over the weekend featuring comedians Ellen DeGeneres and Jerry Seinfeld, actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks, former basketball star Michael Jordan and other celebrities extolling the “historic moments that prove, yes, we can create progress.” Such absurd and nauseating effusions testify not to the qualities or accomplishments of the 44th president, but to the intellectual, political and moral debasement of the American cultural establishment.
For Obama and the privileged social layers that surround the Democratic Party, a legacy can be crafted with honeyed phrases and clever marketing. Millions of people, however, will judge the administration by its actions.
It would take far more space than is available here to outline in detail the real record of the Obama White House. However, any objective appraisal of the past eight years would have to include the following elements:

1. Unending war

Obama is the first president in American history to serve two full terms in office with the nation at war. This includes the continued bloodletting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the six-year-long war for regime change in Syria, and support for the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen. A recent survey reported that in 2016, US Special Operations forces were deployed in 138 nations, or 70 percent of the countries of the world.
The “wars of the 21st century,” begun under Bush and expanded under Obama, have killed more than a million people and driven millions more from their homes, producing the worst refugee disaster since the Second World War. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” has inflamed tensions from the South China Sea to India and Pakistan. The current president will leave the White House as NATO troops deploy to Eastern Europe in the midst of an anti-Russia war hysteria stoked by the media and the Democratic Party.
Obama is the “drone” president, supervising the killing of some 3,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya by means of unmanned aerial vehicles, along with several thousand more in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. Democratic rights

At least three of the individuals killed in drone strikes were US citizens. The declaration of the Obama administration in 2011 that the president has the authority to assassinate anyone, including US citizens, without due process sums up the attitude of the former constitutional law professor to basic democratic precepts.
The US detention and torture center in Guantanamo Bay, which Obama pledged on his inauguration day to close, remains open. Chelsea Manning, who courageously exposed war crimes in Iraq, is serving a 35-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the Obama White House has prosecuted more whistleblowers for espionage than all previous administrations combined. Edward Snowden was forced into exile in Russia under threat of prosecution or worse, while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange remains trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
The massive spying programs of the National Security Agency exposed by Snowden remain in place, and not a single individual has been prosecuted for clearly illegal and unconstitutional activity. Proclaiming the need to “look forward, not backwards,” Obama gave a free pass to Bush administration officials who institutionalized torture, with some of them, including current CIA Director John Brennan, finding top posts in Obama’s administration.
Obama has expanded the militarization of police departments and intervened in court to uphold police abuses that violate the Constitution.

3. Social inequality

Obama came into office in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, and the focus of his administration has been to restore the wealth of the financial aristocracy. Since their low point in March of 2009 (two months after Inauguration Day), stock values—fueled by the “quantitative easing” policies of the US Federal Reserve—have more than tripled, with the top one percent the overwhelming beneficiary of this new orgy of speculation. Aggregate quarterly corporate profits rose from $671 billion at the end of 2008 to $1.636 trillion in 2016, and the wealth of the richest 400 Americans increased from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion.
At the other pole, eight years of the Obama administration have produced declining wages, rising living costs and growing indebtedness. Nearly 95 percent of all jobs added during the Obama administration’s “recovery” have been temporary or part-time positions, according to a recent study by Harvard and Princeton, with the share of workers in temporary jobs rising from 10.7 percent to 15.8 percent. Obama presided over the bankruptcy of the auto companies early in his administration (imposing an across-the-board 50 percent cut in wages for new-hires). He supported the bankruptcy of Detroit and slashing of city workers’ pensions. In the name of education “reform,” he oversaw a wave of public school closures and attacks on teachers, who were laid off in the hundreds of thousands.
As for Obama’s principal domestic initiative, the Affordable Care Act, its intended and actual outcome has been the shifting of health care costs from corporations and the state to individuals, with corporations slashing coverage and workers forced to pay exorbitant prices for substandard care. One statistic sums up the consequences: For the first time since the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1993, life expectancy fell in the US between 2014 and 2015 due to rising adult mortality from drug overdoses, suicides and other manifestations of social distress.
No account of the legacy of Obama would be complete without noting two additional statistics. Since 2009, approximately 10,000 people have been killed by police in the United States, while the Obama administration has deported about three million immigrants, more than any other US administration in history.
Then there is the man himself. What is most striking is Obama’s emptiness. From his first major speech, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the media has hailed Obama as a great orator. Yet over the span of 12 years in political office at the federal level, including eight in the White House, Obama leaves behind not a single sentence from a speech or interview that will be remembered.
Everything about Obama, who came into office having been named “Marketer of the Year,” is false and contrived. The only thing he consistently conveys is indifference, a strange remoteness, a man without qualities.
The personality is related to the function. More than anything else, Obama has been the president of the intelligence agencies. His political convictions appear to extend no further than his CIA briefing books. To those who care to look more closely into the background, there always seemed to be hands guiding his way to the White House.
For the ruling class, Obama’s particular function was to fuse in his person and his administration identity politics with the absolute domination of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus. The “change” Obama was to represent was in the color of his skin, not the content of his policies.
The nominally liberal and pseudo-left organizations of the upper-middle class that surround the Democratic Party hailed his election as a “transformative” event, seizing upon the elevation of an African-American as an opportunity to abandon their oppositional pretenses. However, his tenure has merely demonstrated that it is class, not race, that is the decisive social category.
Amidst all the commentary on Obama’s “progressive” legacy, no one seems capable of explaining why it is that eight years of the Obama White House paved the way for the election of Donald Trump. Yet the bitter realities of social life, the widespread anger and disappointment, led to a collapse of the Democratic Party vote amidst a general feeling of disillusionment with the entire political establishment.
Obama now bequeaths to the world a ferocious conflict between two right-wing factions of the ruling class: The Trump administration, which is preparing an authoritarian and militarist government of the oligarchy, and its critics, furious that he is reluctant, for the present, to proceed with their preparations to wage war against Russia.
The record of the Obama administration and the character of the individual himself speak, in the end, to the structure of American politics—an ossified and reactionary political establishment that lacks any broad base of support, standing atop a cauldron of seething social tensions. The true legacy of Obama is the deepening of the crisis of American capitalism and the emergence of a new period of social and revolutionary struggles.

Japan-China Contestation in 2017

Sandip Kumar Mishra



2017 is set to be a consequential year for the East Asia in general and Japan-China contests in particular. Growing assertive postures of Beijing and Tokyo would continue in 2017 and it is likely that Japan-China contestations in the region would be more direct and scary. Both countries have been extremely uncompromising under the leaderships of Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, and China's President, Xi Jinping. Both have been incrementally crossing the mutual permissible lines and the trend portends further worsening. There are concerns that in 2017, both with further test the policy of ‘offence’.

In the past few months, there have been significant developments, which point in this direction. Chinese coastal guards have significantly increased their patrolling near the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. In 2016, China also submitted over 50 applications to the Sub-Committee on Undersea Feature Names (SCUFN), part of the Monaco-based International Hydrographic Organization, to give Chinese names to underwater topographic features that had Japanese or other non-Chinese names. These applications were double in number than those submitted in 2015. Although 34 Chinese names were rejected, the move shows Beijing’s intent. Over the past six years, China has successfully gotten 76 names approved. It also must be underlined that in 2013, China unilaterally declared the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea and there are allegations that it has gradually been becoming stricter in its implementation. 

Japan also keenly observes Chinese behavior pertaining to South China Sea, Indian Ocean, One-Belt One-Road (OBOR), Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as well as its fierce opposition of the installations of the US Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system in the East Asia. On most platforms of bilateral and multilateral exchanges, the Chinese approach has been overtly non-compromising. China has been flexing its muscles at the East Asian Summit, ASEAN, and the ASEAN+3, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), among others, which makes Japan concerned.

Similarly, Japan too has been equally uncompromising in its approach. Tokyo increased its military budget again, which is the fifth consecutive increase in a row and its latest defence paper openly mentions islands' security and the East China Sea as the main contexts of the increase. Japan’s procurement of naval ships and submarines are the main focus of the defence expenditure; and this was done evidently bearing China in mind. In early December 2016, two Japanese F-15 fighter jets allegedly interfered in the training of Chinese Air Force in the Western Pacific, which irked Beijing.

Japan also has a plan to establish an organisation of the Japanese Coast Guard, which would help Southeast Asian countries ‘improve maritime safety’ and the organisation is slated to become operational from April 2017. In the more recent move, Japan added the name Taiwan to its de facto embassy in Taipei on 28 December 2016, which will certainly annoy China. Actually, China may read Japanese overtures to Taiwan as part of Tokyo and Washington's joint plan because the President-elect of the US, Donald Trump, has also shown a glimpse of his intent to review the status quo of the US' ‘one China Policy’. Trump received a phone call from the Taiwan's President, Tsai Ing-wen, and justified his conversation strongly. China would consider it a Tokyo-Washington joint plan to alter Taiwan's status in their diplomacy. 

On 29 December 2016, Japan's Defense Minister Tomomi Inada visited Yasukuni shrine to again emphasise Japan's intent of non-compromise. Furthermore, in early January 2017, the defense minister had visited the NATO headquarters to deepen NATO-Japan defence cooperation and along with the Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, participated in the two-plus-two talks with France on security issues in the East China Sea and the region. Japan has also been trying to placate Russia's President, Vladimir Putin; and during his visit to Japan in mid-December 2016, Tokyo assured many economic concessions to Moscow. Observers connect Japan's extra efforts to improve relations with Russia with the Japanese efforts to isolate China in regional politics.

Although, there are uncertainties over the Trump's approach towards Japan, Abe’s special meeting with the US president-elect in December 2016 indicates that the US commitment to Japanese security would continue. It is also because even though Trump has few reservations about Japan’s ‘free-ride’, he is overtly challenging China and for that, he needs Japan’s support.

Overall, the contestation between Japan and China is getting more intense, and if neither party carried out a course correction in 2017, it may reach a critical point. Incremental quantitative changes are likely to bring qualitative transformation in the Japan-China bilateral this year. The course may be otherwise, if the following three variables intervene in the process: huge economic exchanges between the two countries; a decrease in Washington’s support to an aggressive Japan; and constructive intervention of concerned middle powers of the Asia-Pacific.

9 Jan 2017

World Bank Group Recruitment Drive 2017

Application Deadline: 21st January 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): United States or other countries
Eligible Fields: Education, Health, Development Economics, Information Technology Systems, Social Urban/Rural & Resilience and Governance.
About the Award: In 2015, the World Bank Group launched a recruitment mission to attract Sub Saharan African professionals to its work force. The initiative was the first of its kind for the institution and resulted in numerous hires into business areas such as Education, Health, Development Economics, Information Technology Systems, Social Urban/Rural & Resilience and Governance. The World Bank Group continues its commitment to hiring Sub-Saharan African professionals and announces its latest recruitment mission to again attract highly qualified Sub-Saharan African professionals who are looking for an exciting career, where their effort will contribute to the institution’s goal of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity.
We are currently seeking qualified professionals to fill various roles within the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation that may be located in Washington, D.C. or one of our regional offices.
Offered Since: 2015
Type: Recruitment
Eligibility:
  • Minimum qualifications for entry-level positions include a Master’s degree plus 5 years of relevant professional experience.
  • For mid-career professionals, the minimum requirements are a Master’s degree plus 8 years of relevant professional experience.
  • Ideal candidates for these positions must have a demonstrated capacity for strategic thinking, the ability to conduct dialogue on relevant development policies and priorities, and fluency in English.
  • Fluency or proficiency in other languages, in particular Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Spanish, or Russian is preferred.
Number of Awardees: Several
Value of Recruitment: A career with the World Bank Group offers a unique opportunity for exceptionally talented individuals with a passion for international development to contribute to solving some of the world’s most pressing problems. Bank staff work with governments, civil society groups, the private sector, and others in developing countries around the world, assisting clients in all areas of development, from policy and strategic advice to the identification, preparation, appraisal, and supervision of development projects.
Duration of Recruitment: Full Time
How to Apply:
To view and apply for any position, please click the vacancies below.
Award Provider: The World Bank Group
Important Notes:Candidates who have previously submitted applications through the Recruitment Drive for African Nationals in 2015 must submit a new application to be considered for opportunities in this year’s campaign. We apologize that we are unable to consider previously submitted applications.
Shortlisted candidates may be contacted as early as August 2016 for interviews which may be conducted in Washington, D.C. or locations in Africa. Interviews will be conducted through September 2016. Based on the availability of interviewers and candidates some interviews may be conducted virtually.

Indonesian Government Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 9th February 2017 | 
Offered annually? Yes
Accepted Subject Areas? Agricultural Sciences, Education, Engineering, Humanities, Multi-Disciplinary Studies, Social Sciences and Sciences
About Scholarship: The Government of the Republic of Indonesia is annually offering the Darmasiswa Scholarship, a non-degree scholarship program offered to all foreign students from countries which have diplomatic relationship with Indonesia to study Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Language), art and culture. Participants can choose one of selected universities (59 universities) located in different cities in Indonesia. This program is organized by the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The scholarship will be awarded to 650 applicants.
The DARMASISWA program was started in 1974 as part of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) initiative, admitting only students from ASEAN. However, in 1976 this program was extended to include students from other countries such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and USA. In early 90’s, this program was extended further to include all countries which have diplomatic relationship with Indonesia. Until to date, the number of countries participating in this program is more than 80 countries.
The main purpose of the DARMASISWA program is to promote and increase the interest in the language and culture of Indonesia among the youth of other countries. It has also been designed to provide stronger cultural links and understanding among participating countries.
Offered Since: 2002
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility and Selection Criteria: Each student has to fulfill these requirements as the follows:
    1. Preferably Student;
    2. Completed secondary education or its equivalent;
    3. Minimum age 17 years and Not older than 35 years of age;
    4. Able to communicate in English and additional Bahasa Indonesia is required (Proven by English Language Proficiency Certificate : TOEFL/ TOEIC/IELTS or OTHER CERTIFICATE if applicable);
    5. In good health as proven by Medical Certificate;
    6. Have basic knowledge of the field you’re applying.
Number of Scholarships: Several
Scholarship Benefit
  • Living Allowance
  • Research and book allowances (will be given during the Master Program)
  • Health insurance
  • Round trip international ticket
Duration of sponsorship
  • 8 months of Indonesian Language Program
  • 4 months of Preparatory Program
  • 24 months (4 semesters) of Master Programs
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Scholarships will be taken at the following universities in Indonesia.
How to Apply: All documents must be submitted to your account in apply.darmasiswa.kemdikbud.go.id
Required Documents
  • Curriculum vitae/resume;
  • Medical sertificate;
  • Passport valid at least 18 months from time of arrival in Indonesia (estimated arrival : 1st August 2017);
  • Recommendation Letter From Education Institution / Professional Institution on official letterhead and signature (in English);
  • Last academic transcript and certificates (in English);
  • Language certificate (if applicable);
  • Other certificates that related to the field you’re applying (if applicable);
  • Passport size photo;
  • Writing essay about purpose of study (in english or bahasa Indonesia maximum 500 words).
Sponsors: Indonesian Government

Study in Greece: Onassis Fellowships Program for International Scholars 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 28th February, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International (Non-Greek citizens)
To be taken at (country): Greece
Field of Study: The Program covers courses in the following academic fields:
  • Humanities:
  • Social Sciences
  • Economics/Finance:
  • Arts
The consideration of an eventual interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach/dimension for the proposed research would be highly appreciated.
Type: Post-doctoral Scholarship/Fellowship
Eligibility: The Program covers scholarly research in Greece only and in the fields stated above.
1. Eligible to participate are the following candidates:
  • Persons of non-Greek descent
  • all applicants should have already completed their Ph.D.
  • Cypriot citizens are also eligible to apply for Category D and E fellowship only, provided they permanently reside and work outside Greece
  • Persons of Greek descent (second generation and on) are also eligible to apply for a fellowship or scholarship, provided they permanently reside and work abroad or currently study in foreign Universities
  • Category D and E also applies to Scholars of Greek descent or citizenship provided they have a professional academic career of at least ten (10) years in a University or Research Institute abroad
  • The above mentioned clarification (d) also applies to Ph.D. candidates of Greek descent or citizenship, who pursue post-graduate studies outside of Greece (Category C – please see below), have conducted their high school studies and have obtained a degree outside Greece and permanently reside outside Greece for more than fifteen (15) years
2. Former Fellowship Recipients of the Foundation can re-apply for a fellowship only if five (5) years have elapsed since their previous fellowship scholarship.
3. Former Fellowship Recipients of the Foundation who have twice received a fellowship cannot apply again to the Onassis Fellowships Program for International Scholars.
4. No extension of the duration of the fellowship beyond the period mentioned in this announcement for each category will be permitted.
5. It is not possible to postpone or defer the fellowship to a later academic year
Number of Awardees: up to ten [10]
Value of Scholarship:
 1. Coverage of the travel expenses for a round trip air-ticket from and to the country and place where the fellowship recipient permanently resides, for the grantee only, for the beginning of the scholarship and upon definite departure from Greece that amount a) up to Three Hundred Euros (€300.-) for a European country or b) up to One Thousand Euros (€1,000.-) for a transatlantic trip or travel to and from countries of Asia and Africa. Fellowship recipients will be solely responsible for the purchase of their tickets
2. A monthly allowance of One Thousand Five Hundred Euros (€ 1,500.-) for subsistence, accommodation and all other expenses.
Duration of Scholarship: up to Three [3] months during the academic year October 2017 – September 2018
How to Apply: Online at the Foundation’s website: www.onassis.org > Scholarships > Scholarships for Foreigners > Category C, D or E > Online Application
Candidates are invited to carefully read the Announcement before completing their application. The online submission of the application does not imply that the said application is accepted for further evaluation. Candidatures that do not meet even one of the conditions of the current Announcement are automatically withdrawn from the evaluation process. By submitting an application for an Onassis scholarship, candidates state clearly and unequivocally that they unconditionally accept all the terms of the Announcement and the relevant application.
Candidates are required to submit all of the requested documents within the specified deadlines listed in this Announcement
Application Form (PhD Candidate-Category C)
Application Form (Professor of all levels-Category D)
Application Form (Post-doctoral Researcher-Category E)
At the same time, the candidate collects all of the required supporting documents and sends them by registered mail until 28/02/2017 (date on postmark) to the following address:
ARIONA HELLAS
S.A. Representing the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation in Greece
Onassis International Fellowships Program
Aeschinou Street 105 58 Plaka, Athens
[Verification code for the submission of the online application]
The required supporting documents can also be submitted by the candidate in person or via a representative at the above mentioned address.
Award Provider: Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation