12 Jan 2017

America’s Russian Dybbuk

Gerald Sussman

From ancient Hebrew folklore, the dybbuk is a demonic spirit that inhabits a person’s body and soul in order to get what it wants. American foreign policy is endlessly driven to search and destroy imaginary demons: Noriega, Milosevic, Saddam, Ho, Tojo, Nasser, Gaddafi, Lumumba, Castro, Osama, Yanukovych, and a host of others in its hit parade. Obama wouldn’t be fulfilling his duty as warmonger-in-chief if he didn’t submit at least one new person to the pantheon of evil nogoodniks. He found his dybbuk in Vladimir Putin.
Apparently, the Democrats and their partners within the Republican cabal, particularly McCain and Graham, believe that Mr. Putin qualifies as an evil spirit, a super dybbuk, who controls the destiny of American politics – and even the Vermont electrical grid. Anyone who questions this is simply possessed, which obviously includes the soon-to-be White House zombie, Mr. Trump. Playing on the old Western trope of the untamed Russian Bear, Obama has titled the Putin conspiracy Grizzly Steppe. In his last remaining days in office, the American president is hoping to create dramatic memorabilia, such as his expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats just before Christmas, to fill what would otherwise be a rather vacant Obama Library.
Unfortunately for the Cold Warriors, the Kremlin dybbuk responded by simply laughing it off as not worth responding in kind. Focused on his legacy obsession, Obama’s sour grapes is not only about his limited achievements and his party shamelessly losing the election to a crude, narcissistic, and inexperienced child-like politician but also about his loss of face in the Middle East conflict, where the Russians are scoring military and diplomatic points left and right. It’s also about Obama’s last ditch efforts to dispossess Trump of any legitimate power, employing well-tested Cold War propaganda tactics to try to break up any Republican policy consensus.
What is the basis on which liberals insist on depicting the Russians in such dark conspiratorial terms? First, the Cold Warriors assert that Russia is an aggressor, citing its alleged “invasion” of South Ossetia in 2008. On December 26, 2016, Dan Lamothe, a Washington Post national security reporter, and formerly an embedded journalist in Afghanistan, told viewers on C-Span that Russia is an imperialist state. His evidence? He claims that Russia “invaded” Georgia in 2008. Even the New York Times, a reliable echo chamber of the State Department, had to admit on November 6, 2008 that its earlier report (August 8, 2008) that Russia initiated the conflict in that autonomous region was false. There has since been a broad understanding among informed reporters, though not Mr. Lamothe, that it was the president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, who attacked South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers who were stationed there to prevent Georgian attacks on nearby Russian towns. Russia chased out the invaders and left South Ossetia with its autonomous status intact.
The leading German weekly, Der Spiegel, reported at the time that, according to the EU investigative mission head, Heidi Tagliavini, “It was Georgia which triggered off the war when it attacked [the South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali.” Following the Georgian invasion, the pro-US Saakashvili increasingly came under internal criticism for corruption and authoritarianism and fled Georgia in 2013 while under criminal investigation. With the backing of Ukraine’s president, Petro (“Porky”) Poroshenko, Saakashvili briefly served as a failed governor of Odessa. Meanwhile, Georgia has stripped him of his citizenship.
The second broadly cited “evidence” of Putin’s imperialist behavior is the allegation that Russia “invaded” Crimea in 2014. This is another distortion, stripped of historical context, that typically ignores the referendum that Crimea held to separate from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, of which it had been a part for hundreds of years before Khrushchev gifted it to a Ukraine that was then part of the USSR. The circumstances of that secession vote was that it occurred in the aftermath of the US-supported coup earlier in the year that illegally and unconstitutionally deposed Viktor Yanukovych from the presidency and forced him to flee for his life. This began a series of reprisals by the coup regime against the ethnic Russian population, pushed by its neo-Nazi faction – reminiscent of the Bandera fascist movement in World War II that assisted the German military in the murder of millions of Ukraine’s Russians, Jews, Gypsies, and Poles. The March 2014 irredentist vote in favor of reunification with Russia won with overwhelming 97% support, with an 83% turnout. The Obama administration and its legions in the mainstream media, which condemned the “annexation” of Crimea, failed to explain how it was significantly different from the Kosovo secession that the US supported following the massive US and NATO bombardment of Serbia that ended its control over the province. Selective perception indeed.
The Cold Warriors didn’t stop there in outing the dybbuk. The clever demon, they insist, acted as chief opposition researcher for the Trump campaign. Everyone from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, to Obama and Clinton herself, along with their pet media pundits and their the yes men (and women) in the CIA, backed the claim that “Russian state actors,” working under orders from no less than the dybbuk himself, hacked Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta emails in order to elect Donald Trump. Putin’s response was that if America’s elections could be so easily manipulated, it must be a banana republic. The Russian hacking story originated with “research” done by a group of private consulting firms attached to the Democratic Party. To date, neither the CIA nor the Obama administration has revealed any real evidence of Russian state involvement in the alleged hacking, nor have the mainstream media. The media’s lapse in not insisting on evidential confirmation raises the question of who are the real hacks?
The MSM won’t let go of the hacking story. Here is a sample of their headlines:
+ Washington Post –  Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility
On the last story, the Post later printed a brief retraction that first appeared within the reprinted original story itself, as if it were maybe a retraction and maybe not. MSM fake news is the new normal. Evgeny Morozov has written: “Democracy may or may not be drowning in fake news, but it’s definitely drowning in elite hypocrisy.”
What happened to the contents of the leaked emails? One of the significant revelations is that Clinton knew while secretary of state (she said so in one of her emails) that the Saudis and Qataris were funding ISIS, and yet she subsequently took millions from them for her personal foundation, which is an extraordinary act of corruption that would be tolerated in few countries that purport to be democratic. She also diverted millions of dollars she raised, supposedly for the benefit of Democratic state parties, to her own campaign. The leaks also showed that the DNC had sabotaged the Bernie Sanders campaign and were planning to further undermine his candidacy by labeling him an “atheist.” The Democrats and the MSM managed to bury these issues with a kill the messenger tactic and blocked the possibility of a serious party house cleaning.  Blame the dybbuk.
One of the few politicians unwilling to join the anti-Putin chorus is Donald Trump, making him a prime target of the corporate mainstream media, which have abandoned all pretense of respect for the “canons of journalism.” The exaggerated efforts at depicting Trump as a puppet of Putin (the former “diplomat” Madeleine Albright used the term “useful idiot”) are laughable.  But despite lacking any credible evidence, the thesis that Russia conspired to get Trump elected finds almost no resistance in the MSM or in academia. More recently, the press and later the official US intelligence report has launched a jeremiad against the Russian media, particularly RT (Russia Today) for its dissemination of “fake news” (confession: I’ve appeared on its English language TV news reports as a commentator multiple times), aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the democratic system in America. Hillary Clinton made much of the fact that Trump gave an interview on RT, but she neglected to point out that the program was hosted by long-time liberal and talk show pillar of CNN, Larry King. She also made the extremely graceless and undiplomatic comparison of Putin to Hitler, an insult not only to the Russian president but to the memory of the 27 million Russians who died in the ultimate defeat of Naziism.
The implication of these attacks is that Donald Trump is a fifth columnist president. On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu (another dybbuk), who openly campaigned for Mitt Romney in 2012 and met with both party candidates on the eve of the final 2016 presidential debate, is off the MSM hook on foreign political interference. And the patriotism of Republicans who brought the apartheider to speak in Congress without the benefit of a White House invitation is also not questioned. Moreover, as the Guardian’s Owen Jones notes, Americans should know something about election meddling “because they’ve been doing it for years.” Among America’s many clients, the Russian autocrat Boris Yeltsin was a beneficiary of US election intervention in the 1990s (with Bill Clinton’s strong support), funding him and supplying a team of American election consultants to get him elected, by hook and by crook, in 1996. Russia’s current prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, at the time a close associate of Yeltsin, admitted that the election outcome was rigged against the real winner, Communist Party leader, Gennady Zyuganov.
All of this renewed Cold War anti-Russia hysteria can be seen to have core purposes. Most conspicuous is the devastating defeat of the Democratic Party in the 2016 elections, losing the White House and failing to take either the House or Senate, but also leaving Republicans fully in charge of 33 state legislatures and, over the past 4 election cycles, net gains of some 1,000 legislative seats, which makes Obama’s legacy look pretty shabby. The Democrats, from Obama on down, have refused to radically rethink their party’s institutional character and instead put failed leader Nancy Pelosi back in charge of the House minority and the Wall Street favorite, Charles Schumer, as head of the Senate Democrats. Strategically, American neocons, including the Clintons, see Russia as obstructing US global ambitions and demand nothing less than Russian obediencc to Pax Americana. Third, the mainstream corporate media, especially the Washington Post, owned by the viscerally anti-Trump tycoon, Jeff Bezos, have hitched their wagons to an aggressive US foreign policy and the patronage of global Fortune 500 companies, including the petroleum and defense industries.
Before demanding a Trump exorcism of the dybbuk’s influence, one needs to ask, with a view to recent history, whether Russia is the aggressor that the establishment is making it out to be. Are Russian forces lined up along the US border, north and south, the way NATO is poised for direct intervention with bases across Russia’s “near abroad”? Which country has a history of arming the most repressive, jihadi-supporting states in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar), military dictatorships across Latin America and Asia, apartheid in South Africa and Israel, and regime change across eastern Europe? Which country has starved Cuba of basic necessities for 56 years out of revenge for instituting a socialist government that has won the support of nearly all of Latin America? According to William Blum, since 1945 “the US has attempted to overthrow more than fifty governments, most of which were democratically elected, and grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least thirty countries.”
Are the CIA claims about the Russian takeover of the American election to be believed, the same CIA that lied about WMDs in Iraq (Obama’s intelligence chief, James Clapper, being one of the fabricators of this, among his many official lies) and that country’s import of aluminum tubes for making nuclear centrifuges, Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 and his support for terrorism, Iraq’s alleged purchase of yellowcake uranium powder from Niger, the black site detention and torture chambers set up around the world for kidnapped Arabs and other alleged “terrorists,” Abu Ghraib, and a much longer list of lies and cover-ups serving US imperialism over its 70-year history? Why would political elites and the MSM assume, without seeing a shred of evidence, that the “Company” is telling the truth about the Russia “threat”?
The answer lies in the real objectives of US foreign policy, which are really quite obvious. The new Cold War serves US hegemonic interests in the Middle East, including the elimination of Assad, and in NATO-fortified eastern Europe, and its efforts to neuterize Russia as an independent state. Its motives, however, are cloaked, as they always have been, in fake news about Russia, about Syria, and every other state that has pursued either non-alignment or active resistance to US domination. What the naïve believed to be an “information society” has actually matured into a propaganda society, adapting to the informational mode of production to create new platforms and techniques of public perception management. The latest effort in this direction is the Obama administration’s creation of the Orwellian-sounding Global Engagement Center, housed in the State Department, yet another propaganda apparatus (remember Rumsfeld’s bizarre-sounding “Office of Strategic Influence”?) designed to offset the real news in the world media that are critical of US militarist and regime change policies, including RT and Press TV.
Cyber security specialist John McAfee has publicly disputed the Russian hacking claims, arguing that anyone who leaves fingerprints on a hack that tracks him/her as “Russian” isn’t Russian: “if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians.” It should be plain enough that the real hack job is the one that the Democrats, including Obama, used against the Russians to refocus the story away from the party’s and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, election manipulations, and self-aggrandizing personal politics.
What the US government should be concerned about is the global perception, based on 2014 Gallup polling, that the United States is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. The only way this perception will be altered is when the US disembarks from its unipolarism, imperialism, warmongering ambitions and dybbuk-hunting excuses for its foreign and domestic failures as a supposed democratic state. We can only hope that the highly unpredictable Trump tweetocracy keeps the warmongers in their harbors and steers the US in a less aggressive pattern of international behavior that avoids demonizing world leaders who challenge US global hegemony.
Posted by at No comments:

Record climate warming recorded in Australia for 2016

Patrick Kelly

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology last week issued its annual Climate Statement, detailing several record-breaking temperature anomalies caused by global climate change during 2016.
Around the world, climate change is causing new and dangerous weather patterns and irregularities. Last year saw the planet’s hottest year ever recorded, marking the third consecutive year in which a new record has been set.
Arctic sea ice levels reached a new historic minimum, with long-term warming accelerating sea ice thinning. This is creating what climate scientists call a “negative feedback loop,” with less ice resulting in less of the sun’s energy being reflected back into space, which in turn further reduces sea ice levels and causes more heat to be absorbed by land and ocean.
In Australia last year, average temperatures were the fourth highest recorded, surpassed only by 2005, 2013 and 2014. Last year’s mean temperature was 0.87°C above the 1961–1990 average. The minimum recorded daily temperatures were 1.03°C above average, the second warmest on record.
Average land temperatures in 2016, Bureau of Meteorology
The bureau’s Climate Statement noted that 2016 saw Australia’s hottest ever autumn, largely due to a prolonged heatwave that affected much of the country in late February and the first half of March. The report noted: “Autumn was marked by long runs of days with above average temperatures, as well as many record-high temperatures.”
Within an overall warming trend, the statement identified significant regional variations. Several of Australia’s urban centres recorded their hottest-ever year.
These included Sydney, the country’s largest city, which saw 28 days reach a maximum of 30°C or higher, the highest number since 1940. The average maximum temperature in the city was 23.9°C, which is 2.2 degrees above average. Also registering highest-ever average temperatures was Brisbane, the state capital of Queensland, Hobart, state capital of Tasmania, and Darwin in the Northern Territory.
The Bureau of Meteorology attributed the record temperatures in several eastern and northern coastal cities to the record sea surface temperatures in these regions.
Average ocean temperatures around Australia reached a record 0.73 °C above the 1961–1990 average, surpassing the previous high registered in 2010. The record is consistent with a recent warming trend, with above-average Australian sea surface temperatures registered every year since 1994. The Climate Statement noted: “There has been a total increase of approximately 1°C since 1900, very similar to the increase in temperature observed over land.”
Record ocean temperatures, Bureau of Meteorology
The record high ocean temperature in 2016 had significant adverse effects on the marine environment. The statement noted that coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef was “the worst on record, affecting some 1,000 km of reef north of Lizard Island, while in Western Australia it was the third time a bleaching event has ever been recorded.”
The Climate Statement also reviewed the impact of notable and anomalous weather events across Australia in 2016. These included bushfires in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia at the beginning of the year, floods in eastern and northern Australia, and severe lightning storms in Victoria in November that triggered grassfires as well as a pollen-related spate of asthma attacks that hospitalised thousands and killed several people.
These incidents underscore the dangers that climate change poses to the lives of ordinary people around the world.
The Bureau of Meteorology noted the climatic impact of the very strong El Niño effect in the first half of 2016: “The year commenced with one of the three strongest El Niños on record already underway in the central Pacific, and record-warm waters across much of the Indian Ocean.”
The El Niño effect, and its alternative La Niña, is a cycle of alternating warm and cold temperatures in the central and eastern parts of the Pacific Ocean. The effect has been occurring for tens of thousands of years, but climate change may be intensifying the global impact. With greater ocean warming in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, “extreme” El Niños and La Niñas appear to be occurring with increasing frequency.
The most recent El Niño, which ended in May 2016 after lasting two years, was among the strongest in recent decades.
The World Socialist Web Site previously noted: “It has been held responsible for record flooding in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Brazil, as well as flooding and landslides in Ethiopia, which killed more than 100 people. It has been thought to have directly caused droughts in South Africa, Thailand, and Venezuela, affecting millions of people and, in the latter case, resulted in electricity rationing. It has also been blamed for the intensity of Tropical Cyclone Winston, which destroyed parts of Fiji in February, as well as having enhanced the Pacific cyclone season generally.”
The first half of 2016 saw significantly lower rainfall in northern Australia, and the least active tropical cyclone season seen since the beginning of satellite records in 1970. After the breakdown of El Niño in May, record rainfall was registered in much of Australia. Annual rainfall in 2016 was 17 percent higher than average.
Anomalous climatic conditions in Australia and internationally are quickly becoming the “new normal” amid accelerating climate change.
Climate scientists have known for decades about the phenomenon, and have issued detailed proposals on how to resolve the crisis. National governments around the world, however, have failed to take the necessary steps. In Australia and internationally, the ruling elite has been far more concerned to protect the profit interests of key corporate interests than it has been to address the environmental crisis.
Posted by at No comments:

Public anger in China as smog crisis continues

Oscar Grenfell 

Large swathes of southern China are covered by a thick layer of air pollution, posing serious risks to respiratory health and prompting authorities to caution residents in affected areas to remain indoors. The warnings follow one of the most severe “smog” crises to hit northern China, including the country’s capital, Beijing.
While heavy waves of air pollution over the winter months are an annual phenomenon, scientists and government authorities have stated that this year the environmental crisis has been lengthier and more intense because of adverse weather.
A La Niña weather pattern has contributed to a winter with higher levels of rain and snowfall, and lower temperatures, preventing the pollution from dispersing.
The clouds of smog often contain high levels of the pollutant PM2.5—fine particulates of less than 2.5 micrograms that can enter lungs and are carcinogenic. The particles are thought to contribute to a host of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
On Sunday, authorities in Hong Kong reported PM2.5 levels of 190 micrograms per cubic metre, well above the recommended exposure limit of less than 25 micrograms. Readings above 150 micrograms pose serious health risks, according to the World Health Organisation. A spokesman for the government’s environmental protection department said light winds had trapped the pollutants above the city.
Provinces in southern China, including Hainan and Guangdong, have also been hit with high levels of pollution, causing low visibility on roads and at airports in major cities and affecting schools and businesses. In the north, authorities in Beijing have told residents to remain indoors, as smog-tainted snow continues to fall.
The current air pollution began last November. In mid-December, 23 cities in the country’s north, including Beijing, issued red alerts for smog levels. This is the highest warning, which triggers emergency measures, including factory and school closures and limits on the number of cars permitted on the roads. Last week the government declared an unprecedented national red alert. Up to 460 million people have been affected in northeastern China.
There are growing signs that the protracted crisis is becoming a focal point of widespread anger over health and safety issues, prompting a nervous response from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime.
An article in the state-owned Global Times on January 5 was headlined: “Public opinion in China was choked with depression, fear and anger.” The article noted that previously air pollution had been the “butt of jokes,” but “the sentiment changed noticeably during this round of smog.” It warned: “The heavy smog has also been corroding the government’s credibility.”
In a follow-up article on Monday, the Global Times drew attention to complaints and protests from sections of the middle-class in China’s major urban centres who constitute a key constituency of the government. The article highlighted the comments of Jin Zin, a Beijing investment consultant, who said: “My 70-year-old mother got sick after coming to Beijing from Qingdao, Shandong Province. My twins cough even though they are just 9 months old. My heart feels sore every time I hear them cough.”
Last week, Jin issued a public complaint directed to the China’s state council demanding to know why the air pollution had not been curbed. “I believe what’s frightening is not the smog, but your indifference,” it stated. The post was viewed over a million times on the Weibo social media site before being removed.
The article also noted a lawsuit brought by five lawyers from the industrial centres of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei Province, demanding that city government authorities be punished for the pollution, and that compensation be provided to those affected. The case has not progressed since being filed at the end of December.
Significantly, the Global Times cited Ma Jun, head of a Beijing-based environmental organisation, who favourably referenced environmental protests in the United States during the 1960s. The CCP government is intensely fearful of public displays of social anger and opposition. In December, riot police in the southwestern city of Chengdu arrested an unknown number of protesters who placed face masks on public statues amid heavy smog.
Thousands of posts have appeared on social media, commenting on the crisis. Anger has particularly revolved around the plight of children. One widely-shared picture showed high school students wearing face masks and sitting an exam outside during heavy fog in December in Henan province.
There were reports of widespread frustration when the education department in Shijiazhuang announced last month, following a red alert, that school attendance for middle and high school students would be voluntary. The city had some of the highest pollution readings, with PM2.5 levels of up to 733 micrograms. One comment on social media, cited by SBS Australia, asked: “Are middle school students’ bodies air purifiers? Are you going to wait for us all to become sick before you step up to fix this?”
According to the official Xinhua news agency, Environment Minister Chen Jining told a press conference last week he “felt guilty” for the crisis and “wanted to reproach himself.”
The government appears to be preparing to scapegoat local and city governments, announcing an inquiry into alert responses in some of the worst-affected industrial centres. At the same time, officials in Beijing this week created a new environmental police force, tasked with cracking down on wood burning, garbage incinerators and other polluting activities. Air purification systems are also being piloted in some of the city’s schools.
Local government officials have issued vague promises that the worst-polluting factories will be closed, and that others will be upgraded, but have not provided any concrete details.
The various measures are of a cosmetic character. While the government has fraudulently sought to provide itself with “green credentials,” in order to exploit the lucrative market in trading carbon emissions, it has pressed ahead with the construction of coal-fired power stations, which are thought to be among the main causes of the smog. Two hundred new plants are set to be built, to add to the hundreds already operating.
The air pollution crisis is a particularly graphic expression of the subordination of public health and social need to the unbridled pursuit of profit by the corporate and financial elite who are represented by the CCP government.
While national figures are hard to come by, it is widely recognised that air pollution has a significant impact on mortality rates. A Nanjing University School of the Environment study estimated that almost one-third of deaths across the country could be linked to air pollution. In 2014, the World Health Organisation said over a million deaths in China during 2012 could be attributed to air pollution exposure.
Posted by at No comments:

Demonstration in Germany against deportations to Afghanistan

Marianne Arens

More than a thousand people protested last Saturday in Frankfurt against the German government’s deportation of refugees to Afghanistan. After a rally at the central Opernplatz square, a growing number of people joined the peaceful demonstration in the downtown area.
On December 14, 34 Afghan refugees were deported in a special charter plane from the Rhein-Main Airport, and additional group deportations to Kabul are planned later this month. Last year, a total of 25,000 people were deported from Germany, primarily from the Frankfurt Airport.
The rally in front of the old opera house was called on January 7 by the Frankfurt Afghan Hindu Cultural Association and other associations of Hindus and Sikhs. Their placards read “Stop Deportation and Persecution,” “We are human beings and not numbers!” “Equal Rights for Refugees,” “Keep families together,” and “I would like to live as a human being instead of dying as a Sikh in Afghanistan.”
Before 1980, up to 220,000 Hindus and Sikhs lived in Afghanistan, according to a spokesperson of the organizers. However, their number has fallen to 1,300 because under neither the Taliban nor the current NATO-supported government has it been possible for them to live a peaceful life, free of physical threat. In reality, the country is highly unsafe for all civilians today.
The rally at the Opernplatz in Frankfurt
“We came to Germany with high hopes,” continued the spokesperson. “We have settled down and become a part of the society and support newcomers whenever we can. But that belongs to the past.” The group deportations into a land of crisis have struck refugee communities from Afghanistan at the heart, he said: “The war in Afghanistan has caught up to us. Once again, families will be torn apart, we must once again fear for our relatives.”
Janine Wissler spoke for the Left Party in Hesse and called briefly and perfunctorily for a halt to the deportations: “The group deportations to Afghanistan must be ended,” said the deputy Left Party president, who is also a member of the pseudo-left group Marx21.
She remained silent on an important issue: the Left Party supports deportations of refugees in Thuringia, Brandenburg, and Berlin, where it is in the government. In part, it supports these deportations in the form of the so-called “voluntary return.” The “voluntariness” consists in forcing rejected asylum applicants to accept the offer of “voluntary departure” if they don’t want to be forced to leave at their own expense and in some cases face separation from their families. The Left Party does not question the asylum laws of the federal government.
Immediately after Wissler spoke, two refugee aid personnel sharply criticized the practice of “voluntary departure,” without mentioning the Left Party by name, however. Tina and Daniel of the Wiesbaden Refugee Council said that anyone who gives credence to the official line about “safe” countries of origin and pressures the refugees to return voluntarily is acting hastily and irresponsibly. This practice places the refugees in enormous danger, they said.
As several speakers emphasized, the security situation deteriorated massively in Afghanistan last year. The foreign office has warned German tourists and business people against even short-term travel in the country. Afghanistan is anything but a “safe country of origin”: random raids by the Taliban and NATO air attacks endanger people day in and day out. A spokesperson reported that last week a Sikh representative in Kunduz was shot openly in the street: “Hindus and Sikhs are being sent to their deaths with eyes open.”
Many German youths also participated in the demonstration
Many German opponents of deportations, above all young people, took part in the demonstration. The mass deportation of refugees has provoked widespread horror and the plans for central deportation centres remind many of the Nazi concentration camps. If the unions and opposition parties had not systematically boycotted and isolated the opposition, then the rally and demonstration could easily have been 10 times as large.
But the Greens and the Left Party support the refugee deportation practice. Winfried Kretschmann, Green Party minister president from Baden-Württemberg, recently told the press that he supports the designation of Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria as “safe countries of origin.” In the state of Thuringia, where the Left Party leads the state government under Bodo Ramelow, it has organized a refugee policy that is just as brutal as in the rest of the country. Last year, Thuringia was at second place in Germany with 1,762 “voluntary” returns between January and November 2016.
Since last fall, the German federal government, which has called Afghanistan a safe country of origin, has maintained a cynical agreement with the government in Kabul concerning rejected asylum applicants. Parallel to this, the federal parliament has prolonged the engagement of the federal army in Afghanistan.
Federal Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière is preparing new deportation centres near the large German airports as part of his plans to centralize the entire security apparatus, and Chancellor Angela Merkel is supporting this course with her injunction “deport, deport, deport.”
The Hesse Minister President Volker Bouffier (Christian Democratic Union) suggested several days ago that refugees picked up in the Mediterranean should be sent back to Africa. In addition, special intake centres should be built in Tunisia or Egypt, he said. Bouffier added that he completely supported a similar suggestion from the Christian Social Union, one of Merkel’s coalition partners at the federal level.
Federal President of the SPD Sigmar Gabriel criticized Thomas de Maizière’s police-state plans from the right, downplaying them as purely “symbolic politics.” And Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas (SPD) spoke of a “preventive offensive” and demanded changed laws, so that detention pending deportation would also be possible when the countries of origin do not cooperate.
Sahra Wagenknecht, head of the Left Party faction in the federal parliament, has adopted the rhetoric of the ultra-right Alternative for Germany’s opposition to Merkel almost word for word. In an interview with Stern magazine she accused the chancellor of “joint responsibility” for the attack on the Berlin Christmas Market and criticized her for her “uncontrolled opening of the border” and for hobbling the police with insufficient funds to expand personnel or equipment in the face of a “dangerous situation.”
Posted by at No comments:

US trails other developed countries in access to health care

Esther Galen

A major focus of political debate in the United States as 2017 begins is what will happen to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the legislation restructuring the US health care system enacted in 2010, which took effect in 2014.
While Republicans denounce Obamacare as a total failure, and Democrats defend it as a progressive, all be it limited, success, the entire discussion revolves around an unstated assumption: that US health care is the “best in the world,” requiring only minor adjustments in a system based on the profit drive of privately owned corporations that sell health insurance, drugs and medical equipment, and operate hospitals and other facilities.
A recent survey shows that this consensus in favor of the for-profit medical system in the United States is based on a lie. The Commonwealth Fund questioned adults in 11 countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It found the US ranked at the bottom in access to and affordability of health care.
Compared to the 10 other “high-income” countries, the survey found: “Adults in the U.S. are more likely to go without needed care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. U.S. adults are also more likely to report having poor health and emotional distress.”
There are numerous indicators of the failure of the U.S. for-profit healthcare system:
· One-third of US adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or did not fill a prescription because of costs.
· Fifteen percent said they worried about having enough money for nutritious food and 16 percent struggled to afford their rent or mortgage.
· Half of US adults struggled to get health care on the weekends and evenings without going to an emergency department.
· Fourteen percent of chronically ill U.S. adults said they did not get the support they needed from health care providers to manage their conditions.
While the ten other countries outside the US offer universal insurance coverage, their health care services have faced cutbacks in recent years. In Britain, for example, dozens of hospitals, Accident and Emergency units, maternity units, mental health units, children’s heart units and GP surgeries have been downgraded or shut down, despite popular opposition. However, even after cuts, the countries surveyed have better cost protection and a larger safety net than the US, giving more people the ability to get medical care.
The Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people with private health insurance, but only by so redefining the meaning of “insurance.” People are said to be “insured” when they are enrolled in policies that require enormous out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles, which means they cannot afford to use medical services and if they do, may go bankrupt. In the jargon of the industry, they are “underinsured.” In fact, 31 million Americans were underinsured in 2014 .
Obama and the Democrats based their health care reform bill on the tendencies already prevailing in the private insurance market. In the US, more and more employees getting group health insurance through their employer and individuals buying insurance through a “marketplace” or an “exchange” are only being offered high-deductible health plans (HDHP).
A health plan with a deductible means that other than certain preventive services, the plan holder must pay for all medical care until the deductible is met. So people with high-deductible plans are hit hard paying for medical services before the health plan starts to pay. Even when the health plan starts to pay, a person still must pay a copayment for health care services that could be as much as 40 percent of the cost.
A Kaiser Family Foundation report found that the average annual out-of-pocket costs per patient rose almost 230 percent between 2006 and 2015. A survey of employers found employee deductibles increased 67 percent from 2010 to 2015. In the last year for which figures are available, for example, workers’ wages increased a mere 1.9 percent between April 2014 and April 2015, whereas out-of-pocket medical expenses went up 9 percent.
Kaiser reported that 43 percent of insured patients said they delayed or skipped physician-recommended tests or treatment because of high associated costs. When patients put off medical care, they are more likely to end up in a hospital Emergency Room. About 80 percent of emergency physicians said they are treating insured patients who have sacrificed or delayed medical care due to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs, co-insurance or high deductibles. This represented a 10 percent increase during the first six months of 2016.
The American College of Physicians noted: “Evidence shows that cost sharing, particularly deductibles, may cause patients to forgo or delay care, including medically necessary services. The effects are particularly pronounced among those with low incomes and the very sick. In the private insurance market, cost sharing typically is used as a blunt instrument, without regard for an individual’s income or health status ... higher cost sharing is associated with adverse health outcomes among vulnerable populations, including individuals with a low income, poor health or chronic illness, or those who are elderly.”
In the individual market, almost 90 percent of enrollees in Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces are in a high deductible health plan. A HDHP is one where the deductible is at least $1,300 for self-only coverage or $2,600 for family coverage. So if your 2017 ACA plan has a $1,500 deductible and you find out in January you need a CT scan that costs $1,500, you would be responsible for paying the full amount. It’s easy to see why someone would put off such a test.
The increasingly poor health of people in the US is the result of a health care system based on increasing the profits of the health care stakeholders. The health insurance companies have set up models of patient treatment to maximize their profits and with lucrative benefits for doctors and hospitals.
The modus operandi in health care, which underlies patient treatment, is called value-based health care, in which the business model and the care model become increasingly intertwined. The ACA includes provisions that promote this trend in Medicare, the federally funding health insurance system for the elderly and disabled.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and private health insurance companies are moving from a purely fee-for-service payment system to payment models that reward health care providers based on the quality and cost of care provided. CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services began implementing value-based programs in 2001, billing them as “Quality Initiatives.”
Through these various doctor and hospital programs, the insurance industry and CMS regulate patient care. They decide what services health care providers will be paid for (and what they will not be paid for), how much money providers have to save and how much they will be reimbursed for patient care—and their “incentive” payment if they cut costs.
One of the tenets of this model is to declare patients to be “health care consumers” who must be held responsible for the financial management of their own care. They must shop around to find the least expensive care or be able to afford the best care. One idea being floated by large employers, for example, is to set a fixed dollar amount they will pay for common but expensive procedures. For hip replacement, they could limit payment to $5,000. Since the best doctors and hospitals charge more, only the wealthy could get the best care.
The stakeholders involved with creating Obamacare—health insurance companies, the Department of Health and Human Services, hospitals, physician groups, drug companies and employers—all will be involved in what comes next. The structures and systems are already in place to make sure the stakeholders benefit and population suffers, unable to get good quality, affordable care.
Posted by at No comments:

Mexican protests continue as consumer prices rise

Rafael Azul

In the face of continuing protests, marches and occupations in Mexico, the ruling class is looking for political and economic alternatives to Peña Nieto as his political partners, the right-wing National Action Party (PAN) and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), distance themselves from the gas subsidy cuts in the face of widespread public opposition.
Wednesday marked the 11th day of protests against what has become known as the gasolinazo, the gasoline price shock decreed by the Peña Nieto administration on December 28.
Protests took place in the Mexican states along the US-Mexico border, including San Luis Potosí, Coahuila, Sinaloa, and Baja California Norte. Mobilizations also took place in the central states of Morelos and Hidalgo and in Mexico City. In Coahuila, truck drivers set up barricades across the Saltillo-Monterrey Highway. To the east, a caravan began in San Luis Potosí for a rally in Mexico City against the next fuel shock scheduled for February.
Roughly 100 protesters rallied at the Sinaloa provincial legislature in the city of Culiacán denouncing the special 15.000 peso (~$US 680) year-end subsidies that legislators had approved for themselves and family members. In the city of Cuernavaca, Morelos State, human rights groups protested against the increases in bus fares related to the gasolinazo.
In Baja California Norte, truckers and community members have blocked the Rosarita Pemex distribution center, which supplies gas stations in Mexicali, along the California border. Some of the people involved report that following the New Year’s Day fuel increase, it is less expensive to purchase gasoline across the border, in Calexico, California than in Mexicali. Except for emergency tanker trucks, the demonstrators are preventing all trucks from entering and leaving the terminal. The protest began on January 3 and is affecting 240 gas stations in Mexicali, the port of San Felipe and the town of San Luis Río Colorado.
Mexico City taxi drivers also attempted to block the Peño Viejo Metro train station in the Iztapalapa industrial suburb. Police intervened and force them to retreat. To the north of Mexico City, In Hidalgo State, small farmers as well as agricultural and urban workers gathered at the Hidalgo legislative building to protest the gasolinazo.
In the vicinity of the small rural town of El Nith, Hidalgo, where demonstrators are blocking the Mexico City to Laredo highway, officials of the Catholic Church attempted to involve themselves in the demonstration. Church officials declared their support for the protests and held a mass at the barricades, which have been up since January 2. This protest was the scene, on January 5, of a violent attack by government forces that resulted in the death of two of young protesters, Fredy Cruz and Alan Giovanni Martínez.
In the midst of these waves of popular protests, the Catholic Church, an institution that in 1988 officially made its peace with the Mexican ruling class and the Mexican state, is intervening on the government’s behalf to detour working class anger. Church leaders are now organizing a protest rally at the national legislature Mexico City “for peace and against the gasolinazo. ”
The “left” bourgeois nationalist Morena movement, led by Andrés Manual López Obrador (AMLO), is staking out a position that is similar to that of the Church. On Wednesday Morena legislators and those of its congressional partner Citizen’s Movement (MC) called for a series of palliative measures to relieve some of the effects of the gasolinazo, such as lowering taxes on transit companies and food stores, in return for not raising fares and prices.
In a January 10 speech, AMLO positioned himself as a presidential candidate for 2018 and called on the legislature to assemble in an emergency budget session to reconsider the gasoline increases and the ones to follow in the context of a revised fiscal budget. His message was delivered as a warning, a way to save the Peña Nieto administration out of this crisis.
Taking a nationalist line, Lopéz Obrador called for the building of more refineries to end Mexico’s dependency on foreign fuels and to create jobs.
President Peña Nieto is increasingly isolated. Both parties that signed the Pact for Mexico in 2013 have distanced themselves from the increase in fuel prices, despite the fact that they voted in favor of the hike in the legislature. PRD congressional leader Sánchez Nájera is calling for the cancellation of the fuel price increases, while PAN leader Rafael Delgadillo of Sonora State hypocritically declared his party’s total opposition to changes in gasoline prices. Delgadillo described Peña Nieto’s claim that the gasolinazo would not be inflationary as “demagogic”, and called on the president to listen to the people. At least one PAN governor has declared that he would not use security forces against the demonstrators.
The Mexican Employers Association, Coparmex, a business organization traditionally aligned with the more nationalist-oriented section of the bourgeoisie and whose members account for about 30 percent of Mexico’s GDP, refused on Monday to sign Peña Nieto’s Economic Pact. Instead it issued The Pact that Mexico Needs ( El Acuerdo que México Necesita ), a plan based on even more draconian austerity measures. Like López Obrador and Morena, Coparmex also proposes the building of more refineries and pipelines, as well as the cancellation of the February gasolinazo. Coparmex proposes that its “ Acuerdo ” be signed this February.
Already the effects of the fuel shock are adding to Mexico’s inflation. The increase in the daily minimum wage from 73 to 80.04 pesos (US $3.80), agreed upon last December, that took effect this New Year’s Day, has lost all its buying power. Under the impact of a price explosion in basic items, such as tortillas, beans and now fuel, adjusted for inflation, the new minimum wage represents a regression in living standards, in the space of one month.
Posted by at No comments:

India: Crises in Command?

Murli Menon



The controversial nature of the new Indian army chief’s appointment and the corruption scandal involving a former air chief has brought the Indian military leadership in the media spotlight once again. In India, traditionally, military leadership has got a short shrift. The lack of a strategic culture in India, evident from the lack of understanding of military matters by the civilian hierarchy, is a possible reason for this. The gradual “corporatisation” of the Indian armed forces is another possible contributory factor, where corporate mismanagement has undermined time-proven military leadership skills. India and its defence establishment need to revisit their own military leadership culture and identify weaknesses. A more copious media debate and agitation by the cognoscenti is required before policy changes could possibly be brought about in this regard.

Military leadership offers different sets of challenges than its civilian variant. Over the years, some civilian leaders have to tried to imbibe certain aspects of military leadership but with very little success. Attempts by the military to “civilianise” or “corporatise” its leadership ethos may have more dangerous implications as it could have a direct impact on national security.

A military leader needs to lead men into battle. In the absence of war, the armed forces tend to lose their leadership perspective, and consequently, their fighting edge. This seems to be the case with the Indian armed forces, as these days, they are employed essentially only for counter-insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict Operations. The challenges are even more profound when a military establishment must keep itself battle ready even in times of comparative “peace” or “no peace, no war” situations. This is when basic tenets of military leadership cannot be allowed to be glossed over.

The biggest problem for a peace-time military is what has been described as the “ticket-punching” phenomenon. Every military service lays down norms to enable its officer cadre to have a smooth transition from its tactical to operational and strategic levels of leadership. Nevertheless, some officers choose to “ticket-punch” their way through the established hierarchical shaft, either avoiding the more challenging assignments altogether by opting for “low threat” assignments or by opting for other ornamental staff jobs. These “easier” assignments also tend to offer inflated report statuses numerically, allowing the concerned ticket-punchers to steal a march over their other colleagues who may have exposed themselves to operationally much more challenging and riskier assignments. The promotion criteria in all services, therefore, ought to be based on a military leader’s successful transition across the mandatory field and staff assignments across all levels – tactical, operational and strategic – of war, and not any other extraneous considerations.
 
Another factor that assists "ticket-punchers" in gaining an unfair advantage is the ill-thought out changes in personnel policies, at times provoked by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The Staff/Operations criteria attempt proposed by the Army – and undone by the MoD – and the wanton reduction some years ago of “discretionary weightage” drastically from 25 per cent to 5 per cent (precluding the scope for objectively compensating a deserving candidate during promotion for higher ranks in the Air Force) are two such cases in point.

If the Establishment sends across the message of appointing only an “operationally sound” officer as the chief of any of the services, most travails regarding inept senior level military leadership would be overcome. Even with such merit-imbued promotional criteria in place, it is possible that a senior military functionary, including a chief, could get compromised in some scam. Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Shashi Tyagi’s alleged involvement in the AgustaWestland chopper scam is one such example. These types of situations need to be addressed through reforms such as Intelligence Bureau vetting, subordinate reportage in confidential reports, and increased transparency in the equipment procurement processes. What is currently playing out with Air Chief Marshall (Retd) Shashi Tyagi is a different matter altogether. He appears to be the fall guy for big political entities. With a proactive judiciary, it is only a matter of time before the truth prevails.

The requirement, therefore, is to ensure that military leadership does not get compromised in terms of dilution of mandatory qualitative criteria for any promotion, particularly the ones to starred ranks. This would remove any possible controversy if a person with better operational credentials supersedes lesser endowed peers. Military leadership has to be nurtured over time. Performance in wars may not always be a practical criterion, given that the entire military leadership is now from a “post-war” era as they were commissioned post-1971, the system should look for other norms. It is still possible that these criteria could be ignored leading to the wrong person being elevated to the top job. India’s Defence Minister Manohar Parikkar is quite right when he says that seniority alone cannot be a criterion for promotion. This is where the Indian military needs doctrinal precepts to support its personnel policies, preventing tinkering of norms without objective analyses. India also needs to put in place institutional quadrennial defence reviews like they have in the US – to undertake reformations in the Indian military’s operational, administrative and support infrastructure and procedures.
Posted by at No comments:

11 Jan 2017

United Nations Youth Champions Initiative for Young Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: India (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi), Ethiopia, Pakistan (Karachi), and the United States (Louisiana and Mississippi).
About the Award:  The Youth Champions Initiative (YCI) invests in visionary young champions who lead the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) movement now and for the next generation. Following a competitive selection process, YCI will select 18 visionary young people working in Packard Foundation priority geographies – India (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi), Ethiopia, Pakistan (Karachi), and the United States (Louisiana and Mississippi).
Type: Training
Eligibility: Youth Champions Initiative invests in powerful young leaders ages 18-30 who are leading the sexual and reproductive health and rights movement in Ethiopia, India, Pakistan and the United States.  Eligible candidates must meet the following selection criteria:
  1. Young persons between the ages of 18-29
  2. Residents of: • Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and New Delhi, India • Ethiopia • Pakistan • Louisiana and Mississippi, USA
  3. Personal dedication to improving sexual and reproductive health and rights
  4. Commitment to social change and experience in one or more of the following areas: youth development, education, sexual and reproductive health and rights, innovation and/or related fields
  5. Support of the applicant’s host organization and ability to participate in a workshop in Los Altos, California, USA in early May of 2017.
  6. Proficient in oral and written English
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program: This is a Funded program
How to Apply: For more information read the YCI Fact Sheet, and to apply fill out the application form. Submission deadline is Sunday, January 15, 2017.
Award Provider: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and Public Health Institute
Important Notes: For more information, please visit www.youthchampionsinitiative.org and contact Youth Champions Initiative Program Coordinator Claudia Romeu at clromeu@riseuptogether.org, with a copy to Program Manager Josie Ramos at jramos@riseuptogether.org.
Posted by at No comments:

Switch Africa Green (SAG) – SEED Awards 2017 for African Entrepreneurs

Application Deadline: 8th March, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, South Africa and Uganda
About the Award: The award of the SEED Awards for Entrepreneurship in Sustainable Development is an annual awards program designed to find companies eco- inclusive phase the most promising start-up, innovative and locally conducted in developing countries and emerging economies.
Up to fifteen SAG-SEED Awards are funded by the Africa Green SWITCH project implemented by UNEP with the help of the European Union. South African prices will be co-financed by the Flemish government.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: The SAG-SEED Awards 2017 is open to companies that:
  • demonstrate entrepreneurship and innovation;
  • provide benefits to the economic, social and environmental level;
  • have the aim of becoming financially viable and have the potential to achieve this;
  • form a partnership with different stakeholders;
  • are managed or managed locally;
  • possess a strong potential for growth or replication;
  • are in the development stage;
  • match the geographic criteria and categories described above.
Value of Program: Each award winner will receive a consulting package:
  • Capacity building: individualized counseling on the development of financial business plan and plan, including a business planning workshop for three days and three months in support of a local expert advisor.
  • Tools: access to online self-help tools such as: do a market analysis, develop a funding strategy, develop a mapping of partners and other stakeholder, developing contracts or agreements of understanding with partners etc. .
  • Visibility: SAG-SEED winners are presented at national and regional level through a high-level awards ceremony as well as internationally through marketing and promotional activities of SEED as our website our blog and our social networks.
  • Networking: SEED facilitates connections with valuable contacts to help organizations, such as donors, policy makers and other companies such as SEED SEED Alumni and Partners and Associates.
How to Apply: You can submit your application online on the SEED website www.seed.uno or download the application form and send it by e-mail at seedawards2017@seed.uno .
Award Provider: SEED
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)