Australian flood crisis continues as questions mount over government preparations

Oscar Grenfell 

The flood crisis that has hit large parts of south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales over the past week is continuing to affect thousands of people, with floodwaters peaking in the Queensland regional centre of Rockhampton today.

Outlying areas of the city, which has a population of around 80,000, have already been submerged by the slow-moving floodwaters, with the Fitzroy River rising to a level of nearly nine metres, the benchmark of a major flood disaster. Record rainfalls in the aftermath of Cyclone Debbie, which made landfall in south-east Queensland on Tuesday last week, have concentrated in the Fitzroy River catchment.

Over 200 homes in Rockhampton were thought to have been damaged by floodwaters as of Wednesday. The airport, along with schools and many businesses in the city have been closed since early this week.

Authorities have warned that another 300 homes and businesses are likely to be inundated today. Over 3,000 more properties are expected to be directly affected by the flood. Warnings have been issued that the disaster will have a “devastating” impact on the local economy.

The floodwaters are not expected to subside for between 24 and 48 hours, meaning that many residents will be isolated, with the prospect of widespread power outages.

Questions have already emerged over the lack of government action to prevent inundation of the city, which is one of the most flood prone in the country. The current flood is the fourth to have hit Rockhampton in the past seven years, but authorities at the local, state and federal levels have resisted calls for the construction of a protective levee.

In 2011, the city suffered substantial damage in floods that swept over large parts of Queensland. The economic cost was estimated at $35 million. Rockhampton was again struck by floods in 2013, and in 2015 it was hit by a cyclone and flow-on flooding.

Calls for the construction of a levee were first made in 1992, following severe floods the previous year. In 2015, proposals were discussed for a $50 million levee, which would have protected an estimated 1,500 properties, through the construction of a 7.2 kilometre embankment. The plan was scuttled over costs.

Responding to criticisms over the past days, Rockhampton Mayor Margaret Strelow declared that the local council did not have sufficient funds to build a levee. Instead, it has prepared for the current inundation by erecting makeshift structures in parts of the city. The barriers are down the middle of flood-affected streets, meaning that residents on the wrong side will likely suffer inundation.

The council has suffered a number of budgetary crises. Between 2011 and 2013 it reportedly spent more than $6 million repairing flood-damaged roads and infrastructure.

Questioned about the absence of a levee on a Channel Nine television broadcast this morning, Queensland Labor premier Annastacia Palaszczuk blandly stated that her government was “open to the idea.” Any measures, however, she said, would need to be backed by the federal government, which has also resisted allocating funds to flood mitigation.

Residents have also voiced anger over the impact of power outages. Reg Dummett, told the Australian yesterday that his electricity had been off for the previous two days, the first time he has suffered a flood-related outage in 40 years.

“It’s ridiculous. I’m a pensioner and I’m having to run a generator paying, I don’t know how much, for fuel,” Dummett said. As in other areas of the state, those affected by the floods can apply for a government grant of just $180.

The dire social consequences of last week’s flooding in New South Wales (NSW) are also becoming clear. Damages across the state are estimated at $200 million. The regional centre of Lismore, in northern NSW, was among the worst hit.

Lismore has a flood levee, but the structure, built in 2005, was only designed to withstand one in ten year floods, and was breached last Friday by floodwaters that were the highest since 1974. The entire central business district was submerged and hundreds of homes were damaged.

On Monday, Liberal-National Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was confronted by Steven Kreig, a small business owner, during a stage-managed visit to Lismore.

Krieg denounced the state and federal government for offering loans, rather than grants, to small businesses devastated by the floods, and contrasted the response to the hundreds of millions of dollars provided by successive governments to the major car companies, which are ending production in Australia at the end of the year.

Krieg, who said he was already “up to his eyeballs” in debt, commented: “If you come back in six months, you’ll just about see 50 to 80 percent of those businesses still not open... I’m facing the fact that if I don’t open my doors I’m going to have to sell my house to pay the rent.” Many businesses and homes were uninsured, with some insurance companies charging premiums of $30,000 a year in flood-prone areas.

The city is littered with piles of debris and mud on front lawns, including severely damaged household items, and material that was scattered by the floods. The local council has declared that it is unable to move the volume of rubbish that has accumulated, and has said that some of it may remain in the city for up to a month.

Greg Bell from the North Coast Public Health Unit warned of the potential health impact of the debris, telling the ABC yesterday: “Whatever was on the land ends up in the water—chemicals, oil, dead animals, septic tanks have overflown, sewerage plants have been on bypass so they can’t pump and it goes into the floodwater. As the water goes down, that material goes into the mud.”

The flood crisis in Queensland and NSW has claimed at least seven lives, while three men are still missing in Queensland. On Monday, tragedy struck when a car carrying Stephanie King and her three children slid into the Tweed River in northern NSW. King and two of her children perished.

In the immediate aftermath of the accident, police authorities stated that the road had been closed, before backtracking on the claim amid anger from local residents.

One of King’s friends, Sally Fraser wrote on Facebook: “I hope people keep demanding the truth, that the road was not closed. Even buses were using that road. I knew immediately when I heard, it couldn’t have been closed, because I know for a fact you would never EVER put your kids in harm’s way.” The deaths will be the subject of a coronial investigation.

As in previous disasters, the current floods have underscored the manifestly inadequate character of federal and state government preparations for natural disasters which are a predictable and routine occurrence. Flood-mitigation measures are stymied by governments committed to budget cuts on behalf of big business, while residents in affected areas are often left to fend for themselves.

National strike in Argentina as opposition to austerity grows

Rafael Azul 

At a March 7 rally of Argentina’s main trade union confederation, the CGT, workers booed and denounced the trade union leadership, demanding a national general strike of all workers against the right-wing government of Mauricio Macri. The CGT stonewalled the demand. Several months earlier, the CGT had met with Macri and guaranteed they would keep the lid on social discontent and “preserve social peace” long enough for his government to implement pro-corporate reforms.

But March and April have seen a wave of street protests, strikes and rallies by the Argentine working class, in Buenos Aires and across Argentina.

A series of strikes, road closures and protests by teachers, autoworkers and other sections of the working class against sackings and attacks on wages and benefits are continuing this week. Across Buenos Aires, teachers are now voting on the next steps to take in their struggles. These include a strike for an indefinite time, weekly walkouts and other forms of struggle.

The protests have been massive. On March 22, over 300,000 teachers marched and rallied in Buenos Aires.

On March 24, tens of thousands in many cities across Argentina ( and 100,000 in Buenos Aires) participated in the March of Memory, Truth and Justice, which marked the 41st anniversary of the 1976 military coup d’etat. Except for a 100-word statement from 1984 on his Facebook page, Macri made no official declaration. The Macri government has downplayed the significance of that coup, insisting that the number of victims fell far short of the accepted figure of 30,000. No official event was organized.

On April 3, tens of thousands of striking teachers in the southern state of Santa Cruz surrounded the state government office and refused to let Peronist governor Alicia Kirchner (sister of ex-president Nestor Kirchner) leave until 4:00 am.

This social tension made it impossible for the CGT to continue stonewalling the broadly supported demand for a general strike. Fearing the prospect of social explosion, the CGT announced a one-day strike, scheduled for today, April 6.

There is broad hostility to the Macri government’s reform plan. Macri’s measures since he assumed the presidency in December 2015, with the support of the national legislature (including both the Kirchnerista and the Massa wings of the Peronist movement), have been combined with attacks on basic rights, jobs, housing, health care, pensions, and freedom of speech and assembly.

The Macri administration wants to limit wage and salary increases to less than 20 percent, in several installments, amounting to a substantial cut in real wages. Official unemployment tops 10 percent of the labor force. Tens of thousands of workers have been sacked and suspended in the auto, printing, oil, electronics, consumer goods, steel and food industries. One third of the population lives below the poverty line, and last year’s inflation rate reached 30 percent, driving down living standards.

Macri has especially targeted teachers, who have responded by striking, demanding wage increases that correspond to the rate of inflation. Teachers have rejected offers of 19 percent wage hikes, in return for accepting concessions in working conditions. At the same time the government is illegally refusing to pay teachers for days on strike.

Full of fear that workers’ anger is rapidly getting out of control, as it has in the past (the 1969 Cordobazo, for instance, or the protests of December 2001 that brought down the government of Fernando De La Rua), the CGT is using the one-day strike as another offer of class collaboration to Macri and the Argentine ruling class. Breaking with tradition, the CGT announced that there would be no mobilizations, marches or rallies in Buenos Aires on April 6. A CGT leader told workers to “stay home with their Mate tea.”

CGT leader Héctor Daer declared that the purpose of this general strike was to “generate debate in society, not only among workers, but among middle layers and intellectuals,” over the social and economic reforms.

Juan Carlos Schmid, the CGT’s general secretary acknowledged the “there is a generalized discontent among many layers in the population” over the impoverishment created by Macri’s economic measures. Other bureaucrats have spoken to the press about their concerns that the trade unions may lose control of social discontent.

The CGT, with a membership of more than two and a half million, is the largest union federation in Argentina. The Argentine trade unions have a long history of class collaboration, corporatism and anti-socialism, going back to the 1930s and the Uribe dictatorship. The CGT under the regime that followed the 1943 coup established close links with the populist nationalist anticommunist military, and played a big role in the installation of Juan Perón as president (1945-55, 1973-74). Peron integrated the trade unions into his government and the populist Justicialis ta Party.

Throughout succeeding civilian administrations, interrupted by five military governments and a brutal military fascist dictatorship, the CGT leaders have continued with their criminal betrayal of the Argentine working class.

For their part, the pseudo-left Morenoist Socialist Workers Party (PTS) and the Workers Party (PO) limited their criticism of the 24-hour national strike to the absence of marches, calling instead for an “active strike.” Beyond that they present no perspective or program to orient and unite the working class internationally.

Aggressive claims by Spain helped provoke Gibraltar flare-up with Britain

Alejandro López

The Spanish bourgeoisie has used the Brexit negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) to provocatively reassert its claims to the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar.

The 6.7 square kilometre territory was seized by Britain in 1704 for its strategic military importance at the entrance to the Mediterranean. It has since become a major tax haven for the British and international ruling elite. Although the territory’s 30,000 inhabitants rejected Spanish sovereignty in a referendum in 2002, they voted by 96 percent in last June’s Brexit referendum to remain in the EU.

Last year sections of the Spanish ruling class calculated that Brexit offered Spain a “golden opportunity,” not only to reclaim Gibraltar but also to possibly become Washington’s new strategic ally in Europe.

Former Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo declared that it would give Spain “an opportunity to have an even more important role than the one we already have with the United States, and don’t forget about one other thing: we’ll be talking about Gibraltar the very next day.”

The renewed moves by Spain have the backing of the EU. Brussels has dropped its traditional neutral position on conflicting Spanish/UK claims on Gibraltar and adopted an aggressive anti-British position—as it has done on every issue of controversy since the result of the Brexit referendum.

Last week, in response to UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s hardline demands on the terms of the UK-EU divorce, the EU sent its 27 remaining member a nine-page document containing its draft negotiating position. It warned, “A non-member of the union… cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member.”

It made clear in a clause in the document that “no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.”

On Monday, the European Commission’s chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas said, “The guidelines presented on Friday have the complete backing of President [Jean-Claude] Juncker and [chief negotiator] Michel Barnier. We will give no more explanations.”

Juncker’s endorsement of the Gibraltar clause comes just a few weeks after his intervention over the status of Northern Ireland in EU-UK negotiations. Juncker and Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Enda Kenny jointly declared that “at some future time,” there was a vote for a united Ireland, as laid down in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, “Northern Ireland would have ease of access to join as a member of the European Union again.” The EU also indicated it opposes the re-establishing of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

In Britain, the Gibraltar clause led former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard to invoke Margaret Thatcher’s 1982 war against Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands to declare the UK was prepared to go to war with Spain over Gibraltar. Former minister Norman Tebbit warned that Gibraltar is a “vital Western strategic interest” and suggested “inviting leaders of the Catalan independence movement to London, or even to raising their desire for independence at the United Nations.” It took two days before UK Prime Minister May tried to make a joke of Howard’s bellicose talk.

In contrast, Spain’s ABC newspaper declared, “The Spanish government achieves its first triumph after the opening up of Brexit negotiations.”

El País stated that the clause is “handing the Spanish government the negotiating key it needed in its claims over the territory.”

For El Español, “in what has become a major diplomatic victory, Spain has a powerful ally on its side in its dispute with the United Kingdom over The Rock: the European Union of the 27.”

Soon after, the leaders of three of Spain’s main parties, the ruling Popular Party (PP), the main opposition Socialist Party (PSOE) and Citizens met with high-ranking foreign ministry officials to agree on a joint strategy for Gibraltar.

Amid this tense situation, on Tuesday Spain dispatched a warship into the disputed territorial waters around Gibraltar. The Spanish Ministry of Defence described this as routine operations against illicit drugs and migrants, while the British Foreign Office declared it to be an unlawful maritime incursion.

Unhindered control of the Straits of Gibraltar has always been one of Spanish imperialism’s foreign policy priorities. Its repossession became official government policy during the fascist regime of General Francisco Franco (1939-1978) and following the Transition to democracy, the policy has remained in place under successive governments.

One of the main books dealing with Spanish foreign policy explains, “The Straits of Gibraltar continues to be the main sea route in the world, both because of the number of ships passing through it (80,000 a year, about 220 a day), and because of its tonnage and the presence of ships with nuclear weapons. It acts as a key to the Mediterranean, which is not only important from a military point of view, but also because of the large oil tankers from North Africa and/or the Persian Gulf coming through Suez, which are part of the normal supply of energy to the European countries. Ensuring the free movement and preventing any form of blockade that would affect countries like Spain, which receives 82% of its supplies by sea, is therefore a priority objective.” [Ricardo Méndez and Silva Marcu, “La posicion geoestratégica de España” p.137-138 in La política exterior de España de 1800 hasta hoy (2010).]

Criticisms have been levelled at Spanish Foreign Minister Alfonso Dastis’ other piece of political brinkmanship targeting the UK—his suggesting that Spain would not block Scotland’s application for membership of the EU if it separated from the UK.

His remarks open the Pandora box regarding Catalonia and the Basque Country, which both have strong separatist movements that, like the Scottish National Party, are demanding independence as a first step to seeking EU membership. In Catalonia, a referendum on independence, declared illegal by the Spanish government, has been called in November by the regional Catalan government. The Catalan position can only be strengthened by Dastis’ tacit support for the SNP’s own demand for a second independence referendum.

El Mundo said that when questioned about Scotland, “a Spanish minister is expected, at this point in time, to put nationalism in its place, which is that of garbage...” Dastis’ comments, it declared, had caused “Tebbit to threaten to take the Catalan cause to the UN.”

ABC posted an editorial, “Dastis’ grave mistake,” warning that “any reference to Scotland’s independence and eventual entry into the European Union from the mouth of a Member of the Government of Spain can be used against our national interests.”

The Gibraltar crisis is also an expression of the growing antagonisms brought about by President Donald Trump’s open declarations of support for Brexit and for the break-up of the EU, which he has described as a German-dominated economic competitor to the US.

While the UK is interested in defending the “special relationship” with the US after the UK leaves Europe and calculates it will have Trump’s support on Gibraltar and the EU negotiations, Spain is attempting to become the new strategic partner of the US in post-Brexit Europe.

Last week, Spanish Defence Minister María Dolores de Cospedal visited US Secretary of Defence James Mattis in Washington for talks described as successful. This week, Spain complied with Trump’s demand that NATO countries commit at least 2 percent of spending on defence, increasing its military spending by fully 32 percent—from €5.7 billion in 2016 to €7.5 billion in 2017. Two years ago, Spain signed an agreement with the US making permanent its airbase at Moron and naval base at Rota, just 1.5 hours away from Gibraltar. Both bases have played a major role in all US-led wars since the First Gulf War in 1990.

French presidential candidates feign opposition in 11-party debate

Alex Lantier

On Tuesday night, all 11 French presidential candidates participated for over three hours in the first of two 11-party debates scheduled before the first round of the elections, on April 23. The unusual debate, which produced noisy and often fractious exchanges and a great deal of political posturing, reflected the deep and growing concerns of the French ruling class.

The financial aristocracy, facing a historic collapse in support for the candidates of its two traditional parties of rule, Benoît Hamon of the ruling Socialist Party (PS) and François Fillon of The Republicans (LR), is considering the deep crisis of the European Union (EU) and growing social anger. French and international banks are analyzing the possibility of a French exit from the EU and the euro, if Marine Le Pen of the neo-fascist National Front (FN) wins. And protests are erupting against police killings and sexual assaults that the PS, despite the state of emergency, no longer dares to ban.

Ruling circles, feeling increasingly at sea and concerned by polls showing that two-thirds of the French population believes the class struggle is a daily reality, want the political establishment to make a symbolic gesture, to appear to take popular sentiment into account.

Yesterday, in his editorial on the debate for Libération titled ‘Revolt,’ Laurent Joffrin complained of “hard times for financial capitalism.” France, he said, is “a worried country, on edge, explosive, that is getting tired of reasonable solutions.” He went on to welcome the fact that the less prominent candidates expressed “something profound: a revolt against injustice, the rejection of a ruling class that has let money be king.”

Expressions of opposition in the debate were hypocritical and empty, however, insofar as they came primarily from long-time, trusted allies of the PS such as Philippe Poutou of the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) or Nathalie Arthaud of Workers Struggle (LO). All the so-called “little candidates” cut their deals with the major parties to obtain the 500 signatures of elected officials required by anti-democratic electoral laws in order to present a presidential candidate.

Their positions offer nothing to the working class, and the debate moved within extremely narrow limits. No candidate in the debate, “little” or otherwise, raised the danger of a major war posed by NATO’s threats against Russia and Syria, and heightened by the recent propositions of candidates Emmanuel Macron and Jean-Luc Mélenchon to bring back the draft. No one proposed, either, to end the ongoing state of emergency imposed by the PS.

Nevertheless, Joffrin’s comments indicate why limited and hypocritical discussions of war and social inequality emerged in this tightly controlled debate.

Macron, the candidate supported by President François Hollande and his PS government, attacked Le Pen, declaring: “What you are proposing, with the exit from the euro, it’s cutting purchasing power, destroying jobs, and economic war! You are proposing nationalism, and nationalism, that means war!” Le Pen responded that Macron’s statements were just “tired old nonsense.”

Poutou, a union bureaucrat at the Ford factory in Blanquefort whose party emerged from the post-1968 student movement as a classic example of a petty-bourgeois organization, played the role of the “working class” candidate that has netted him media coverage. Wearing a T-shirt, he refused to be photographed with the other candidates and indicated his solidarity with LO’s Arthaud: “They try to limit us to the role of a little candidate who represents nothing and should not be here, but we are the only ones to have real jobs...”

Similarly, Arthaud postured as a fighter for working people, calling for “consciousness, confrontation, combat and social struggle because nothing will ever be given to us. It’s a vote of conscience and militancy.” She later added, pessimistically, that things are getting “harder, but we will get nothing without that.”

The hypocrisy involved in these statements is staggering. Firstly, all of these candidates, the NPA and LO no less than Macron and Le Pen, are on record as supporting imperialist wars in Libya, Syria, and Eastern Europe. As Macron takes Le Pen to task for promoting nationalism and thus heightening the danger of war, he and Mélenchon are demanding a return of the draft, to prepare the French army for war. Macron justified his call for the draft by declaring that we are living in an “epoch in international relations in which war is again a possible outcome of politics.”

As for LO and the NPA, these are organizations that have endorsed every trade union sell-out of workers struggles in France, and whose co-thinkers in Greece, in the Syriza (“Coalition of the Radical Left”) government, are imposing deep EU austerity on the working class.

Asked about the significance of Europe and the euro, Arthaud light-mindedly and nationalistically dismissed the issue of Europe as a “diversion,” even as conflicts within Europe surge amid Brexit. “If you’re badly paid, be it in francs [the former French national currency] or in euros, you’re still badly paid,” she declared.

What came to predominate in the debate was nationalism and differences over foreign policy, as concern on the fate of the euro pushes Le Pen at least temporarily on the back foot, and candidates such as Mélenchon or Le Pen tack away from their previous anti-EU policies.

After Le Pen has backed away from pledges to take France out of the euro, instead proposing to hold a referendum on whether to leave the EU and the euro if she is elected, Fillon attacked her: “As we all know that an immense majority of French people does not want to abandon the European currency. This means in reality that Mrs. Le Pen has no economic policy, as her economic policy will collapse the minute that the French people take a position on the exit from the European currency.”

At the same time, there were growing xenophobic attacks from all sides of the debate. When right-wing nationalist candidate Nicolas Dupont-Aignan denounced workers posted in France from abroad for supposedly stealing French workers’ jobs, he obtained support from Mélenchon, who issued a nationalist rant against foreign workers. Having already accused them of “stealing French workers’ jobs”' last year, Mélenchon accused them this year of “destroying our social legal system,” and added: “If I’m elected, there will be no more posted work.”

The outcome of this debate underscores the bankruptcy of the entire political establishment in France. Aware and afraid of a coming social explosion of the working class, they themselves are firmly committed to the drive to war and escalating attacks on democratic rights.

Syria’s alleged gas attack: An imperialist provocation

Bill Van Auken

The Trump administration publicly responded to unsubstantiated allegations that forces loyal to the government of President Bashar al-Assad bore responsibility for a chemical attack in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province with the threat of a new escalation of the American intervention in the war-ravaged Middle Eastern country.

Speaking alongside one of Washington’s favorite Arab puppet rulers, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, during a joint news conference at the White House, Trump declared that the “heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated” and had “crossed a lot of lines for me.” While condemning his predecessor, Barack Obama, for failing to carry through on a threat to intervene militarily in Syria over alleged chemical weapons attacks in 2013, Trump declared “I now have the responsibility,” adding that his “attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

Washington’s ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, meanwhile, issued an even more direct threat of unilateral US military action in the run-up to an anticipated Russian veto of a provocative Western-backed resolution that could serve as a fig leaf for aggression against Syria. “When the United Nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,” she said.

Fourteen years after the US invaded Iraq, turning that country and much of the Middle East into a charnel house, Washington is at it again, employing a strikingly similar pretext for imperialist aggression.

Once again, the US and world public is being bombarded with unsubstantiated claims about “weapons of mass destruction” allegedly employed by an oppressed former colonial country, mixed with crocodile tears and feigned moral outrage from a government responsible for more civilian deaths and war crimes than any regime since the fall of the Nazi Third Reich.

The pretext for this orchestrated campaign has all the earmarks of an imperialist provocation planned and executed by the Central Intelligence Agency and allied Western secret services with the aim of shifting US policy in relation to Syria.

First, there is the question of motive. Who benefits from such a crime? Clearly, it is not the Assad regime, which, with the aid of Russia and Iran, has largely vanquished the Islamist “rebels” that were armed, financed and trained by the CIA and Washington’s regional allies in the bloody six-year-long war for regime change. The government now rules over 80 percent of the country, including all of its major cities, with the Islamists’ hold reduced to largely rural areas of Idlib province. Under conditions in which the Trump administration had been signaling a shift in focus from toppling Assad to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), why would Damascus carry out such a provocative attack?

The CIA-backed “rebels” themselves, however—along with their patrons in the US military and intelligence apparatus—have every interest in staging such a provocation as a means of thwarting the government’s consolidation of its rule throughout Syria. Moreover, numerous investigations, including by the UN’s own chemical disarmament agency, have made it clear that these forces, dominated by the Syrian Al Qaeda affiliate, the Al Nusra Front, have carried out similar attacks using both chlorine and sarin gas, which they have received from their regional backers in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and which they themselves have proven capable of manufacturing.

Then there is the issue of timing. The alleged gas attack was launched Tuesday morning, coinciding with the opening in Brussels of a European Union-sponsored “Conference on Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region,” which was to review proposals for “political transition” in Syria as well as Europe’s intervention in the potentially lucrative reconstruction of the ravaged country. The alleged chemical attack set the stage for renewed demands for regime change and criticism of the Trump administration for suggesting that the ouster of Assad was no longer a priority.

There is a definite pattern here. The last time that Washington and its allies accused the Assad regime of a major chemical weapons attack and nearly launched a full-scale war on that pretext was in August 2013. That alleged attack, which subsequent revelations exposed as a “rebel” provocation carried out with the help of Turkish intelligence, was launched on the very day that UN weapons inspectors arrived in Damascus.

The most telling aspect of the entire affair, however, is the extraordinary coordination of the entire corporate media in the launching of a full-throated campaign for military action before the basic facts of the incident were even known, much less a serious investigation conducted. It seemed that even before the alleged incident in Syria was reported, all of the major newspaper editors and columnists as well as the television news commentators had received the same talking points.

None of them, of course, bothered to inform their readers and viewers that the sole sources of the information they retailed as good coin consisted of Al Qaeda-connected “activists” in Syria along with US intelligence and military officials pushing for war.

Leading the pack, as usual, was the New York Times, which carried the headline “Chemical Attack on Syrians Ignites World’s Outrage.” What evidence there is of such “outrage,” outside of the world of intelligence agencies, state officials and their media hacks was not clear. Nor, for that matter, was there any explanation for the selective character of this “outrage.”

It is noteworthy that this moral outpouring came just a day after Trump gave the red carpet treatment to Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the butcher of Cairo, who slaughtered 1,000 unarmed demonstrators in a single day. Nor, for that matter, did the Times evince any such “outrage” over the 200 Iraqi civilians killed in a single US bombing raid in Mosul last month, or the hundreds if not thousands more buried alive by US bombs and missiles dropped on schools, mosques and homes in Syria itself, not to mention in Yemen.

There are certain bylines that appear on such articles that brand them as the product of direct collaboration with US intelligence. In this case, it was that of Anne Barnard, who has provided such services over the entire course of the US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria. Her work was supplemented by that of Thomas Friedman, who has backed every US imperialist intervention over the course of over a quarter century. He offers a modest proposal for the “partition of Syria” and the creation of “protected” zones enforced by the US military. “It won’t be pretty or easy,” he allows, noting reassuringly that the US maintained 400,000 troops in Europe during the Cold War.

What is also strikingly uniform in the media propaganda campaign over the events in Syria is the across-the-board indictment of Iran and Russia as equally culpable in the alleged chemical attack. The Times editorial charged that the attack speaks to Assad’s “depravity and that of his enablers, especially Russia and Iran.”

A Washington Post editorial insisted: “Now it is Mr. Trump’s turn to decide whether to stand up to Mr. Assad and his Iranian and Russian sponsors.”

The aim is clear. The murky events in Syria are to be exploited in order to shift the bitter internal debate on foreign policy within the US ruling establishment. The intention is to bring the Trump administration into line with the predominant tendency within the US military and intelligence apparatus which is pushing for an uninterrupted buildup to military confrontation with both Iran and Russia.

That these efforts are having their desired effect found concrete expression Wednesday not only in Trump’s remarks on Syria, but also in the removal of Stephen Bannon, Trump’s fascistic chief strategist, from the principals committee of the National Security Council. The ouster of the ideological architect of Trump’s “America first” right-wing nationalist demagogy was reportedly dictated by Gen. H.R. McMaster, the president’s new national security adviser, an active duty officer who speaks for the Pentagon. Faced with intractable social and political crises at home, Trump, like his predecessors, appears to be turning toward war abroad.

The working class in both the US and internationally must take these developments, along with the CIA provocation in Syria and its accompanying media propaganda campaign, as a deadly serious warning. It faces the threat of being dragged not only into a renewed bloodbath in the Middle East, but a far more dangerous conflagration involving the world’s two major nuclear powers.

Government of China MOFCOM Scholarships for Developing Countries (Masters & PhD) 2017

Application Deadline: 30th April 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Field of Study: Each applicant can choose one same major in three universities out of the 26 designated universities as their desired option.

About Scholarship: MOFCOM Scholarship is set up by Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China to further strengthen the communication and cooperation between China and other countries as well as to develop talents for developing countries. Starting from 2015, MOFCOM Scholarship mainly sponsors the young and the middle-aged talents from recipient countries to pursue their postgraduate degree education in China and entrusts China Scholarship Council to administer the Scholarship.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Masters and PhD Scholarships

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: To be eligible, applicants must:

• be a citizen of a country other than the People’s Republic of China, and be in good health;
• be a bachelor’s degree holder when applying for master’s program;
• be a master’s degree holder when applying for doctoral program;
• be under the age of 45 when applying;
• have sufficient English or Chinese proficiency which meets the academic requirements of the program.

Number of Scholarships: several

Value of Scholarship:

• -tuition waiver;
• -teaching material fee waiver;
• -research and survey fee waiver;
• -dissertation guidance fee waiver;
• -one-off resettlement fee:
• 3000RMB per master student,
• 3000RMB per PhD student;
• -on-campus accommodation;
• -stipend:
• 3000RMB per month per master student,
• 3500RMB per month per PhD student;
• -medical insurance
• -one-time round-trip international airfare for all the students （First time fly to China after enrollment, and Fly back to home country while graduation）, and a maximum of “n-1” （“n” is for the length of schooling year which is set while the student was enrolled by the program） round-trip international airfares for home visits （one time per year set at the end of an academic year）.

Duration of Scholarship: Master’s program for 2-3 years or PhD program for 3-4 years.

Eligible Countries: developing countries

To be taken at (country): Each applicant can choose one same major in three universities out of the 26 designated universities as their desired option. CSC will place each applicant in one university only based on their desired option and universities’ requirements.

Application Requirement (in Chinese or English)

1. Application Form for MOFCOM Scholarship;
2. Photocopy of highest diploma;
3. Photocopy of academic transcripts;
4. A Study Plan or Research Proposal with a minimum of 400 words;
5. Photocopy of Foreigner Physical Examination Form;

How to Apply

• Step 1: Visit csc.edu.cn/laihua or www.campuschina.org  and click “Application Online for International Students”.
• Step 2: Read “Tips for online application” carefully before clicking “NEXT” to the registration page.
• Step 3: After registration, log in with your user name and password. Click “Application Forms”and choose “MOFCOM Scholarship”.
• Step 4:  Put 00010 as your Agency Number.
• Step 5: Please fill all the required information truly, correctly and completely following the navigation bars on the left of the page.
• Step 6: After completing the application form, please click “Preview” and check your Application Form carefully before submitting it.
• Step 7: Download the completed Application Form by clicking “Download Application”and print two hard copies.
• Step 8: Prepare other supporting documents as required and send the full package of application documents (two sets of hardcopies) to the Economic and Commercial Counsellor’s Office (ECCO) of the Chinese Embassy.
• Step 9: You can make changes to your application by clicking Retrieve Application on the left of the page. But you have to make sure to submit it again by clicking Confirmation of Submit after finishing all the changes. Otherwise, the retrieved application will become invalid and your new application will not be accepted either.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details to apply

Sponsors: Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China

Important Notes: Scholarship winners must register for English-taught program if such program is available. When only Chinese-taught program is available, students should take Chinese language training courses for one to two years before moving on to their degree study.

Scholarship winners will get the admission package from ECCO of the Chinese Embassy by the end of August, 2016, and must register at the host university before the deadline which is usually September, 2016.

David Oyedepo Foundation Scholarships in Nigeria – for African Students 2017

Application Deadline: 17th May 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Scholarship program is open to Young Africans (Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Western Sahara, Zambia and  Zimbabwe).

To be taken at (country): Covenant University and Landmark University, Nigeria

Eligible Field of Study: Programs covered by the DOF Scholars Program at:

Covenant University are Accounting, Banking and Finance, Mass Communication, Economics, International Relations, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Information & Comm. Tech, Mechanical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Architecture, Applied Biology and Biotechnology, Microbiology, Computer Science, Industrial Physics-Renewable Energy

Landmark University are Animal Science, Soil Science, Crop Science, Agricultural and Biosystem Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical And Information Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Biochemistry, Microbiology, Computer Science, Accounting/Banking & Finance, Economics and International Relations.

Candidates can apply to their choice course of study. However, special consideration would be given to candidates whose courses fall under the following categories:

• Agriculture and allied courses
• Medicine
• Para Medical science
• Political science
• Education and allied courses

About Scholarship

The David Oyedepo Foundation scholarship program is our major platform for promoting  the Foundation’s vision and goals. The scholarship program awards full ride scholarships to qualified individuals who are indigenes and residents of African countries.  The scholarship seeks to develop youth leaders who are ready to put their learned skills to work in leading organizations, communities and their local countries. The scholarship grants students the opportunity to study at Covenant and Landmark University, Nigeria.

Offered Since: 2015

Type: Scholarship is available for pursuing undergraduate program at the Covenant University and Landmark University.

Selection Criteria

• Superior Scholastic Ability
• Outstanding Character
• Evidence of Leadership & Involvement
• Service to Community and School

Eligibility: The David Oyedepo  Foundation Scholarship program is open to Young Africans who meet the following criteria:

• Are citizens and permanent residents of any African Nation
• Are between the ages of 18 and 25 at the time of application submission
• Are eligible to receive a Nigerian student visa
• Are proficient in reading, writing and speaking English

Have a record of exceptional performance at the secondary school level which is benchmarked by:
1. At least 20 points above JAMB cut off points (for Nigerians only)
2. 80% recorded average or 4.0GPA/5.0 in Secondary/High School Transcript
3. Already have begun admission applications to Covenant or Landmark University

Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Full Academic fees for a maximum of 5 years. (In accordance to the University stipulated
time for duration of chosen course).
The scholarship does not cover;

• Travel allowances
• Feeding allowances
• Medical/Health Insurance or allowance
• Any other fees outside University generated Academic fees for a course at any level.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship is for 4 or 5 years, this is subject to university stipulated time for course completion. The maximum duration of scholarship award is 5 years for undergraduate programs.

How to Apply: Applicants should visit the foundation’s website, read the application instructions and complete the online applications. Applicants must submit the application form and all required documents stated on the webpage.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Sponsors: The David Oyedepo Foundation

Notes: Proof of Admission to Landmark and Covenant University is required only at the point of award. Hence applicants can apply for scholarships before admission letters have been received.

University of Dundee School of Medicine Postgraduate Scholarship for International Students 2017

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International. See list of countries below

To be taken at (country): Scotland, UK

Field of Study: Medicine

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 

• Scholarships will be awarded by the Research Postgraduate Committee
• Scholarships are for PhD degrees only, not for MSc
• Applicants must be of strong academic calibre, and must meet English language requirements
• Applicants must provide evidence they are self-funding; this should be submitted with the application form and supporting documents (references, CV, project proposal), this will be reviewed by the RPC
• Scholarships will run with the academic year (Sept – Aug)
• If other funding is put in place during the student’s studies the scholarship will be withdrawn
• Scholarships cannot be awarded retrospectively

Number of Awardees: 10

Value of Scholarship: Up to 50% tuition free reduction

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Congo (Democratic Republic), Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, The Bahamas, The Gambia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

How to Apply: Apply through UKPASS https://pgapp.ukpass.ac.uk/ukpasspgapp/login.jsp?institution=D65&course=60239&source=www.dundee.ac.uk

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: University of Dundee

AMIDEAST Fulbright Foreign Student Program for Students in the MENA Region 2018-2020: USA

Application Deadline: 30th May 2017

Eligible Countries: MENA countries

To be taken at (country): USA

About the Award: The Fulbright Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, is the flagship international educational exchange program designed to foster mutual understanding among nations through educational and cultural exchange.

The Fulbright Foreign Student Program is administered by binational Fulbright Commissions and U.S. Embassies. All Foreign Student Program applications are processed by these offices. AMIDEAST is one of the cooperating agencies contracted by the U.S. Department of state to administer the Fulbright program. AMIDEAST administers the Fulbright Foreign Student Program for the Middle East and North Africa on behalf of ECA.

The scholarship is a merit-based grant that provides up to two-years of funding for graduate-level study at a U.S. university.  For over four decades AMIDEAST has been placing students from across the MENA region into universities throughout the United States. It has been integral to the success of the Fulbright Program, serving as a convener of academic and cultural exchange and dialogue. AMIDEAST continues today to support countless Fulbrighters to experience the opportunity of exchange and successfully complete their grants in the United States.

Type: Applications in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are highly encouraged.

Eligibility: 

• This is not a program exclusive for students. This program is for students who are about to graduate, recent graduates and professionals from diverse social, economic, academic and professional backgrounds.
• A competitive applicant should have an excellent academic record, strong English language skills, and the commitment to return to their home country for at least two years upon completion or termination of the scholarship upon completion of the program. They will be ineligible for an U.S.-immigrant visa until the two-year home residency requirement has been fulfilled.
• Preference will be given to applicants who have not previously studied in the United States.
• Applications in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are highly encouraged.

Number of Awardees: Limited.

Value of Scholarship: The scholarships cover expenses incurred for travel to and from the United States, tuition, books, health insurance, and room and board. Funding is NOT available to meet expenses related to Fulbright grantees dependents (husbands, wives, children, parents, etc).

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply: Applicants can apply via online mode.

• Please make sure to choose 2018-2020 Cycle and answer all questions accurately and completely.
• Carefully write the essays, which are key components of the application. Each essay must be a minimum of 250 to a maximum of 600 words. The selection committee will review these essays closely.
• Deliver hard copies of the following supporting documents to the AMIDEAST office by May 30, 2017.
• Confirmation receipt of submission of the online application;
• A signed Signature form;
• TOEFL iBT, ITP, or IELTS score report;
• A certified true copy of each original post-secondary transcript and diploma starting from and INCLUDING the Baccalaureate;
• An updated Curriculum vitae or résumé;
• Copy of the biodata information page from the applicant’s passport (if available);
• Three recent passport-sized photos with applicant’s name written on the back.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: U.S. Department of State