29 Jul 2017

Matsumae International Foundation (MIF) Research Fellowship for Natural Science, Engineering and Medicine 2018

Application Deadline: 31st August, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Japan
Eligible Fields of Study:  Fields of study such as natural science, engineering and medicine are given first priority. Candidates are free to select host institutions (university research laboratories, national research institutions or the corresponding facilities of private industry)
About the Award: Upon the concept of the founder of the Matsumae International Foundation (MIF), “Towards A Greater Understanding of Japan and a Lasting World Peace”, MIF has started the Research Fellowship Program in 1980.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: To be eligible, candidates must:
  • be of non-Japanese nationality;
  • have a Doctorate degree;
  • be 49 years old or under;
  • not have been in Japan previously;
  • have firm positions and professions in their home nations
Number of Awardees: Twenty (20)
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Stipend for research and stay
  • Insurance
  • Air transportation (a round-trip air ticket to/from Tokyo)
  • Lump sum on arrival
Duration of Scholarship: From three(3) to six(6) months. The commencing month and ending month should be between April 2018 to March 2019. (e.g. 5 months from June 2018 to October 2018)
How to Apply: Visit Scholarship Webpage to apply.
Before applying for this scholarship, candidates should download the Fellowship Application Requirements  in PDF 
Award Provider: The Matsumae International Foundation (MIF)

Civil Forum for Asset Recovery (CiFAR) Journalism Training for Journalists in Europe and North Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 31st July 2017
Eligible Countries: North African and European countries
To Be Taken At (Country): Berlin, Germany; Tunis, Tunisia.
About the Award: CiFAR is gathering 20 young investigative journalists, 15 from North African countries and 5  from European countries. Through lectures, interactive sessions and workshops, you’ll learn from leading international asset recovery professionals, senior investigative journalists and regional experts on how to conduct an investigative report into public financial crime and be supported to work together to produce high quality journalism on this topic.
In November you will attend an Investigative Journalism Workshop in Berlin. This four-day workshop will introduce you to principles and techniques of investigative journalism, how public money is stolen, how it’s returned and how to report on it.
In January, we will hold a three-day Investigative Journalism Camp in Tunis, revisiting technical skills for financial investigations and identifying stories together that can be worked on collaboratively across the Mediterranean.
During this whole period, you will accompanied by a mentor, who will support you to develop, write and publish stories written with other participants and spanning multiple countries.
Type: Training
Eligibility:  Nationals from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Germany, the UK, France, Switzerland and Spain, between the ages of 20 and 35, are eligible to apply. The programme is open for journalism students and young professionals eager to work on journalistic investigations around public finance. Writing, reading and understanding English is required.
Number of Awards: 20
Duration of Program: November and January
Value of Award: Training costs, flights, accommodation and visa costs are all covered for successful applicants, however  you should budget to pay for your own meals (except breakfasts) and other expenses you may need.
How to Apply: Interested applicants may apply via an application Form or e-mail. See details in Program Webpage (Link below)
Award Providers: Civil Forum for Asset Recovery (CiFAR)

MasterCard Foundation Masters Scholarships at University of California, Berkeley 2018/2019 – USA

Application Deadlines:
  • Masters: Varies by Program (Deadlines of applicable Fields of Study fall between 1st December 2017 and 6th January 2018).
  • MBA: 21st September 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): University of California Berkeley, USA
Fields of Study: Graduate Scholars are pursuing or have earned Master’s degrees in:
  • Architecture (M.Arch)
  • Art (MFA)
  • Business Administration (MBA)*
  • City & Regional Planning (MCP)
  • Development Practice (MDP)
  • Education (DMS, EMST, or MUSE)
  • Energy & Resources (ERG)
  • Engineering (M.Eng, MS)
    • Master of Engineering (M.Eng), various concentrations
    • Master of Science Civil and Environmental Engineering (MS)
    • Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (MS)
    • Mechanical Engineering (MS)
  • Folklore (MA)
  • Journalism (MJ)
  • Information Management & Systems (MIMS)
  • Public Health (MPH), various concentrations
  • Public Policy (MPP)
  • Social Welfare (MSW)
  • MBA. However,  a student would need to secure additional funding from Haas Business School through obtaining Haas scholarships, which requires meeting the Round One application deadline (21st September 2017)
About the Award: Administered out of the Center for African Studies, the program at the University of California, Berkeley is supported by a broad cross-section of functional and disciplinary units on campus including the Division of Student Affairs, the Graduate Division, the Berkeley International Office, and the International House.
Offered Since: 2012
Type: Masters
Selection Criteria and Eligibility: The five main eligibility criteria are:
  • Being a citizen of a Sub-Saharan African country – If you have refugee status, are stateless, or have other questions regarding your citizenship, you may still be eligible. Please contact us directly to clarify. This scholarship is not intended for citizens of North African countries.
  • Excelling academically – All prospective Scholars must first be admitted to UC Berkeley to be considered for the Scholarship. An important criteria for admission to the University is demonstrated academic excellence.
  • Coming from an economically disadvantaged background – We aim to admit those from the bottom two income quintiles per country. This Scholarship is designed for those extremely talented individuals who have no other means of acquiring the further education required to help realize their dreams and ambitions.
  • Having demonstrated the will to give back to your community, country, or continent – We are looking for well-rounded students who are engaged in activities beyond the classroom. Some may be directly related to your field of study, but this may also include other issues (social, economic, political) that you are working on and passionate about. Applicants should elaborate on their achievements both in their application to UC Berkeley, and then later on the Scholarship application.
  • Having expressed the desire and intention to return to your home country after completing your studies – We are looking for students who are engaged with and passionate about issues affecting their communities, and who will take advantage of their education at UC Berkeley to better equip themselves with the knowledge and training to address these issues upon return. While important work can be done from abroad, the intention of this Program is to enable Scholars to return home, after forming valuable professional connections through internship and job placements.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Fully-funded scholarship
Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study
How to Apply: To be considered for the MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program, Graduate degree seekers must first be admitted to the university through the regular admissions process before they will be considered for the MasterCard Foundation Scholarship Program.
Visit Program Webpage for Details
Learn more about applying for Masters Scholarship
Sponsors: MasterCard Foundation and the host university

Africa Artbox Contest for Projects in Science and Technology 2017

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: Call for projects realized with digital media / electronic / medial – and those that offer a critical reflection on contemporary culture, increasingly dependent on technologies and digital spaces.

This call for projects, intended for all African or non-African digital artist living in Africa, aims to stimulate the creativity, research and experimentation of new aesthetic languages in Africa, a continent which is hosting a big part of much of the world’s youth, and challenges all the obstacles to integrate the new immaterial and mobile cultures of today’s digital technologies.
The theme of the competition is open, however, participants are encouraged to reflect on the current technological changes and its impact in our societies.
H0w to Live in the Space of an Online Culture?
Type: Contest
Eligibility:
  • All African and non-African artists over the age of 18 years old and living in Africa are invited to participate. For non-African participants, it’s mandatory to have spent more than three years in their residence country in Africa.
  • The call is open to projects with artistic motivation engaging innovative, experimental work, paying particular attention to their environment, and facilitating the transfer of knowledge and the creation of learning communities.
  • The Creative projects may concern any artistic discipline, such as performing arts, music, visual arts (painting, sculpture, photography, etc…), video art, printed works, installations, Net-Art, etc. integrating a digital process into its creation, including photo manipulation, 3D rendering, virtual and augmented reality, drawings created on phones, tablets or computers, using software and/or digital devices (as well as sensors, among others). The use of open source software is encouraged.
  • Only one project can be submitted per participant.
  • Any advertising, educational or other material for non-artistic purposes is prohibited.
  • The proposal must be original, unpublished and must integrate digital media during its production process.
  • The organizers do not assume any responsibility for the expenses incurred in entering the contest.
Selection Criteria: First, the proposals will be examined by the selection panel, taking into account the following information :
1. The aesthetic and artistic interest of the proposal ;
2. The critical discourse around tools, technologies and the social environment of the artist ;
3. The originality and/or innovative nature of the proposal ;
4. The viability of the proposal (budget, format, transportability, conservation, etc.) ;
5. Curriculum Vitae including the artistic background ;
6. Motivation for participation in the competition.
The project selection will then be evaluated by the jury, who will determine the winning project
and the works to be exhibited during the award ceremony.
The decision of the jury is final, private and not subject to public requests. The organizers will not
respond to any correspondence concerning the jury’s decision.
Number of Awards: 1
Value of Award: The winning artist will receive a creative residency at the international center “Plataforma Bogotá”, an interactive laboratory of art, science and technology based in Bogotá-Colombia, offering him the opportunity to carry out his creative project in a collaborative space and surrounded by an experienced and multidisciplinary team
How to Apply: Each Proposal must be accompanied by:
Motivation letter (PDF)
2. An Artistic Curriculum Vitae (PDF)
3. Brief descriptions of the 2 most representative works carried out during the last 2 years,
joining for each of them the corresponding technical sheet (including technology used, artistic
concept, resulting exhibitions). (PDF max. 3 MB).
Contest entries and submission of proposals will only be made via the online form available on the website Africa Artbox Digital.
Award Providers: TRIAS CULTURE

Biological Annihilation on Earth Accelerating

ROBERT J. BURROWES

Human beings are now waging war against life itself as we continue to destroy not just individual lives, local populations and entire species in vast numbers but also destroy the ecological systems that make life on Earth possible.
By doing this we are now accelerating the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history and virtually eliminating any prospect of human survival.
In a recently published scientific study Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines the authors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo document the accelerating nature of this problem.
‘Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions…. That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees of range contraction … using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal species.’ Their research found that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates is ‘extremely high’ – even in ‘species of low concern’.
In their sample, comprising nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851 out of 27,600) are decreasing; that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals for which they had detailed data, all had lost 30% or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40% of the species had experienced severe population declines. Their data revealed that ‘beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.’
Illustrating the damage done by dramatically reducing the historic geographic range of a species, consider the lion. Panthera leo ‘was historically distributed over most of Africa, southern Europe, and the Middle East, all the way to northwestern India. It is now confined to scattered populations in sub-Saharan Africa and a remnant population in the Gir forest of India. The vast majority of lion populations are gone.’
Why is this happening? Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo tell us: ‘In the last few decades, habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive organisms, pollution, toxification, and more recently climate disruption, as well as the interactions among these factors, have led to the catastrophic declines in both the numbers and sizes of populations of both common and rare vertebrate species.’
Further, however, the authors warn ‘But the true extent of this mass extinction has been underestimated, because of the emphasis on species extinction.’ This underestimate can be traced to overlooking the accelerating extinction of local populations of a species.
‘Population extinctions today are orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.’ Moreover, and importantly from a narrow human perspective, the massive loss of local populations is already damaging the services ecosystems provide to civilization (which, of course, are given no value by government and corporate economists).
As Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo remind us: ‘When considering this frightening assault on the foundations of human civilization, one must never forget that Earth’s capacity to support life, including human life, has been shaped by life itself.’ When public mention is made of the extinction crisis, it usually focuses on a few (probably iconic) animal species known to have gone extinct, while projecting many more in future. However, a glance at their maps presents a much more realistic picture: as much as 50% of the number of animal individuals that once shared Earth with us are already gone, as are billions of populations.
Furthermore, they claim that their analysis is conservative given the increasing trajectories of those factors that drive extinction together with their synergistic impacts. ‘Future losses easily may amount to a further rapid defaunation of the globe and comparable losses in the diversity of plants, including the local (and eventually global) defaunation-driven coextinction of plants.’
They conclude with the chilling observation: ‘Thus, we emphasize that the sixth mass extinction is already here and the window for effective action is very short.’
Of course, it is too late for those species of plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects and reptiles that humans have already driven to extinction or will yet drive to extinction in the future. 200 species yesterday. 200 species today. 200 species tomorrow. 200 species the day after…. And, as Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo emphasize, the ongoing daily extinctions of a myriad local populations.
If you think that the above information is bad enough in assessing the prospects for human survival, you will not be encouraged by awareness or deeper consideration of even some of the many variables adversely impacting our prospects that were beyond the scope of the above study.
While Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo, in addition to the problems they noted which are cited above, also identified the problems of human overpopulation and continued population growth, as well as overconsumption (based on ‘the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet’) and even the risks posed by nuclear war, there were many variables that were beyond the scope of their research.
For example, in a recent discussion of that branch of ecological science known as ‘Planetary Boundary Science’, Dr Glen Barry identified ‘at least ten global ecological catastrophes which threaten to destroy the global ecological system and portend an end to human beings, and perhaps all life. Ranging from nitrogen deposition to ocean acidification, and including such basics as soil, water, and air; virtually every ecological system upon which life depends is failing’. See The End of Being: Abrupt Climate Change One of Many Ecological Crises Threatening to Collapse the Biosphere.
Moreover, apart from the ongoing human death tolls caused by the endless wars and other military violence being conducted across the planet – see, for example, ‘Yemen cholera worst on record & numbers still rising’ – there is catastrophic environmental damage caused too. For some insight, see The Toxic Remnants of War Project.
In addition, the out-of-control methane releases into the atmosphere that are now occurring – see ‘7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to “explode” in Arctic’ and ‘Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns’ – and the release, each and every day, of 300 tons of radioactive waste from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean – see Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean – And It’s Going To Get Worse – are having disastrous consequences that will negatively impact life on Earth indefinitely. And they cannot be reversed in any timeframe that is meaningful for human prospects.
Apart from the above, there is a host of other critical issues – such as destruction of the Earth’s rainforests, destruction of waterways and the ocean habitat and the devastating impact of animal agriculture for meat consumption – that international governmental organizations such as the UN, national governments and multinational corporations will continue to refuse to decisively act upon because they are controlled by the insane global elite. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane’ with more fully elaborated explanations in Why Violence?’ and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.
So time may be short, the number of issues utterly daunting and the prospects for life grim. But if, like me, you are inclined to fight to the last breath, I invite you to consider making a deliberate choice to take powerful personal action in the fight for our survival.
If you do nothing else, consider participating in the fifteen-year strategy of ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. You can do this as an individual, with family and friends or as a neighbourhood.
If you are involved in (or considering becoming involved in) a local campaign to address a climate issue, end some manifestation of war (or even all war), or to halt any other threat to our environment, I encourage you to consider doing this on a strategic basis. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.
And if you would like to join the worldwide movement to end violence in all of its forms, environmental and otherwise, you are also welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.
We might be annihilating life on Earth but this is not something about which we have no choice.
In fact, each and every one of us has a choice: we can choose to do nothing, we can wait for (or even lobby) others to act, or we can take powerful action ourselves. But unless you search your heart and make a conscious and deliberate choice to commit yourself to act powerfully, your unconscious choice will effectively be the first one (including that you might take some token measures and delude yourself that these make a difference). And the annihilation of life on Earth will continue, with your complicity.
Extinction beckons. Will you choose powerfully?

China and India Torn Between Silk Roads and Cocked Guns

Pepe Escobar

So, once again it’s down to a face-off in the Himalayas. Beijing builds a road in the disputed territory of Doklam (if you’re Indian) or Donglang (if you’re Chinese), in the tri-junction of Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan, and all hell breaks loose. Or does it?
The Global Times blames it on an upsurge of Hindu nationalist fervor, but selected Indian officials prefer to privilege ongoing quiet diplomacy. After all, when Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Astana last month, they struck a gentleman’s agreement; this dispute is not supposed to escalate, and there’s got to be a mutually face saving solution.
The tri-junction drama is actually a minor tremor in the much larger picture of the ongoing geopolitical tectonic shift in Eurasia. The major subplot occurs in the conjunction between the inexorable momentum of the New Silk Roads, aka China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy’s push, these past nine years, to assert itself as a major naval power in the Indian Ocean.
In a nutshell, India could not but be deeply disturbed by China becoming a decisive front row player across South Asia – including in that Maritime Silk Road superhighway, the Indian Ocean.
The first-ever railway in Tibet, opened eleven years ago, links Lhasa with Xining, in northwest China. This railway will inevitably proceed all the way to Kathmandu, and assuming an OK from New Delhi – not on the cards for the time being – to north India as well. The key element of the New Silk Roads is Eurasian connectivity. And Beijing is the super-connector, not Delhi, with the scale and scope of BRI implying at least US$1 trillion in short-term investment alone.
When India looks around, to its east or to its west, what it sees is China connecting everything from Dhaka in Bangladesh to Bandar Abbas in Iran.
We’re talking about the interpenetration of the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor; the China-Indian Ocean-Africa-Mediterranean Sea Blue Economic Passage; the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC); and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC). To call all this an orgy of connectivity is an understatement.
Enter “BRICS-Plus”
Hindu nationalism qualifies South Asia and the Indian Ocean as an indisputable sphere of influence for Indian civilization – and one not that dissimilar to China’s in relation to the South China Sea. Borders are scrutinized to the millimeter, especially now that the success of BRI is at stake.
The Doklam/Donglang stand-off pales, however, in comparison with the real danger zone. New Delhi argues that CPEC will be transiting an illegal territory, described in India as “Pak-occupied Kashmir.”
South Asia happens to be all for BRI – with the wary self-exception of India. New Delhi refused to attend the recent BRI forum in Beijing, issuing an official statement: “No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
New Delhi’s boycott actually betrays the fact it has seen the writing on the wall. Pakistan is destined to “link together a series of Eurasian economic blocs”, including the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). And this connectivity feast will also boost the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which, crucially, both India and Pakistan have just joined.
The following proposal, from the chief economist of the Eurasian Development Bank, offers immense food for thought: the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) should be enlarged to a BRICS+ or BRICS++.  Beijing enthusiastically agrees – it has, in fact, proposed its own “BRICS-Plus” idea to unite various BRI partners. Pakistan, as host of the CPEC connectivity corridor, would certainly be in line for “BRICS-Plus” membership.
So we have China and India as members of BRICS (including the bloc’s New Development Bank), the SCO, the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and of the G-20, and India and Pakistan as members of the SCO. And then we have all three nations as members of a future BRICS-Plus. It all points towards interpenetration, inter-connectivity and advanced Eurasian integration.
To allow Hindu nationalism to block New Delhi’s involvement in BRI would be counter-productive, to put it mildly. China-India bilateral trade was US$70.08 billion last year. China is India’s top trading partner.
Still, India launched an attempt at a counter-offensive last month when it joined the United Nations TIR convention, a global customs transit system with huge geographical coverage. India’s TIR gambit covers only Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan, however. To think this might dent the appeal of BRI – with its massive funds, support from the Silk Road Fund, the AIIB and further on down the road, private financing (from East and West) – is, frankly, naïve wishful thinking.
Stuff BRI, we’ve got AAGC
BRI is a juggernaut that has evolved over the past four years and is finally ready to launch its full connectivity firepower. Compare its resources with India’s infrastructure predicament, its jungle of red-tape, its lack of funds for Eurasia-wide projects, and even the fact that its GDP growth dropped below China’s in 2016.
There’s also that pesky geopolitical open secret – that Pakistan constitutes a de facto Great Wall blocking India’s land route to the West and its expansion across Central Asia. New Delhi is trying to circumvent these facts on the ground by all means available.
These include the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), founded in September 2000 by India, Iran and Russia, and which could potentially connect India to Europe via the Persian Gulf; investing in a trade corridor between the Iranian port of Chabahar and Afghanistan; trying to copy BRI via its TIR gambit, but on the cheap, without massive investment in infrastructure. And, to counter what New Delhi brands BRI’s “Sinocentrism”, there’s its purported trump card, unveiled by Modi himself at the general meeting of the African Development Bank (AfDB) in the capital of Gujarat last May – the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), supported by Japan.
The AAGC has been spun by India as a project “acceptable for the banking sector,” as opposed to BRI’s “government-funded model.” In theory, the AAGC is about Asia-Africa integration. Japan brings its expertise technology and infrastructure building, India its “experience in Africa.”
The AAGC was duly derided in Beijing as a New Delhi-Tokyo scheme – aided and abetted by Washington – to sabotage China’s drive towards Eurasian integration. The case can certainly be made. New Delhi’s multiple strategies, so far, have yielded more rhetoric than action. Soon it may all come down to “if you can’t beat them, join them.” The ball is in the Hindu nationalist court.

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

Brian Cloughley


“We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, reported in the New York Times May 20, 2001
“It is time to get out of Afghanistan. We are building roads and schools for people that hate us. It is not in our national interests.”
— Donald Trump, Twitter February 27, 2012
“Taliban fighters killed 26 soldiers and wounded 13 others in an attack on an army base in the southern province of Kandahar . . . as heavy fighting raged across the country.”
— Reuters report, July 26, 2017
In Afghanistan on July 24 a Taliban suicide bomber killed forty people in the center of Kabul,  just four days after a US airstrike killed 16 Afghan policemen in Helmand Province. Both incidents of slaughter were terrible and highlighted the US State Department official warning that “Travel to all areas of Afghanistan remains unsafe due to the ongoing risk of kidnapping, hostage taking, military combat operations, landmines, banditry, armed rivalry between political and tribal groups, militant attacks, direct and indirect fire, suicide bombings, and insurgent attacks, including attacks using vehicle-borne or other improvised explosive devices. Attacks may also target official Afghan and US government convoys and compounds, foreign embassies, military installations, commercial entities, non-governmental organization offices, restaurants, hotels, airports, and educational centers.”  Is there anything left that isn’t under threat of destruction?
This is official recognition by Washington that Afghanistan is a catastrophe. It could not be made plainer that the place is a hellhole of unlimited shattering violence.  It is also terminally corrupt, and if the grief-stricken families of the dead policemen ever receive the compensation or pension due to them it will be a miracle. Out of 176 countries,Transparency International  places it at 169 in its corruption index.
Two days after the US-NATO slaughter of Afghan policemen it was announced that Médecins sans Frontières, or Doctors without Borders — known as MSF — had “reopened a small medical clinic in the Afghan city of Kunduz — its first facility there since US air strikes destroyed a hospital it ran in 2015.”
MSF is a saintly organization whose doctors, nurses and support staff “provide assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict.” They do so “irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions,” but on October 22, 2015 the MSF hospital in Kunduz was destroyed by a series of US airstrikes.
It was reported that about 2 in the morning “a blast ripped apart the intensive care unit, where patients included two children. It was the start of around an hour of airstrikes on the buildings, and strafing attacks on doctors, patients and staff desperately seeking shelter in corners of the compound, but the hellish massacre continued for over two hours.  In her eye-witness account, Australian Doctor Kathleen Thomas said “Our colleagues didn’t die peacefully like in the movies. They died painfully, slowly, some of them screaming out for help that never came, alone and terrified, knowing the extent of their own injuries and aware of their impending death. Countless other staff and patients were injured; limbs blown off, shrapnel rocketed through them, burns, pressure-wave injuries of the lungs, eyes and ears. Many of these injures have left permanent disability. It was a scene of nightmarish horror that will be forever etched in my mind.”
As to the people who planned and executed (literally) and failed to stop this slaughter —  how can they sleep at night?
The sixteen dead policemen killed by the US airstrike on 20 July had nobody to record their brief but hideous shrieking terror as missiles blasted their tiny outpost. The US National Public Radio, NPR, the most reliable source of news in America, but listened to by very few people, reported that “the US Marines guiding the strike Friday afternoon in Gereshk district thought the men gathered in the compound were Taliban, not police.”  Well, how wonderful.
What happens to the real-time intelligence gathered in Afghanistan by drones and the circling Bombardier Global 6000 electronic warfare aircraft?  (Almost all internet reference to the Bombardier Afghanistan program has been deleted, but you can find its tracks on Flight Radar if you’re patient.)
The 2017 US budget included an allocation of  $53.5 billion for the National Intelligence Program “which includes funding requested to support Overseas Contingency Operations.”  Over fifty billion dollars have been spent on staggeringly advanced intelligence systems that can’t tell if a group of Afghans are police or militants.
US and British forces invaded Afghanistan at the end of 2001 and were joined by the rest of the countries in the NATO military alliance in August 2003. NATO was desperate to find some justification for survival, as there was (and is) no reason for its continuing existence, so eagerly latched on to the Afghan war.
Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of heroin. Not only that, but there are now over three million heroin addicts in the country, thanks to the explosion in drug production after the US invasion.  When I first visited Afghanistan, in 1993, the number of addicts was inconsequential, in spite of the Western hippy legacy. Poppy growth was expanding because it was profitable, but then the Taliban forbade it. As reported by the New York Times in  May 2001, “The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement’s ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world’s largest crop in less than a year”, but now we’re back to normal.
NATO-ISAF’s objective was “to enable the Afghan government to provide effective security across the country and develop new Afghan security forces to ensure Afghanistan would never again become a safe haven for terrorists.”
There is no security in the country. As reported by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the Taliban “continue to contest district centers, threaten provincial capitals, and temporarily seize main lines of communication throughout the country, especially in high-priority areas like Kunduz and Helmand provinces.”  The last two being, not coincidentally, the regions in which US airstrikes killed so many innocent people.
National Intelligence Director Dan Coats told the US Senate on May 11 that “The intelligence community assesses that the political and security situation in Afghanistan will almost certainly deteriorate through 2018, even with a modest increase in military assistance by the United States and its partners.” So what’s the point in carrying on?
The moronic and disastrous Trump has no knowledge of military strategy or international politics, or very much else, but even he must be able to understand that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable by the forces of the corrupt, incompetent Kabul government backed by the hated foreigners whose fifteen years of interference have been a disaster.
In October 2005 I wrote that “The insurgency in Afghanistan will continue until foreign troops leave, whenever that might be. After a while, the government in Kabul will collapse, and there will be anarchy until a brutal, ruthless, drug-rich warlord achieves power. He will rule the country as it has always been ruled by Afghans: by threats, religious ferocity, deceit, bribery, and outright savagery, when the latter can be practiced without retribution. And the latest foreign occupation will become just another memory.”
Innocents have been dying in Afghanistan in ever-increasing numbers, and at least 1,662 civilians have been killed in the first half of this year, according to the UN. Could it be worse if the Afghans were left to look after themselves?  The only alternative would be for US-NATO to try to impose rule from Kabul by military might — but they couldn’t do it last time they tried.  It’s time they got out of the place.

Plastic Chokes the Seas

Robert Hunziker

Plastic is not recycled.
One of the great myths of modern-day society is that people recycle in earnest… saving the environment. Au contraire! Check out the ocean. It’s filled with plastic. Fish and seabirds eat it by gobs and gobs. Furthermore, according to a World Economic Forum presentation, The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics, February 2016, by 2050 there will likely be more plastic than fish in the seas, unless socio-economic policies change drastically. But, where’s the leadership?
Only recently National Geographic magazine posted news about a new discovery of massive quantities of plastic in the Pacific Ocean, July 25th, 2017, entitled: Plastic Garbage Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific, stating, “Yet another floating mass of microscopic plastic has been discovered in the ocean, and it is mind-blowingly vast.”
The magazine also shatters the myth that people recycle, in earnest. According to the article, “a whopping 91% of plastic isn’t recycled,” which lends tremendous credence to the prediction at the World Economic Forum that the seas will carry more plastic than fish.
Consider the Great Acceleration, epitomized by plastic’s exponential growth, does not hesitate, onwards and upwards, production and profits, Wall Street and Trump, prosperity only hopefully, but not for most, for as long as the planet holds up… cough, ahem!
The focus of scientific research on plastic destructiveness prompts analyses “how much plastic has been produced, discarded, burned or put in landfills… horrified by the sheer size of the numbers.” (Source: Laura Parker, A Whopping 91% of Plastic Isn’t Recycled, National Geographic, July 19, 2017.)
Even more breathtakingly yet: “Plastic takes more than 400 years to degrade, so most of it still exists in some form.” Following the dictum that “you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” scientists set out over two years ago to study the issue. The results published just last week a landmark study in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances. It is the first ever global-wide analysis, and hands down, it is sobering. (Source: Roland Geyer, et al, Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made, Science Advances, Vol. 3, No. 7, July 19, 2017.)
For example, according to the study, of the 8.3 billion metric tons produced so far, 6.3 billion metric tons is now waste product, and of that, only 9% has been recycled. Yes Mr. and Mrs. Green of the World your recycling efforts are not totally for naught but seriously challenged in the worst possible fashion, people don’t really care that much, and that is a tragedy in a world filled with instant recognition of everything and anything bad or good, except for incessant care of the planet. (Oh yeah, by the way, the Environmental Protection Agency “EPA” and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “NOAA” are now subject t0 unprecedented slash and burn politics. A huge sharpened axe overhangs our only biosphere under the raging influence of a rebirth of primitive Neolithic thought.)
The Great Acceleration, humans reshaping the ecosystem by displacing nature, is handily at work. Here’s proof: Half of the ingredients used to produce plastic have been produced over the last 13 years. That’s great acceleration, and then some. Not only that, half of all plastic becomes trash within a year. That’s acceleration of usage. By way of contrast, most of the steel produced still supports structures.
According to Jenna Jambeck, University of Georgia, environmental engineer specializing in ocean plastic waste, the U.S. is a distant third in recycling at a measly (9%) behind Europe (30%) and China (25%). As for U.S, environmental concerns/morals, Americans salute and flag wave and honor the country like America is great but at what?
According to National Geographic: “The problem of plastic pollution is becoming ubiquitous in the oceans, with 90 percent of sea birds consuming it and over eight million pounds of new plastic trash finding its way into the oceans every year.”
In the 1960s plastic was found in the stomachs of fewer than 5% of seabirds. By 1980 it jumped to 80%, now 90%. What’s left? National Geographic says that seabird populations dropped 67% between 1950 and 2010 but without a clear understanding of why. It is under study. Is plastic one of the threats to seabirds? We’ll find out in due course but likely too late for far too many.
Indeed, plastic trash is ubiquitous. Uninhabited Henderson Island in the South Pacific, a United Nations World Heritage site and one of the world’s biggest marine reserves described by UNESCO as “a gem and one of the world’s best remaining examples of coral atoll, practically untouched by human presence,” has the world’s highest density of trash, according to National Geographic. It’s a record-setter.
Henderson’s sandy white beaches carry the signatures of Russia, the U.S., the Philippines, the EU, Brazil, Japan, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, and so forth. All of it is trash, mostly plastic via the South Pacific gyre, which is a circular ocean current that moves water like a conveyor belt and collects trash along the way to the garbage dump Henderson Island at the rate of 3,500 pieces every day or 105,000 pieces monthly and still increasing.
Fortunately, the South Pacific’s Henderson Island is uninhabited. People would be completely overwhelmed.