India-Nepal Relations: Mixed Fortunes

Pramod Jaiswal

Narendra Modi’s electoral victory in May 2014 generated positive vibes throughout the region. His invitation to the heads of governments of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) member-states to his swearing-in ceremony, and making  Bhutan and Nepal his first official foreign visits clearly highlighted his prioritisation of India’s neighbourhood. In this context, this article assesses India’s relations with Nepal during the past three years.

 

Continuity and Change

As Prime Minister, Modi’s first public statement on foreign affairs was about Nepal, on Twitter, where he said that he was committed to strengthening relations. Unlike his predecessor, Dr Manmohan Singh, who failed to visit Nepal even once in his decade-long tenure, Modi visited Nepal twice - in August 2014 and in November 2014 - becoming the first Indian prime minister to visit the country in 17 years. He enchanted the Nepalese people with a rousing address in Nepal’s parliament, which was the first such address by a foreign leader. Like in the past, Modi also assured India’s commitment to Nepal’s economic development. He announced a soft loan of US$1 billion and assistance in several infrastructure development projects of Nepal.

During this visit, Modi also agreed to review, adjust, and update the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which has been deemed ‘unequal’ by generations of Nepalese leaders, and other bilateral agreements. He called to form an Eminent Persons Group from both countries for this task. He also reactivated, after a hiatus of 23 years, the Joint Commission that was formed in 1987 at the Foreign Ministers’ level with a view to strengthening, understanding and promoting cooperation between the two countries for mutual benefit in the economic, trade, transit and the multiple uses of water resources.

Within a few months, Modi visited Nepal again to attend the 18th SAARC Summit. He inaugurated an Indian-built 200-bed trauma centre, provided a helicopter to the Nepal Army and a mobile soil-testing laboratory. 

As a friendly neighbour, India was quick in its response towards Nepal during the devastating 7.9 magnitude earthquake in April 2015 that caused massive destruction and claimed thousands of lives. Within hours of the calamity, Modi spoke to the then Nepalese Prime Minister Sushil Koirala and the then Nepalese President Ram Baran Yadav assuring them of India’s assistance. Within six hours, India dispatched a team of the National Disaster Response Force along with relief material. India’s total relief assistance amounted to US$67 million, and it committed another US$1 billion (one-fourth as a grant). 

Despite such increased engagement and assistance, Nepal continued to blame India for interference in its domestic affairs. Nepal’s claim to an equal share over a disputed tri-junction, Lipu-Lekh Pass, also caused controversy. Lipu-Lekh was mentioned in the China-India joint statement during Modi’s visit to China in May 2015. The joint statement read, “The two sides agree to hold negotiation on augmenting the list of traded commodities, and expand border trade at Nathu La, Qiangla/Lipu-Lekh Pass and Shipki La.” Nepal, under pressure from its media, civil society and political opposition, demanded that China and India remove the mention of Lipu-Lekh from their joint statement, arguing that it threatened Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, Indian experts counter-argued that both China and India have been referring to Lipu-Lekh Pass as one of their border trading points since 1954. Indian experts have pointed to Nepal’s position on Kalapani and Lipu-Lekh Pass as being politically motivated, especially given how ultra-nationalist groups have been involved in spreading anti-India sentiment and demanding a ‘Greater Nepal’ to gain political mileage. 

Unrest in Madhes, a region bordering the Indo-Nepal border, which propelled anti-India sentiment among the ruling elites, led to a severe deterioration in bilateral relations. The Madhesis waged a 135 days long ‘non-cooperation movement’ along the border, which halted the entry of fuel and other essential supplies to Nepal from India. Kathmandu’s ruling elite claimed that the ‘blockade’ was imposed with Indian support as India did not welcome the new non-inclusive Nepalese constitution, which had triggered the Madhesi protest. Despite denials of this allegation by both Madhesi leaders and New Delhi, the dramatic end of the ‘blockade’ before the visit of the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to Delhi clearly lent fuel to such allegations. 

Though Modi began his tenure concentrating on India’s neighbours, he got engrossed with building relations with bigger powers. Although Dr Singh had failed to visit Nepal even once, his government spent considerable time following the political developments in Nepal. Dr Singh’s two governments played a great role in ensuring a smooth political transition in Nepal. However, the Modi government was not able to take control over the situation in time and intervened at the last hours, when it was too late. He sent the foreign secretary as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy, but he failed to deliver positive results. 

Modi subsequently tried to control the damage. He invited Oli for a six-day visit to India before his scheduled China visit. However, Modi was unable to convince Oli to address the demands of the Madhesis. Rather, in few weeks, Oli visited China and tried to challenge the Indian monopoly by signing an agreement on trade and transit with Beijing. This has been one of the major failures of the Indian government under Modi, which will have long-term implications on India. However, India was successful in toppling the Oli-led government, forging an alliance between the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center). Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, the respective heads of the two parties agreed to serve the remaining tenure of 18 months on a rotational basis. 

India-Nepal relations were normalised after Prachanda was elected as the prime minister for the second time. India's then President Pranab Mukherjee and Nepalese President Bidya Devi Bhandari exchanged state level visits. During Prachanda’s tenure, India accelerated the pace of development projects in Nepal and provided additional power supply to meet Nepal’s severe power crisis. With this, Nepal's growth rate Nepal was raised from a mere 0.8 percent to 7.5 percent, the highest in 13 years.

Conclusion

India-Nepal relations during Modi’s tenure have had mixed fortunes so far. While he was successful in enchanting the minds of Nepalese during his first visit, he got trapped in controversies later. He was appreciated for his support to the people of Nepal during the massive earthquake, but criticised on the issues of Lipu-Lekh. He received high appreciation from Madhesis for supporting their demands for an inclusive constitution and standing for democracy and social justice, but could not deliver the desired results. With the rise of Modi and the thumping victory of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) in Uttar Pradesh, there were apprehensions that India might impose ‘Hinduism’ on secular Nepal or might attempt to revive the Hindu monarchy there. However, such fears turned out to be unfounded. 

 

India has tremendous leverage in Nepal. It is still Nepal’s largest trading partner and contributes significantly towards the country’s development. New Delhi has played a crucial role in Nepal’s major political transitions, be it the overthrow of the autocratic Rana regime; restoration of democracy in 1990; abolition of Monarchy; or the mainstreaming of the Maoists. It should play its role to bring stability and development in Nepal, which will eventually serve India’s prime interest, which is security. It also needs to manage the Nepalese media and public perception in Nepal to contain the rise of anti-India propaganda.

Sri Lankan foreign minister resigns amid intensifying government crisis

W.A. Sunil 

The forced resignation of Foreign Minister Ravi Karunanayake last week is a clear sign of the intensifying political crisis facing the government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The immediate reason for Karunanayake’s resignation was to avoid a no-confidence motion presented to the parliamentary speaker by the self-named joint opposition—a group of MPs led by former President Mahinda Rajapakse.

Karunanayake was swept up in a corruption scandal last week after it was revealed that he had financial dealings with the main accused in a Central Bank bond scam, involving several billion rupees and under investigation by an ongoing Presidential Commission of Inquiry.

The joint opposition, which is a dissident faction of Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), saw Karunanakaye’s alleged involvement in the scandal as another opportunity to exploit growing popular discontent with the government. Many MPs from Sirisena’s faction of the SLFP had indicated their intention to vote for the no-confidence motion, compounding the government’s crisis.

Facing a possible defeat, the government first attempted to prevent a parliamentary debate on the grounds it would be sub judice because the Commission of Inquiry was still investigating the bond scam. The attorney-general, however, dismissed that argument, saying the commission was not a judicial court.

Karunanayake flatly denied any wrongdoing and tried to cling to his ministerial post. But under pressure from his cabinet colleagues, then the president and prime minister, Karunanayake was compelled to resign. The government sacrificed Karunanayake in a desperate bid to cling onto power.

The Sunday Times editorial on August 13 noted: “Unfortunately, Mr. Karunanayake took the correct decision to step down from his post after some deliberation and some coaxing. By the end of last week, it appeared that he had to be dragged out of his ministry kicking and screaming... He argued somewhat justifiably why he had to be the fall guy-sacrificing lamb for doing his duty by the party.”

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government was formed after the January 2015 presidential election, in which Sirisena ousted Rajapakse via what amounted to a US-backed regime-change operation. Sirisena exploited the widespread hostility to the Rajapakse government over its rampant corruption, austerity policies and attacks on democratic rights.

The trade unions, professional and civil society groups and pseudo-left organisations immediately rallied around Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, promoting their phony slogans of good governance and democracy, and promises of punitive action against corrupt members of the Rajapakse government.

The SLFP-United National Party unity government was quickly caught up in a bond scam that took place under the newly-appointed Central Bank governor, Arjuna Mahendran, a confidante of Wickremesinghe. Mahendran’s son-in-law, Arjun Aloysius, was the principal director of Perpetual Treasuries, a regular bidder at bond auctions. In February 2015, the company had acquired bonds worth 5 billion rupees, at an inflated interest rate, in the biddings initially worth only 1 billion rupees.

Aloysius was accused of getting inside help, including information about the bond launch, particularly through the Central Bank governor, who was removed in April last year.

When all attempts at cover up failed, President Sirisena appointed the Commission of Inquiry, which exposed the role played by the government and especially Karunanayake. Amid growing criticism about his connection with Aloysius, Karunanayake was removed as finance minister and appointed foreign minister.

The inquiry further brought to light an undated letter from Karunanayake to the Central Bank governor requesting the raising of 70 billion rupees through bonds.

It also revealed that Aloysius had rented out a luxury apartment to Karunanayake in the immediate aftermath of the bond scam and paid 1.45 million rupees a month on the lease. The Karunanayake family later purchased the apartment for 165 million rupees. Karunanayake claimed he knew nothing about the transaction, which took place via a company controlled by his wife.

Last week Wickremesinghe cynically claimed that the foreign minister’s resignation demonstrated the government’s commitment to good governance. “We have created a new tradition” by allowing impartial investigations to operate, he told parliament.

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe yesterday appointed Thilak Marapana as the new foreign minister. Marapana was also forced to resign from a ministerial post over a similar conflict of interest only a year ago. He was accused of defending Avant Guard, a company engaged in providing maritime security for commercial ships, which was accused of massive financial fraud.

These scandals not only expose the fraud of the government’s commitment to “good governance” and “democracy, but the complete rottenness of the entire political establishment in Colombo.

R. Sambandan, the leader of the official opposition and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), backed the government and attempted to extricate it from the crisis. He hailed Karunanayake’s resignation as a “bold step,” saying Karunanayake had acted “in the interest of good governance and the people.”

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), another opposition party, praised Karunanayake’s resignation in a similar vein, adding only that corruption must be eliminated. In the 2015 presidential election, the JVP backed Sirisena.

The pseudo-left Nava Sama Samaja Party (NSSP), Purawesi Balaya (Citizen’s Power), Movement for Social Justice and several other groups have attempted to turn the spotlight back onto the corruption of the Rajapakse government. At a meeting yesterday, they called on the government to set up “special courts” to charge and convict members of the previous government.

This anti-democratic proposal, which could violate the constitution, was supported by Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne, and deputy minister Ajith Perera spoke at the meeting. If instituted, such special courts could be used to arrest and imprison anyone who posed a threat to the government. Above all, such measures will be used to suppress any opposition from the working class to the government’s austerity agenda.

Working people and youth should take serious note of the warning made by President Sirisena immediately after the suppression of last month’s petroleum workers’ strike that he “would not allow anyone to topple the government.” This is not mere rhetoric. The government will stop at nothing, including police-state measures, to cling onto power and implement its austerity program.

Kenyan police violently quell opposition to disputed election

Eddie Haywood 

Twenty-four people have been killed in post-election protests by police forces since Friday’s announcement declaring President Uhuru Kenyatta the winner over his challenger, Raila Odinga. The majority killed are from the cities of Kisumu and Nairobi.

During the public announcement declaring Kenyatta the winner, supporters of Odinga in Nairobi and Kisumu numbering in the thousands immediately gathered in the streets, attempting to block main thoroughfares, and were met by police forces that fired tear gas and live rounds into the crowds. In addition to the 24 killed, an estimated 150 were injured and hospitalised.

Nine-year-old Stephanie Mokaya from Mathare, a slum in Nairobi that saw a large convergence of the protesters, was killed by a stray bullet after police indiscriminately fired into the crowd.

Two reporters from the Kenyan Standard were arrested while covering the protests and detained before being released a few hours later.

Illustrating starkly the state of siege gripping the country, particularly in Nairobi, the week of the poll saw a virtual shutdown of day-to-day activities, with many Kenyans not reporting to their places of work. Buses and other modes of transportation were curbed, and many businesses shuttered their doors in fear of a crackdown.

Displaying their contempt for the Kenyan population, the Kenyatta government denied that police fired live rounds into crowds and claimed that the protests were unlawful and consisted largely of criminals.

Acting Interior Minister Fred Matiang’i told the media, “There are no demonstrations. They are looters, and looters are criminals who ought to be arrested.”

After the final poll result was released Friday, Odinga traveled to Kibera and Mathare, two of the largest slums in Nairobi and home to a significant base of his support, and told the assembled crowds to reject the result. He reiterated his claim that the election was fraudulent and declared that Kenyatta and his ruling government were criminals who stole the election.

Odinga told the crowd not to go to work Monday to register their dissatisfaction. “There is no work until Tuesday, when we will announce the next step.”

He reiterated calls for an investigation into the vote tally, requesting that the United Nations provide an analysis of the poll.

By Sunday morning, tensions appeared to have eased, and Odinga’s call for a strike was largely a failure as most residents returned to work Monday morning and businesses resumed operations.

Several suspicious developments seem to lend credibility to the claim of electoral fraud that have fueled the wave of popular outrage directed at the Kenyatta government. Considering the increasingly authoritarian actions against the Kenyan population, it is understandable that so many would believe that the election was rigged to Kenyatta’s benefit.

First, there was an attempted hack into the elections system set up by the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), the official body charged with counting the vote. The IEBC has said the hack was not successful, and after a preliminary investigation of the intrusion, the commission released its finding as “inconclusive” as to the identity of the person or persons involved and their motive.

Even more suspicious is last month’s grisly discovery of the body of a senior official employed with the IEBC. Christopher Musando was murdered, and his body bore evidence that he was severely beaten and tortured before being killed. As of this writing, no one has been arrested for the murder.

Additionally, just days after the discovery of Musando’s body, two foreigners working for the Odinga campaign as political consultants were seized and detained by Kenyan police dressed in plainclothes.

The two men, John Aristotle Phillips and Andreas Katsouris from the US and Canada, respectively, worked for Aristotle Inc., a political consulting firm owned by Phillips specialising in campaign software and voter data analysis.

They were employed by the Odinga campaign for two months when they were accosted and seized by the men who later identified themselves as police. The two men were held in a room at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport for several hours before being forced on a plane and ordered to leave the country.

Once back in Canada, Katsouris related to CBC Toronto the circumstances of their arrest, relating that they demanded to see lawyers and officials from their embassies, requests that were refused by their captors. “They were getting angry at this point. After a few minutes of this, they seemed to get tired of our little resistance and they handcuffed John and one of them grabbed me by my arm and pulled my glasses off my face, and pulled out a pair of handcuffs.”

On Saturday, Orenge Nyabicha, an official with the IEBC, was found dead in his home, of an apparent suicide. Police stated that the man had died from self-imposed carbon monoxide poisoning from a stove. Suspiciously, a suicide note left by Nyabicha stated that he was frustrated with “IEBC’s failure to deliver a credible, free and fair election.”

A building housing the offices of Odinga’s political party, National Super Alliance (NASA), was broken into and equipment was stolen. Computers, laptops, cameras, documents identifying the party’s membership, and various other documents related to party strategy were taken. NASA officials accused the police of the break-in. The Kenyan National Police Service denied involvement.

The Kenyatta government has moved to suppress any investigation into these highly suspicious circumstances. Two Kenyan human rights organisations, Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KHCR) and African Centre for Open Governance (AfriCOG), were threatened by the government with closure and were informed they were being investigated for tax evasion and other dubious charges, after the two organisations stated their intention to file a case to the Kenyan Supreme Court over the irregularities of the poll.

These developments, taken together, point to the completely anti-democratic character of the Kenyan ruling class.

The chorus of congratulatory applause for Uhuru Kenyatta on his re-election from Washington and Europe is a clear indication of Western capitalism’s approval and support for the ruling clique in Nairobi. A number of Western election observers certified the August 8 poll to be “free and fair”, including the European Union’s election observer mission in Kenya. The African Union has also concurred with this assessment.

The Trump administration said in a statement, “The United States congratulates the people of Kenya on the successful conclusion of elections, and President Uhuru Kenyatta on his re-election.”

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the Carter Centre’s observer team examining Kenya’s election, stated that while his team observed “aberrations here and there,” the election’s integrity was intact.

The New York Times, functioning in its role as the mouthpiece for the US foreign policy establishment, published an editorial Sunday chastising Odinga for his refusal to concede defeat, calling him a “perennial loser,” a reference to his previous electoral defeats in 2007 and 2013, going on to dismiss his claims of electoral fraud.

As if coming straight from the US State Department, the Times praised the Kenyatta government for what the editorial says are “admirable changes” to the Kenyan constitution, claiming these reforms afford a more democratic process in Kenya.

In consideration of the extremely suspicious developments hanging over the poll, which bring serious questions into the credibility of the election, it must be stated that there is no democratic content to be found in the campaign of Odinga calling for protests against the poll. Odinga, if elected to the presidency, would utilise the apparatus of state repression against the Kenyan masses just as ruthlessly as the ruling Kenyatta government.

Odinga, a millionaire scion and representative of the Kenyan ruling class, is no less a defender of capitalism and Kenya’s entrenched layer of Western banking and corporate parasites vying for claim to Kenya’s profits than Kenyatta.

As for Kenyatta, the millionaire president presides over a society wracked by acute social antagonism and social deterioration. The social misery experienced by the Kenyan masses coincides with the widespread disillusionment with the political establishment. The prospect of the restive masses entering into open class struggle against the establishment is utterly terrifying to the ruling clique in Nairobi.

The blatant intimidation and anti-democratic actions directed against the population by the Kenyatta government is an expression that the Kenyan ruling class is turning towards more dictatorial forms of rule to in order to suppress opposition. The anti-democratic character of the Kenyatta government makes clear that it is unwilling and completely incapable of providing relief for the social misery experienced by the Kenyan masses.

European contaminated eggs scandal broadens

Anna Rombach

The Fipronil scandal is broadening. Eggs contaminated with the toxic insecticide have now been found in many European countries and in Hong Kong. The European Union (EU) has announced a crisis meeting on the issue but has failed to set a specific date.

Fipronil is a highly powerful toxic insecticide produced by the BASF chemical company. The insecticide is approved for use in Europe to combat fleas, lice and ticks in animals. The chemical attacks the central nervous system and vital functions of the insects.

In tests on rats, neurological damage has been observed, and humans using the chemical are warned that in high doses Fipronil can cause nausea, vomiting and headache, as well as damage to the liver, kidneys and thyroid gland. Its use for animals used in food production is therefore strictly prohibited.

It now appears that a Belgian manufacturer added Fipronil to a harmless disinfectant and cleansing agent and sold the resulting product to hen factories in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The mixture was also due to be exported to Great Britain, France, Poland and other countries.

The trace of Fipronil was uncovered when a Belgian processing company checked eggs in its laboratory and reported the findings. An entire month passed, however, before the authorities informed the public.

In the meantime, the scandal has spread to the whole of Europe, via the sale of detergents and the export of eggs. Fipronil has been detected not only in eggs, but also in chicken meat.

The European market is closely linked, and the Netherlands produces about half of all eggs for export across the continent. More than 11 million Fipronil-infected eggs have been delivered to Germany. In addition, Fipronil-contaminated eggs have turned up in the UK, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden and Switzerland. They are also alleged to have been exported to Hong Kong.

The authorities have reacted by ordering the closures of plants and the destruction of entire batches of eggs. The prosecutor’s office has initiated investigations into the producers of the chemical, suppliers and farmers in a number of countries. In Germany, supermarkets such as REWE and Lidl have removed entire batches of eggs in which contamination was found. ALDI removed all eggs from its shelves for one week.

Now, the governments of Belgium, Holland and Germany are accusing each other of responsibility and seeking to protect their own farms. On August 9, the Belgian farm manager Ducarme said that Fipronil-infected eggs had first been discovered in the Netherlands in November 2016. However, this was reported only internally.

In Belgium, the contamination of eggs by Fipronil was reported at the beginning of June, but the Belgian supervisory authority did not report the findings to the EU Commission until July 20, after consumers had already consumed the toxic eggs for six weeks, mainly in Belgium, Holland and Germany. On July 22, Holland halted the export of eggs to Germany and ordered the closure of six hen factories on the same day. By August 7, 138 of the approximately 1,000 Dutch chicken farms had ceased operation.

The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) sought to undertake damage limitation alleging that the risk from contaminated eggs was low. An adult with a body weight of 65 kg could safely eat seven Fipronil-contaminated eggs every day without danger, BfR representatives declared in their test report.

The authors added, however, that “at the present time,” there is no research regarding lifetime consumption of Fipronil residues via chicken eggs or chicken meat. The declaration makes clear that no attention has been paid to the long-term consequence of Fipronil over the years.

The BfR is not considered to be truly independent. Founded in 2002, the institute has been criticised on several occasions due to conflicts of interest between members of the advisory BfR expert commissions. Some commissioners were linked to ISLI, a lobby organisation in the food industry. Members of the BfR commission “Plant Protection Products and their Residues” were even employed by pesticide manufacturers.

Fipronil had already hit the headlines. Since 2004, the use of the substance in Europe has been repeatedly linked to a decline in bee populations. In 2008, the European Court of Justice dismissed a case lodged by several beekeepers against the authorisation of Fipronil. Since March 2014, seeds treated with the chemical can no longer be marketed or used because of the risk to bees. In France, plant protection products containing Fipronil are prohibited completely.

The victims of the scandal, first and foremost European consumers, have been left completely in the dark and have no way of checking whether they have consumed harmful eggs, possibly over a long period.

In its reports on the scandal, the media have failed to provide any real information about the extent of the danger and its causes. There has been little discussion about the appalling conditions prevailing in large chicken farms where the cramped conditions provide the ideal breeding grounds for parasites to attack the already weakened animals.

Poultry and egg producers are clearly not interested in coming to grips with the scandal. The chairman of the Dutch poultry producers, Hennie de Haan, warned of a catastrophe resulting from an “overreaction”: “If it remains limited in time, it is still possible to catch up. But if it goes on for a longer period, the entire Dutch poultry and laying hens sector, including traders, will go bankrupt. One cannot just find a market for 4.5 billion eggs a year.”

This is not the first such food scandal. Similar crises have already occurred several times in recent years. Whether it’s dioxin or glyphosate, salmonella or antibiotics, rotten meat, BSE or Fipronil, the food scandals follow a similar pattern.

The crisis will dominate the media for some time until various culprits, so-called black sheep, are found and punished. Large amounts of contaminated food will be destroyed. Meanwhile, politicians and “experts” declare that the danger to consumers is low. In the end, responsibility is placed with consumers, who are accused of buying “cheap” food.

In reality, the agricultural policy of the EU is dominated by the demands of the capitalist system. The EU’s main task is not to protect the health of persons and animals, but rather to defend the competitiveness and export capacity of European agricultural concerns. In addition, the trimming of “bureaucracy” Europe-wide has reduced the capacity of authorities to control and test products on the market. State control authorities lack sufficient personnel to work effectively.

The latest egg scandal is systemic. Five years ago, at the height of the dioxin contamination scandal, the World Socialist Web Site wrote: “The transition between ‘normal’ capitalist production methods and market conditions to criminal practices is fluid. As long as the food industry is devoted to increasing the profit of shareholders, companies and the banks, food scandals such as the latest one in Germany are inevitable.”

Exploitation, poverty, and repression threaten Haitians facing deportation from US and Canada

John Marion

More than 50,000 Haitians face deportation from the United States when their Temporary Protected Status ends in January; thousands who have crossed into Canada in search of better conditions are faring no better. Both imperialist governments, if they follow through on the deportation plans, will be sending people back to a country where those who are lucky enough to find work are paid a pittance enforced by a ruthless government in league with the native bourgeoisie.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Religion Antonio Rodrigue told Le Nouvellistelast week that, while he feels a responsibility to receive fellow Haitians deported by Canada, he doesn’t think the country can afford to accept them. According to Rodrigue, Hurricane Matthew destroyed 32 percent of Haiti’s wealth last year. “We’re not ready nor happy nor do we have the means to receive them,” said Rodrigue.

Millions of Haitians cannot afford electricity, and either go without or illegally wire their devices to the grid. The Haitian government and IMF call this practice “theft,” in a country where the unemployment rate is at least 30 percent and more than half the population subsists on less than $1.25 per day.

Haiti has no reserve stock of gasoline, most of which it imports from Venezuela through the Petrocarïbe program; a missed delivery can therefore be catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of households use charcoal for cooking.

While the textile industry employs only 41,000 workers, the European Union—in addition to the United States and Canada—is looking for cheap labor. At a September 2016 Round Table on “Micro Industrial Parks,” then-Minister of Commerce and Industry Jessy C. Petit-Frère boasted of 189 million Haitian gourdes the government had received from the EU in 2016 and of plans to put the funds toward industrial parks in industries including tourism, agriculture, energy, and fishing.

On May 19, textile workers at the SANOPI industrial park in Port-au-Prince went on strike, demanding an increase in the minimum daily wage from 300 to 800 gourdes (US $12.70 at the time). The government first offered an increase of only 35 gourdes, which it then increased by another 15 on July 27. The resulting amount, 350 gourdes per day in a country with an inflation rate of more than 15 percent, still stands.

The unions then called another week of strikes starting July 31, but were met on the first day by the PNH (Haitian National Police), which had deployed at least three police vehicles in front of each factory. The strike was then called off.

The government has promised a paltry subsidy of workers’ meals—bringing the cost for a worker from 75 gourdes to 40—as an excuse for keeping the minimum wage low. A 40 gourde meal is still more than 10 percent of the daily minimum wage. In a June 7 press conference, Minister of Social Affairs and Labor Roosevelt Bellevue also promised a fleet of 300 buses which would carry textile workers to and from their jobs for free. In reality, this scheme will benefit the employers whose labor costs will remain criminally low while the government pays for transportation.

At the end of 2013, when workers were protesting for an increase of the minimum wage to 500 gourdes—the government had offered only 225—the factory owners cried that the existing rate was already four times higher than Bangladesh’s. According to the Guardian, the owners went so far as to issue an open letter to workers about “keeping Haiti competitive.”

The government has spent years building up the 15,000-strong PNH to replace the UN’s hated MINUSTAH “peacekeeping” force, which is scheduled to be withdrawn in October. It is also re-establishing the country’s army, the Forces Armées d’Haiti (FAD’H), which will soon be recommissioned. The FAD’H, a pillar of the blood-soaked Duvalier dictatorship was disbanded by Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1995, but its reconstitution was begun by Michel Martelly in 2011. A July recruitment drive was heavily advertised; recruits were required to be celibate and in possession of a “Certificate of Good Living and Morals” from the PNH.

Defense Minister Hervé Denis’ instructions from the Prime Minister include “assuring the defense of the coast; protecting the maritime borders; monitoring the maritime territory … and ensuring maritime patrols.” In other words, the FAD’H will stop the poor and desperate from leaving the country in boats. Borrowing from the US government’s propaganda, the FAD’H will carry out its mission under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking and terrorism.

Denis began his political career in 1969 in the Duvalier regime, and in 1985 he was appointed Minister of Labor and Social Affairs by Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. According to his biography, in that job he “developed close relations among the employers and unions in order to re-enforce the ties between these institutions.”

On July 20, Le Nouvelliste published a long commentary in support of the new army by Prosper Avril, a Duvalier general who seized power after the St. Jean Bosco massacre in 1988 and whose year-and-a-half rule was infamous for torture. In the article, Avril lays out a detailed list of tasks for the new organization.

MINUSTAH forces brought cholera to Haiti in 2010, and, according to a recent Associated Press report, sexually exploited Haitian children beginning shortly after the mission arrived in 2004. Despite acknowledgement of the crimes and promises of reform by the UN, sexual exploitation by its troops occurred as recently as 2016.

Although the rate of cholera infections is decreasing, more than 7,600 suspected cases were reported in the first six months of this year. Even though its own epidemiologists released a report less than two years after the outbreak proving that UN soldiers were responsible, Ban Ki-Moon refused to acknowledge the fact until last year. The UN then promised to raise $400 million to fight the epidemic but, according to Foreign Policy, only $2.7 million had been raised as of June 1 of this year. The Trump administration has refused to contribute anything to the fund.

The Dominican Republic has increased its military presence on the border between the two countries in anticipation of MINUSTAH’s withdrawal. According to Dominican Today, Defense Minister Ruben Dario Paulino toured the border on August 9 and warned Haiti that “an army is to defend its territory, not to invade another territory.” Since June 2015 nearly 200,000 people have been deported from the Dominican Republic to Haiti or returned themselves under threat of deportation.

Having won an election in which only 20 percent of eligible voters turned out, Moïse is well aware that he is sitting on a social powder keg. The US—which deployed only 200 marines after Hurricane Matthew, compared to the tens of thousands of troops it sent after the 2010 earthquake—expects him to rely on the PNH and FAD’H. Nonetheless, they are keeping a close eye on his government: in June Defense Minister Denis was summoned to Washington to meet with the US Congress and the Inter-American Development Bank about Haiti’s maritime borders.

Moïse, a former secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Haiti, has close ties with Haiti’s big bourgeoisie, including Reginald Boulos and André Apaid, Jr., one of the biggest textile bosses of Port-au-Prince.

The destitution from which Haitian immigrants have fled is the direct result of more than a century of US imperialist oppression, which followed a century of French revenge for the revolution of 1804.

In a December 1914 prelude to the 20-year occupation of the country by the US, Marines from the USS Machias seized $500,000 of Haitian reserves and took them back to New York. From that act of aggression through Reagan’s support for “Baby Doc,” to the 2004 coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the US bears responsibility for the crimes of Haiti’s ruling elite.

Seventy years since the communal Partition of South Asia

Keith Jones

Seventy years ago this week, on August 15, 1947, South Asia’s British colonial overlords transferred power to an “independent” Indian government headed by the Indian National Congress of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.

The previous day, the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, joined Muslim League President M.A. Jinnah in Karachi to inaugurate Pakistan as an expressly Muslim state. Pakistan was carved out of the Muslim-majority areas of the northwest and northeast of Britain’s Indian Empire, thus transforming the “new” India into a primarily Hindu state.

Yet, Muslims had lived in all parts of the Indian subcontinent for well over a millennium.

The communal Partition was one of the great crimes of the 20th century—a crime that has shaped, or more precisely deformed, the entire subsequent history of South Asia.

Partition precipitated months of horrific communal violence, in which as many as two million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs perished, and provoked one of the greatest mass migrations in human history.

Within the space of the next four years, more than 15 million people, generally carrying no more than what they could hold in their hands and on their backs, migrated from one country to the other: Hindus and Sikhs fled Pakistan for India, and Muslims India for Pakistan.

Partition defied South Asia’s geography, history and culture, and the logic of its economic development, including the rational use of its water resources. Seven decades on, South Asia is the world’s least economically integrated region.

The architects of Partition, including Nehru, independent India’s first prime minister, claimed it would attenuate communal frictions, if not lance the communal boil. In reality, it built communalism into the very state structure of South Asia, thereby entrenching and magnifying it.

The ruling elites of Muslim Pakistan and ostensibly secular India have promoted communalism and its ideological cousins, religious fundamentalism and caste-ism, as a means of channeling social anger in a reactionary direction and splitting the working class.

Partition gave rise to a reactionary military-strategic rivalry between India and Pakistan that has squandered vital resources and today threatens the people of South Asia with nuclear annihilation. Over the past seven decades, India and Pakistan have fought three declared wars and several undeclared wars, and passed through numerous war crises.

The Congress, until recently the premier party of the Indian bourgeoisie, has always presented itself as a victim of Partition, that is of the machinations of the British imperialism and the Muslim League.

To be sure, the British practiced “divide and rule,” incorporating communal categories into their system of imperial control, and the Muslim League connived with India’s colonial overlords.

But there are fundamental class reasons why the Congress could not counter this communalist stratagem; why it betrayed its own program of Hindu-Muslim-Sikh unity in the struggle for a “united, democratic and secular” India, and implemented Partition. This included collaborating closely with the arch-Hindu and Sikh communalists Shyma Prasad Mukherjee and Master Tara Singh in tearing Bengal and the Punjab asunder.

The bourgeois Congress was hostile to and organically incapable of mobilizing the workers and toilers of South Asia based on an appeal to their common class interests and thereby uniting South Asia “from below.”

The Congress reflected the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie, which rankled under British rule because of its own limited opportunities for exploiting the working class. Under Gandhi’s leadership, it mounted a series of tightly-controlled and politically-emasculated mass mobilizations, between 1920 and 1942. But the more the masses, especially workers, emerged onto the scene, the more tenaciously the Congress sought a settlement with imperialism.

Especially after the experience of the 1942 “Quit India” movement, the Congress was deeply fearful that mass workers’ and peasants’ struggles would erupt outside of its control and that the struggle against the British Raj would come under the leadership of more radical forces that would threaten capitalist property.

Between 1945 and 1947, India was convulsed by struggles of a pre-revolutionary character, including mass strikes, anti-imperialist mobilizations involving direct clashes with the police and army in the proletarian centers of Calcutta and Bombay, and a mutiny of Royal Indian Navy sailors.

The more the masses came forward, the more anxious the Congress leaders became to get their hands on the repressive machinery of the colonial state, so as to stabilize capitalist rule. Toward that end, they eagerly sought a deal with the British. The latter recognized the need to change from direct to indirect imperialist rule over South Asia, but were nonetheless intent on using the communal card and their Muslim bourgeois and landlord clients to drive a hard bargain, so as to clip the wings of the Congress and the Indian bourgeoisie.

The ability of the Congress to maintain control over and ultimately suppress the mass anti-imperialist movement that convulsed South Asia in the three decades prior to August 1947 was bound up with the betrayals of the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and their Indian acolytes, organized in the Communist Party of India (CPI).

Willfully ignoring the central lessons of the 1917 October Revolution, the Stalinists pursued a course that at every point served to reinforce the control of the national bourgeoisie over the anti-imperialist struggle and prevent the working class from challenging it for the leadership of the peasant masses. This included hailing the bourgeois Congress as a multi-class front; supporting the British Indian authorities in their repression of the 1942 Quit India movement on the grounds it was jeopardizing the Allied war effort; and supporting the Muslim League’s reactionary demand for a separate Pakistan.

During the 1945-47 upsurge, the Stalinists insisted that the working class must subordinate its demands and struggles to the building of a “National Front” that would secure India’s independence under the joint leadership of the Congress and Muslim League. It did not matter that these organizations were maneuvering, with daggers drawn, against each other to secure the best deal from British imperialism.

Partition was only the most immediate and striking expression of the suppression of the democratic revolution at the hands of the Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisies, which was itself a major element in the post-World War II war restabilization of world capitalism. None of the burning problems facing the peasant masses, beginning with a radical transformation in agrarian relations, and the eradication of caste-ism, were addressed. In both countries, the working class was condemned to eking out a living on poverty, even subsistence, wages, without basic social protections, and with its struggles threatened from the outset by state repression.

Much is made in the Western media today about India’s “rise.” But, if anything, the Indian bourgeoisie is even more reactionary and hostile to the interests of India’s workers and toilers in 2017 than seven decades ago.

India’s transformation into a cheap-labour producer for world capitalism over the past quarter century has enriched a tiny stratum. While India now boasts the world’s third-largest number of billionaires, three-quarters of India’s 1.3 billion people survive on less than $US2 per day.

Just as Donald Trump personifies the criminality and brutality of the American ruling class, so the true face of the Indian ruling class is found in its current prime minister, the Hindu-supremacist, authoritarian Narendra Modi.

Modi has been tasked with propelling the further rise of the Indian capitalism, including its great power ambitions, by accelerating pro-investor “reform” and unabashedly aligning India with US imperialism.

India is now serving as a frontline state in the US military-strategic offensive against China. That ominous development is underscored by the threat that a two-month-old Sino-Indian border standoff in the Himalayas could erupt in war and by Modi’s full-throated support for Trump’s threats to incinerate North Korea.

For decades, the reactionary Pakistani bourgeoisie served as a satrap for US imperialism. It remains eager to do so today. But Washington has ever-more tightly embraced its arch-rival India, despite repeated Pakistani warnings that this has dangerously destabilized South Asia and is fueling an arms and nuclear-arms race. This has caused an increasingly anxious Islamabad to tighten its longstanding ties with Beijing.

Thus the reactionary Indo-Pakistani rivalry born of the Partition has now become enmeshed with the US-China conflict, adding to each a massive new explosive charge.

The workers of South Asia must draw the lessons of the great strategic experiences of the past century, of the Russian Revolution, but also the colonial bourgeoisie’s suppression of the democratic, anti-imperialist revolution in South Asia and the failure of “independent” capitalist rule.

Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day Challenge for Young Africans (fully-sponsored trip to selected incubators in Africa, Asia and Europe) 2017

Application Deadline: 1st September, 2017.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Dakar, Senegal.

About the Award: Here is your chance to win sponsorship from the African Agribusiness Incubators Network (AAIN) and partners to represent the youth from your country at the 2017 edition of the  5th October “Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day” during the forthcoming 2017 Africa Agribusiness Incubation Conference and Expo that will run from the 8th to the 10th of November of October in Dakar, Senegal.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: For youth between 18-35 years

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Award: The top 20 winners also stand a chance to earn a fully-sponsored trip to selected incubators in Africa, Asia and Europe.

How to Apply: 

1. Get acquainted with the history of the “Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day” and the “Africa Agribusiness Incubation Conference and Expo”. Do your homework on global business incubation, opportunities in ICT integration in agribusiness, AAIN core investment areas, the 2017 theme of the African Union, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and Agenda 2063.
2. With reference to the above, structure your own essay (maximum 1000 words) with the title “Youth in Africa, the time is now. We can take agribusiness development and job creation to the next level.”
3. Submit your essay by email with subject line “2nd Africa Youth in Agribusiness Day Challenge” to info@africaain.org before the 1st of September, 2017.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: African Agribusiness Incubators Network (AAIN)

Important Notes: How to earn extra points

Take a photo of African youth engaging in an agribusiness activity, upload it to twitter with the promotional flyer (downloadable from tweet pinned to the AAIN twitter page or website www.africaain.org) and put hashtag #AfricaYouthinAg2 and tag the official AAIN twitter page @AAINOnline. The more likes you get the better.

OR:

Reply to the latest upload to our official Facebook page with the photo of African youth engaging in an agribusiness activity and put hashtag #AfricaYouthinAg2, type your first name and country. The more likes you get, the better.

Princeton University Postdoctoral Fellowships in Humanities and Social Sciences 2018-2021

Application Deadline: 15th September, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): UK

Field of Research: Human and Allied Social Science. Candidates will pursue research and teach half-time in the following areas: OPEN discipline; Humanistic Studies; LGBT Studies; Race and Ethnicity Studies.

Type: Fellowship

About the Award: Four three-year Postdoctoral Fellowships will be awarded this year. The stipend for each of the three years of the fellowship will be approximately $84,500. In addition, fellows are provided with a shared office, a personal computer, a research account of $5,000 a year, access to university grants, benefits and other resources.
Fellows are expected to reside in or near Princeton during the academic year in order to attend weekly seminars and participate fully in the intellectual life of the Society.

Eligibility: PhD degree requirements. Please note the Society’s dates of degree eligibility. These are firm dates with no exceptions:

a) Candidates already holding the PhD degree at time of application:
Candidate must have received their degree between January 1, 2016 and September 15, 2017.

b) Candidates who are ABD (All But Dissertation) at time of application:

• If candidate is sure they will not meet the September 15, 2017, deadline for receipt of PhD but are expected to have fulfilled all conditions for the degree, including defense and filing of dissertation, by June 15, 2018, you may still apply for a postdoctoral fellowship provided you have completed a substantial portion of the dissertation (approximately half). We ask that you include in your dossier a letter confirming your “progress to degree” from either your Department Chair or your Director of Graduate Studies (see details of letter below).
• Priority will be given to candidates who have received no more than one year of research-only funding past the Ph.D. degree.
• Fellowships will be awarded to candidates at the beginning of their academic career. Candidates must have already demonstrated outstanding scholarly achievement and excellence in teaching. Their work should also show evidence of unusual promise. The Society has a particular interest in fostering innovative interdisciplinary approaches in the humanities and social sciences.
• US citizens and non-US citizens, regardless of race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, or disability, are eligible to apply. The Society of Fellows seeks a diverse and international pool of applicants and especially welcomes candidates from underrepresented backgrounds.
• Fellows must reside in or near Princeton during the academic year of their fellowship term in order that they can attend weekly seminars and other events on campus.

Number of Awardees: 4

Value of Scholarship: The stipend for each of the three years of the fellowship will be approximately $86,600. In addition, fellows are provided with a shared office, a personal computer, a research account of $5,000 a year, access to university grants, benefits and other resources.

Duration of Scholarship: 3 years

How to Apply: Visit Fellowship Webpage to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Princeton University

Important Notes: 

• Names of fellowship winners will be posted on the Society of Fellows’ website in July 2018.
• Recipients of doctorates in Education (Ed.D. or Ph.D. degrees), doctorates of Jurisprudence, and holders of Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University are not eligible to apply.
• If you have already applied to the Princeton Society of Fellows, you may not apply a second time. We therefore recommend that candidates wait until they have completed a substantial portion of the dissertation (approximately half) before applying.

American University of Beirut Graduate Scholarship in Health Science for MENA Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 1st November, 2017

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Morocco, Lebanon, Egypt, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, Yemen.

To be taken at (country): Beirut, Lebanon

Eligible Fields of Study:  

• Master of Public Health (MPH) with 3 areas of concentration:
  • Epidemiology and Biostatistics (EPBS)
  • Health Promotion and Community Health (HPCH)
  • Health Management and Policy (HMP)
• Master of Science in Epidemiology (MS EPID)
• Master of Science in Environmental Sciences – Major in  Environmental Health (MS EH)

About the Award: A limited number of partial or full scholarships are available to students from the Arab region interested in the MPH and MS programs at the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS).

Scholarship opportunities are only available for the Fall admission term of every academic year. 

Type: Master’s taught

Selection Criteria: Prospective students will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Commitment to service in public health in the region.
• Relevance of work experience to public health or related fields.
• Duration of work experience.
• Local need for public health graduates in the country of the applicant.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Full scholarships cover tuition and related academic expenses, travel to and from the country of residence as well as basic living expenses. Partial scholarships provide financial support for a range of these expenses.

Duration of Scholarship: Duration of programme

How to Apply: The scholarship application form is part of the AUB online graduate application. Interested students who meet the selection criteria must first submit a complete AUB graduate application online, which includes the scholarship application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: American University of Beirut

Georg Forster Research Award for Developing and Transition Countries 2018 – Germany

Application Deadline: 31st October 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries (excluding People’s Republic of China and India). See List below

To be taken at (country): Germany

Eligible Fields: Research programmes offered by the university

About Scholarship: The Georg Forster Research Award is granted in recognition of a researcher’s entire achievements to date to academics of all disciplines whose fundamental discoveries, new theories, or insights have had a significant impact on their own discipline and beyond and who are expected to continue developing research-based solutions to the specific challenges facing transition and developing countries.

Type: Research/Grants

Selection Criteria: 

• The Selection Committee makes its decision solely on the basis of the nominees’ academic qualifications and the relevance of their research to the development of their own countries.
• The applicants must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years at the time of their nomination.

Eligible

• -Nominees must be nationals of a developing or transition country (excluding People’s Republic of China and India; cf. detailed list of countries).
• -Furthermore, at the time of nomination, they must have had their main residence and place of work in one of these countries for at least five years.
• -The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation particularly encourages the nomination of qualified female researchers.

Number of Scholarships: up to six Georg Forster Research Awards annually.

Value of Scholarship: The award amount totals €60,000. In Germany, research awards are generally exempt from income tax under German tax law.

Duration of Scholarship: The project duration of about six to twelve months may be divided into segments.

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Ecuador, Macedonia, Samoa Albania, Egypt, Madagascar, Sao Tomé, Príncipe Algeria, El Salvador, Malawi, Senegal, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Serbia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Seychelles, Argentina, Ethiopia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Azerbaijan, Fiji, Mauritania, Somalia, Mauritius, South Africa, Mexico, South Sudan, Bangladesh, Gabon, Micronesia, Fed. States, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Gambia, Moldova, Rep. St. Kitts and Nevis, Belize, Georgia, Montenegro, St. Lucia, Benin, Ghana, Morocco, St. Vincent, Bhutan, Grenada Mongolia, the Grenadines, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mozambique, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guinea, Myanmar, Suriname, Botswana, Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, Brazil, Guyana, Syria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Namibia, Tajikistan, Haiti, Nauru, Tanzania, Honduras, Nepal, Thailand, Nicaragua, Timor-Leste Cambodia, Indonesia, Niger, Togo, Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, Tonga, Cape Verde, Iraq Niue Tunisia, Central African Republic, Turkey, Chad, Jamaica, Turkmenistan, Chile , Jordan, Tuvalu, Colombia, Pakistan, Comoros, Kazakhstan, Palestinian territories, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Kenya, Palau, Uganda, Congo, Rep. of the Kiribati, Panama, Ukraine, Cook Islands, Korea, Dem. PR of Papua New Guinea, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Cote d’Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Cuba, Philippines, Vanuatu, Laos, Venezuela, Lesotho, Rwanda, Vietnam, Dominica, Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Liberia, Djibouti, Libya, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

How to Apply

• To apply, please register and create an online nomination for a Georg Forster Research Award.
• Please visit the Guidelines for completing the nomination on the Humboldt Foundation’s website for further information on the selection procedure.

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Sponsors: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany

Important Notes: The Humboldt Foundation has changed its nomination procedure in the Georg Forster Research Award Programme. As of now, you can only nominate and upload your nomination documents online.