Bullying Venezuela: Trump’s Unvarnished Threat

Binoy Kampmark

Whether he holds good on it is beside the point.  President Donald J. Trump’s great value to US foreign policy is its lack of artifice and sophistication, a bullying force of nature that alters with the next burst of adolescent acne and the breaking of the voice.  Even less than the traditional stereotype of the American behaving badly, he is ugliness without a veil, the brute promise without gloss.  Truly ghastly, yet in a way, oddly refreshing.

His threats against President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela were impudent enough to garner resistance from Latin American leaders averse to Washington’s heavily intrusive hand.  The result of Trump’s stance has been one of unifying, not dividing, the bloc.

Colombia’s Juan Manuel Santos warned Vice President Mike Pence that, “The possibility of military intervention shouldn’t even be considered.”  Santos went even further, making the almost daring, if delusionary point that “America is a continent of peace. It is the land of peace.”

The vantage point from analysts in the US is that Maduro has got to go (the default position of Washington tends be interference – the only issue amongst the scalpel holders is how the program might be implemented).  This has been the position since he assumed power, enshrining a long held position that Venezuela is perfectly entitled to have any government as long as it sings the lullaby of American empire.

The reality since the 1990s is that the functionaries in Washington have been concerned about the unruly, independent trajectory of Venezuelan politics.  The Bolivarian revolution spearheaded by Hugo Chávez between 1999 and 2013, a socialist experiment fuelled by rising oil receipts, sent a lingering titter amongst those in the US political establishment.

The Bush administration was sufficiently stirred by Chávez’s achievements as to seek his ouster in 2002.  While denying a direct hand, there was no shying away from the obvious point that “democracy promotion” was the administration’s velvet gloved fist that would be repeatedly used, a pretext to advance business agendas and suitable alternatives to Chavismo.

As Christopher I. Clement, a long time student of US influences (read interference) in Latin American elections explained in 2005, the effort against Chávez was purely self-defeating.  “This targeting of a democratically elected government,” claimed Clement in Latin American Perspectives, “raises serious questions about the objectives and content of US policies toward Latin America.”

Subsequently, WikiLeaks revealed some gold on US intentions in Venezuela with a 2006 State Department cable from then US Ambassador William Brownfield.  For the eager Brownfield keen to make use of his position, US strategy towards altering the Venezuelan political landscape would entail five approaches: “strengthen democratic institutions” which had been “systematically dismantled” over the 8 years of Chávez’s rule; “penetrate” the base and “divide Chavismo”; “isolate Chavez” and, predictably enough, protect “vital US business” interests.

The document is awash with calculations and not-so-hidden agendas, the dirty asides suggesting that democracy is only good if it is managed from the outside.  The funding of 54 social projects through the USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) gave the ambassador a cynical chance “to visit poor areas of Venezuela and demonstrate US concern for the Venezuelan people.”  This tactic would supposedly divide the Bolivarian efforts, and sow “confusion”.

What the critics have against Trump is his near subnormal forthrightness.  He is not interested in the subterfuge of US aid that chips away at a foreign government, the softly softy approach to discrediting an opponent.  Rather than undermining the state using the more conventional techniques in the CIA armoury, the dissimulative practices of US Aid, or mere economic punishments through levelled sanctions, he has suggested calling in the marines.

“Threatening military action,” suggests Mark L. Schneider of the America’s program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “undermines the strongest Latin American consensus in support of democracy that I have seen since the end of the Pinochet regime.” But a view such as Schneider’s is merely more of the same recipe, the same formula with different utensils.

US intervention in Venezuela, whatever form it takes, resembles the abusive family member who regularly violates the sanctity and solemnity of others in the inner sanctum.  Things were already looking less than peachy in 1841, with the commencement of the Venezuelan Boundary Dispute gave a foretaste of the US stance in the Americas.

While the Venezuelans were perfectly clear where their post-Spanish independence boundaries lay, the British were less than observant, preferring to see Britannia’s own acquisition of British Guiana from the Netherlands as borderless to the west.  This contrived amorphousness brought the imperial interests of a global empire into play, a point that piqued Washington’s interest. To that end, the Monroe Doctrine was born, fashioned to prevent, if not repel, European efforts to influence the Americas.

Ironically enough, the resolution of the dispute was taken as the necessary validation of the Monroe Doctrine, which was duly used to sanctify periodic, often murderous acts of intervention by the United States in the affairs of Central and South America.  Keeping the meddlesome Europeans out of the Western Hemisphere was simply a prelude to entrenching the US within it: imperialism was bad, but only if practiced by foreigners. Trump has merely joined a large and not so distinguished club.

Amid India-China war crisis, Washington boosts strategic ties with New Delhi

Deepal Jayasekera & Keith Jones

The Trump administration and Pentagon have taken multiple steps in recent days to strengthen Washington’s military-strategic alliance with India.

These moves are manifestly aimed at encouraging India to hold fast to its hardline stance in the current dispute with China over control of the Doklam Plateau—a ridge in the Himalayan foothills that both China and Bhutan, a tiny Himalayan kingdom that New Delhi treats like a protectorate, claim as their sovereign territory.

For the past two months Indian and Chinese troops have been arrayed against each other “eyeball-to-eyeball” on the Doklam Plateau, while New Delhi and Beijing have exchanged bellicose threats and taunts, and ordered their militaries to ready for war.

India has moved thousands of troops to forward positions along its northeastern border with China, placing them on a high-alert “No War, No Peace” status, and undertaken emergency purchases of munitions, spare parts and other war materiel.

China has reportedly deployed fighter jets to Tibet and surface-to-air missile batteries near its border with the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and sent additional blood stocks to Tibet, in anticipation of casualties.

Washington’s intervention in the conflict, even if at present only indirect, greatly heightens the danger that a border clash between India and China, themselves both nuclear powers, could rapidly escalate and draw in the US and other regional and imperialist powers with catastrophic consequences for the people of Asia and all humanity.

On Tuesday, the White House announced that, during an Indian Independence Day telephone conversation between President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the US and India agreed to enhance their military-security cooperation “across the Indo-Pacific region.”

As a first step, the two countries will “elevate their strategic consultations” by establishing a “2-by-2 ministerial dialogue,” involving their foreign and defense ministers. This set-up is akin to that which the US has with its principal treaty allies in the region, Japan, Australia and the Philippines.

The next day, Washington announced it has designated Hizbul Mujahideen, an Islamist militia opposed to India’s rule over disputed Kashmir as a “foreign terrorist organization.” Not surprisingly, this move was warmly welcomed by India—which claims Pakistan government-backed terrorism is the principal, if not sole, reason for the mass alienation and opposition to New Delhi in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley—and condemned no less sharply by Islamabad.

Yesterday, a “2-by-2” meeting between US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis and their Japanese counterparts, respectively Taro Kono and Itsunori Onodera, decided that the US and Japan will work together “to advance trilateral and multilateral security and defence cooperation with other partners in the region, notably the Republic of Korea, Australia (and) India.”

This was presented as a response to North Korea’s refusal to cede to US demands that it unilaterally cease nuclear-weapon and ballistic-missile tests. However, the North Korean crisis, which the Trump administration has systematically enflamed since coming to office eight months ago, is above all driven by American imperialism’s drive to strategically isolate, encircle, and bully China, Pyongyang’s northern neighbor and principal ally.

As part of its ever-deeper integration into Washington’s military-strategic offensive against China, India has taken to parroting the US line on North Korea, depicting this small, impoverished country as a unique threat to world peace, when it is Washington that over the past quarter-century has illegally invaded one country after another.

Ominously, Modi has aligned India with Trump’s reckless threats to rain unprecedented “fire and fury” on North Korea. According to the readout of their August 15 conversation, “Prime Minister Modi thanked President Trump for his strong leadership uniting the world against the North Korean menace.”

For the past decade-and-a-half, a central strategic goal of Washington, whether under a Democratic or Republican administration, has been to build up India as a counterweight to China and harness it to US strategic aims. Not only does India share a nearly 3,500 kilometre-long border with China and possess one of the world’s largest armies. It also geographically dominates the Indian Ocean, whose sea-lanes bear most of the oil and many of the other resources that fuel China’s economy.

During the three-year rule of Modi and his Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), India has been transformed into a veritable frontline state in the US offensive against China. India now allows US warplanes and battleships to make routine use of its military bases and ports, shares intelligence with the Pentagon on Chinese ship and submarine movements in the Indian Ocean, and has dramatically expanded bi-lateral and tri-lateral military-strategic ties with Japan and Australia.

In an interview with the Press Trust of India last weekend, the head of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris, reiterated the importance the Pentagon accords to India, declaring the US “is ready to help India modernise its military.” The admiral lauded the recent joint US-Indian-Japanese naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, adding that if Australia were added to the annual Malabar exercise—making it a quadrilateral exercise of the US and the states that are the pivot of the Pentagon’s strategy to militarily confront and defeat China—it would be even better.

Washington’s moves to bolster ties with India come in the wake of calls from various strategists of US imperialism for the Trump administration to make clear that it stands with India in the current border crisis with China, even if for diplomatic reasons it continues to publicly maintain that the US has no position on who is the rightful owner of the Doklam Plateau.

Particularly significant in this regard was an article penned by the longtime CIA operative and Obama administration official Bruce Reidel titled, “JFK stopped a China-India War. Can Trump? The nuclear stakes are much higher now.” The article argues that it was President John Kennedy’s dispatching of “the US Air Force to resupply the Indians” and an aircraft “carrier battle group to the Bay of Bengal” that caused China to unilaterally end the 1962 Sino-Indian border war and withdraw from its “conquests” in northeast India.

While Reidel urges the Trump administration to be ready to mount a diplomatic offensive to prevent the outbreak of a conflict that could have “potentially enormous consequences for the world,” his implicit argument is that Washington must come to India’s military support so as to help it stare down Beijing and, if need be, bloody it on the battlefield.

For his part, Richard M. Rossow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a major US think-tank, is urging the Trump administration to recognize that in “sending its troops into foreign territory to stand up to China,” New Delhi is realizing the hopes that American imperialist strategists have long placed in it.

War, Rossow concedes, may not be desirable, but “Washington must recognize—we just received a loud, clear signal that India is ready to take important steps to contribute to the” US-led “global order, and it should strengthen our resolve to further deepen our emerging security partnership.”

Japan, American imperialism’s most important Asian ally, has gone even further than the US in backing India’s stance on the Doklam Plateau dispute. Yesterday, Japan’s ambassador to India, Kenji Hiramatsu, defended the intervention of Indian troops on territory to which it has no legal claim, saying India has a “treaty understanding with Bhutan.” He also suggested, without naming Beijing, that its attempt to expand a road on the disputed plateau was tantamount to “unilaterally” trying to “change the status quo by force.”

In the hope of supplanting China as the principal cheap-labour supply-chain hub for Western capital and advancing its own great power ambitions, the venal Indian bourgeoisie is serving as a satrap for American and Japanese imperialism in their drive to re-subjugate China.

The Chinese regime, which represents the oligarchs that emerged from the restoration of capitalism in the People’s Republic, has no progressive answer to the relentless offensive being mounted against it.

Organically incapable of making any appeal to the anti-war sentiment of the people of Asia and the world, it oscillates between seeking an accommodation with Washington and whipping up bellicose nationalism and engaging in its own militarist actions.

A recent article in the South China Morning Post cited People’s Liberation Army sources as saying war was increasingly likely, but that the Chinese military believes the conflict can be limited to the eastern sector of the Indo-Chinese border and last no more than a week or two.

But as the developments of recent days have underscored, a border war could rapidly involve other powers, starting with US. Even if such a catastrophe were averted and a clash between India and China limited to a border war, it would have calamitous consequences for working people around the world.

Whatever its outcome, such a war would only strengthen imperialism.

A Chinese “victory” would only cause the Indian bourgeoisie to cement its place in a US-led NATO-type alliance against China. Moreover, Germany, Japan and the other imperialist wars would use the events in the Himalayas as a pretext to accelerate their plans for rearmament and war.

In the event China suffered a defeat, US imperialism would seize on the opportunity to intensify its reckless military-strategic offensive against China. Meanwhile, the Modi government, flush from reversing the “humiliation” of 1962, would step up its efforts to bully India’s neighbors into recognizing it as the hegemon of South Asia and whip up a climate of bellicose nationalist euphoria to intensify the assault on the working class and drive Indian politics still further right.

There is, however, an antipode to the war drive of the bourgeoisie. Recent decades have seen the growth of a massive working class in India and China. It is this mighty social force, which has no interest in the capitalist struggle for profits, resources and strategic advantage, which must be mobilized along with workers in the US, Japan, and around the world in an anti-war movement aimed at liquidating the source of war—capitalism and the outmoded nation-state system in which it is historically rooted.

Worsening child poverty in the UK

Barry Mason 

A new report issued by Buttle UK, “The Real Face of Child Poverty in the UK in 2017,” paints a picture of the desperate financial plight of many families.

Buttle UK is a charity that disburses grants to needy children. Its chief executive, Gerri McAndrew, said, “While this is not a state of emergency, it is beginning to look like one. Urgent action needs to be taken.”

Buttle UK is the largest charity directly dispensing grants to families with children and young people in need. Over the last 10 years it has had 125,000 requests. The database of these requests means the charity has been able to make a detailed analysis of life in the UK for millions of poor children, who have suffered as years of brutal austerity measures have been unleashed on them by successive Labour and Conservative governments and local authorities of all political stripes.

The foreword to the report notes: “The plight of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in the UK is deteriorating—more are living in poverty than at any time in the last 10 years. Government figures show that the number rose by 200,000 in 2014/15, the first increase in levels of child poverty since 2011-12. It meant there are now 3.9 children across the UK living below the breadline.”

This means, taking the Office of National Statistics figure for 2016, that of 11 million children under 18 in the UK, a third are living below the breadline.

One item the charity is asked to provide for children is a bed, and since 2006 it has given out 13,000 beds. The need is rising, and in 2015/2016 alone it gave out 3,000 beds. This represents around a third of the 10,000 families helped last year. The report states, “These are children who do not have a suitable bed to sleep in because they are sharing with parents or siblings; they are sleeping on the floor or their beds are damaged to the point where they are simply not fit to use.”

Based on figures compiled by the charity, it estimates that around 400,000 children in the UK are without a suitable bed. The report comments that this “is a staggering figure, and surely not one that is acceptable in the UK in 2017.”

Over the last decade the charity has already distributed the following to poor families:

· 18,885 washing machines

· 16,564 cookers

· 13,311 children’s beds

· 9,954 fridge freezers

· 5,023 grants towards children

· 1,394 pieces of household furniture

The areas of the country where most of the requests for assistance have come from are the large cities, including families in Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow.

Among its key findings, the report noted the changing profile of the families it helps. While noting that the number of people in work is at an all-time high, “there has been a big shift in those classed as experiencing ‘in-work poverty,’ a rise of 1.1 million people since 2010/11. As a result two thirds of those children classified as poor are so despite the fact that at least one of their parents is in work. More people are living in private rented housing where costs are high and tenancies lack stability,” and this has led to “a staggering 60 percent rise in the number of evictions by private landlords, between 2010/11 and 2015/16.”

Another key finding is how economic changes are hitting the poorest families hardest and subjecting them to a “poverty premium.” The report explains: “Benefits have been frozen but prices are rising, adding increasing pressure to weekly budgets. Child benefits will have risen by just 2 percent between 2010 and 2020 compared with projected price rises of 35 percent.”

Families on low incomes are not able to access cheap credit or lower cost energy tariffs. Many of the families live in what it calls “ATM deserts” and are only able to access cash from machines charging a fee. The End Child Poverty Coalition calculated the “poverty premium” for a typical low-income family to be up to £1,700 a year.

The report notes that parents are forced into having to make detrimental choices because of financial constraints: “These combined pressures make the reality of everyday life incredibly challenging. Children…are isolated and lack forms of engagement and stimulation beyond the home. Their diets are poor. When money is so tight, the ability to meet basic material needs is an ongoing battle: a cooker or washing machine breaking down—or moving into a new unfurnished property—can create a crisis.”

The report highlights the increasing dependence on the privately rented sector (PRS) for housing by low-income families. This dependence is linked to increasing insecurity, instability and higher costs associated with having to make more frequent moves: “The number of people living in poverty in the PRS has doubled in a decade, from 2.2 million people in 2004/5 to 4.5 million today. … Almost three quarters (73%) of people…living in the PRS pay more than a third of their income in rent…compared to 28% of owner-occupiers and 50% of social renters with similar income levels.”

The cost of housing is exacerbated by the erosion of the value of Housing Benefit, which is no longer linked to a typical local rent figure. While rents in the PRS rose by nearly 12 percent between 2010 and 2015, the erosion of the value of Housing Benefit entitlement meant families faced a shortfall of £82 a month by 2015. This will rise to £154 a month by 2020.

The Buttle UK findings echo those of an End Child Poverty report, “Feeling the Pinch,” issued in January. It noted: “Forecasts suggest that child poverty rates will rise significantly in coming years. Low income families really are ‘feeling the pinch’—trapped between support being eroded by the cost of living rising much faster than benefit rates, and facing some of the highest prices on basic essentials as a result of a ‘poverty premium’ on key goods and services.”

Many struggling families are relying on credit just to get by. A July report by the charity StepChange noted the high cost of credit and explained, “There are too many families on tight budgets who have to turn to credit, including high cost credit, as a ‘safety net’ to meet the costs of everyday essentials. These households are particularly likely to be struggling to manage but vulnerable to falling into problem debt.

“Our new research finds that an estimated 8.8 million people in Great Britain have turned to credit to pay for their everyday household expenses in the last year. Of these, 1.1 million of them are using a form of high cost credit including payday/instalment loans, doorstep loans and rent-to-own stores.

“The regular use of high cost credit to meet essential costs can severely damage the already tight budgets of families who are struggling to manage. Moreover, having to repay loans with high interest rates and charges can significantly increase the risk of these households falling behind and spiralling into problem debt.”

Refugees: EU strikes deadly deal with Libyan coast guard on refugees

Marianne Arens 

The number of refugees arriving in Italy declined sharply in August. Despite favourable weather conditions, the number of people landing in Lampedusa and Sicily nearly halved in the first week of August. The decline is even more striking compared to 2016. According to a correspondent of the Süddeutsche Zeitung on August 16, 90 percent fewer refugees arrived in August than in the same period the previous year.

This decline is no coincidence. It is a result of Italy’s deal struck with Libya, negotiated by Interior Minister Marco Minniti (Democratic Party). The hardliner, law-and-order politician has the backing of the EU, and especially German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere (CDU). In Italy, all political parties—from Matteo Renzi’s Democrats, Beppe Grillo’s Five-Star Movement and the fascists—support the measures of Minniti, a former member of the Italian Communist Party and now a social democrat.

In mid-August, Minniti stated at a press conference that the security of Italy was threatened if the state did not control the flow of fugitives. He added that such control was “a concern of the left.”

His dirty deal means that the Libyan coast guard apprehends refugees and prevents them from reaching Europe. To achieve this, the Italian government led by Paolo Gentiloni, along with the German and French governments, are working hand in hand with their satrap in Tripoli, Fajis al-Sarradsch. Italy and the EU finance his Libyan coast guard, equip them with ships, weapons and all necessary equipment, and train their crews.

The coast guard of the Sarradsch regime in Tripoli comprises the same Islamic forces as the country’s militia and its people smugglers, i.e., precisely those groups the EU professes to combat. Their task is to return refugees to Libya and keep them there. In so doing they carry out the dirty work of the EU and permit politicians in Rome, Berlin and Brussels to display a clean pair of hands on the basis of the “non-repatriation” principle.

The non-repatriation principle is a central element of international refugee law. It states that persons cannot be sent back to countries where they face torture or other serious human rights violations. It is anchored in both the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU and its member states have signed up to the law, but in practice they violate it on a daily basis.

Refugees are now disappearing from the streets of Europe and from political and media attention. But where have they disappeared to? Rather than being “rescued,” as cynical journalists claim, they have been returned to the camps of the militia, which resemble nothing other than a “hell on earth.” This is confirmed by all those who have had access to the camps and prisons.

The conditions which prevail resemble a “concentration camp.” This is the verdict of a report issued by the German Foreign Office. The report was drawn up by the German ambassador in Niamey, the capital of Niger, and has been passed on to the German chancellor’s office and several ministers.

According to the paper Welt am Sonntag, which has possession of the complete text, the report refers to “the most serious, systematic human rights violations in Libya.” It states: “Authentic mobile phone photos and videos are evidence of the concentration-camp-like conditions in the so-called private prisons. Executions of impoverished immigrants, torture, rape, blackmail and abandonment in the middle of the desert are the order of the day ... witnesses have referred to precisely five executions per week in one prison—announced in advance and carried out on Fridays in order to make room for new arrivals, i.e., to increase the intake of persons and thereby drive up profits for the camp operators.”

In a report broadcast on German television July 9, journalist Michael Obert reported on a camp in Zawiya, 50 km west of Tripoli. “In my entire life I have never seen or experienced such appalling conditions as in these camps,” Obert said. He described in detail the conditions prevailing: refugees herded together in cells with barely enough room to stretch out to sleep, kept in the dark, suffering thirst and hunger, lacking any sort of sanitation and subject to torture, beatings, rape and murder. Other eyewitnesses have reported that the warlords and armed militias sell off the refugees as slaves.

The German government and the EU are well aware of the appalling conditions. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democratic Party, SPD) visited one of the camps in June—the same camp referred to by Obert. But this has not deterred the political elite from striking a deal with the murderous bureaucracy in Libya, which run the camps.

The EU and its member states are paying out hundreds of millions of euros to curb the influx of refugees to Europe. From February this year, following Minniti’s Italian-Libyan agreement, European politicians have worked closely with Sarradsch and his ministers. They have invited him to Paris and Rome and have visited him in Tripoli. At the same time, they are constantly developing new plans to expand EU influence in Libya and establish “hot spots” on Libyan soil controlled by Europe.

In July, they extended the EU maritime mission “Sophia” in the Mediterranean. On August 3, the Italian government sent the frigate Commandante Borsini into Libyan territorial waters.

In the current German election campaign, politicians from all the parties are embracing xenophobia. The SPD’s leading candidate, Martin Schulz, has presented a program to improve the security of the external borders of the Schengen area and increase cooperation between the Europol and Frontex police agencies. The Left Party supports this policy and has set its sights on forming a coalition government with Schulz!

On August 10, Libya arbitrarily extended its territorial waters beyond the regular 12-mile zone. The new Libyan “Search-and-Rescue” (SaR) zone, in which no ships are allowed under a foreign flag, now covers 74 nautical miles.

This measure is not directed against the authorities in Rome, but rather against volunteer NGOs which have played the main role in rescuing distressed refugees at sea. For the past two weeks NGO ships have been systematically harassed and driven out of the Mediterranean. The main reason behind the move is to remove them from the sites of crimes where they could act as witnesses.

At the end of July, Marco Minniti presented the NGOs with an ultimatum, a so-called “code of conduct.” The measures had been previously approved by EU ministers at a conference in Tallinn. Among other measures, the code calls upon NGOs to take on board armed police officers and Frontex officials. The NGO ships are also forbidden to transfer refugees to larger vessels.

Most NGOs have refused to sign up to such conditions. As a result, their ships have been prevented from leaving port in Italy and are threatened and harassed by the patrol boats of the Libyan coast guard on the high seas.

On August 15, the Libyan coast guard stopped the rescue vessel Golfo Azzurro, threatened its crew and held them for several hours. The Spanish relief organization Proactiva Open Arms, which owns the ship, stated the incident occurred in international waters—and this is not the only case. On August 7 another ship belonging to the organization was subject to warning shots, once again in international waters.

Following such incidents, more and more NGOs are withdrawing from the Mediterranean. Up to August 13, Sea Eye, Doctors Without Borders and Save the Children had all announced their withdrawal from sea rescue operations. All these organizations have saved tens of thousands of refugees from drowning. Proactiva Open Arms has rescued 26,000 refugees and Sea Eye about 12,000 since April 2016. Sea Eye founder Michael Buschheuer told the press that his volunteers could not be expected to face the risks involved in continuing operations. “We leave behind a deadly vacuum,” he said.

A fascist organization, the so-called Identity Movement (IB), has also participated in the expulsion of the NGOs. It boasts that it contributed to the expulsion of the Golfo Azzurro with its operation “Defend Europe,” carried out in collaboration with the Islamic coast guard. It is clear that the fascists are on the same page as fanatical Islamic militias when it comes to abusing refugees.

A broad alliance of European social democrats, conservatives and fascists are now collaborating with Sarradsch’s Libyan coast guard to repulse and intimidate refugees. Their brutal mishandling of immigrants is linked to their policies for dealing with their “own” working class. The very same politicians who hermetically seal off the Mediterranean Sea and condemn refugees to torture, death and war are carrying out brutal welfare cuts and the militarisation of society throughout Europe.

In 1940, the Fourth International wrote in its manifesto on imperialist war: “Amid the vast expanses of land and the marvels of technology, which has also conquered the skies for man as well as the earth, the bourgeoisie has managed to convert our Planet into a foul prison.”

The working class must respond with its own answer: It must unite internationally, defend the democratic right of every worker to live and work in the country of his or her choice, and fight for a socialist program. This is the program advocated by the Socialist Equality Party.

Number of refugees fleeing violence in South Sudan reaches a new high of four million

Eddie Haywood

The number of people fleeing barbaric violence in South Sudan, internally displaced or leaving the country, is now over 4 million according to recent figures published by the UN.

As a measure of the severity of the crisis, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that on average 1,800 South Sudanese have arrived in Uganda every day over the past twelve months, desperately fleeing the destruction caused by the civil war in their country.

The new high of 4 million internally and externally displaced since the civil war began in 2013 parallel’s the situation in Syria, where 11 million have been externally and internally displaced by civil war, making the overall refugee crisis worldwide the largest and most dire since World War II.

Uganda, which shares its northern border with South Sudan, is host to the greatest number of refugees, with over one million currently residing in the country. Another one million has fled to countries in the surrounding region, scattering across Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Two million more remain internally displaced in South Sudan, either homeless or residing in squalid and overcrowded conditions in multiple makeshift camps set up by the UN around the country.

During a June visit to the largest refugee camp in the country at Bentiu, Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, spoke of the misery experienced by the displaced, “The international neglect that you see here is matched nowhere else in the world. Wherever you look there are dead ends."

The UN agency says it has a shortfall in funding, and is operating on around 20 percent of what it says is necessary to deal with the horrific refugee emergency in South Sudan.

The conditions confronting South Sudan’s population are breathtakingly horrific, and have taken a heavy toll.

The destruction wrought by nearly five years of civil war has resulted in an outbreak of cholera ravaging the country.

Infrastructure, including hospitals, clinics, schools, and sanitary water facilities have been demolished, and entire villages and municipalities have been razed. This has left millions afflicted or susceptible to disease, and has led to a lack of access to critical life-saving medical services.

More than 50,000 have been killed, and many thousands more have been injured and maimed since the beginning of the conflict.

Rapes, mutilation, and torture are a common occurrence, with the conflict taking on an ethnic dimension, as militants belonging to one tribal clan have been encouraged by militia leaders to target their perceived rivals in another.

Stalking the crisis like a dark cloud is the historic famine sweeping the continent with South Sudan directly in its path, with the potential to exacerbate the already catastrophic situation to a new level of deprivation for the masses. According to the UN, more than 100,000 are in immediate danger of starvation, and the famine is estimated to affect 4.9 million men, women and children, 40 percent of the country’s total population.

According to UNHCR, the surge of refugees flowing into countries of the surrounding region threatens to severely impact the host country’s ability to cope with such a mass exodus. It is estimated that the funding necessary in the short term is around $1 billion, with much more projected in the future.

The dire consequences of the criminally underfunded budget available to cope with the refugee emergency has been exposed in Uganda. The large numbers from South Sudan fleeing to Uganda is putting a strain on Kampala’s ability to deliver critical health care and adequate education, with many left deprived of medical services due to overcrowded hospitals and classrooms.

The dire situation in South Sudan is a crime for which responsibility can be traced back to Washington, D.C. and its subservient partner governments in Europe.

In 2005, after over two decades of civil war between the government of Sudan and rebel militants in the south, the Bush administration together with its European partners successfully negotiated a peace agreement between the principals of the conflict, the Al-Bashir government in Khartoum and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the gang of separatist militants in the south which sought independence from Khartoum.

The main component of the agreement for bringing an end to the conflict was a clause agreed to by both parties that called for the creation of an independent South Sudan, which after six years saw its realization in 2011.

For its part, Washington worked to carve out the new nation state as part of its East Africa strategy, which consisted of isolating the Al-Bashir regime in Khartoum, which is perceived as an obstacle for Washington’s hegemonic aims for the region. Secondly, but of greater importance, the US sought to neutralize the substantial economic influence of China in Sudan where Beijing has overseen massive investment in the development of oil resources and extraction infrastructure.

Making clear Washington’s aims in South Sudan is the fact that after its creation, Khartoum lost 75 percent of its oil reserves to its new southern neighbor, causing China to lose billions, including its drilling facilities located on the border cutting across the Upper Nile region in an area with the largest oil deposits.

The assortment of killers and criminal misfits Washington backed as its representatives with the formation of the Salva Kiir government in Juba was a fragile coalition from the beginning, fraught with a tenuous power sharing agreement between bitter rivals Kiir and Riek Machar, who was installed as Kiir’s vice president.

The rivalry of the two has its roots the Second Sudanese Civil War, when Machar broke away from the SPLM, led by John Garang and in which Salva Kiir was a rising power. Machar formed a separate militia, with both Machar and the SPLM declaring war on each other. After years of protracted conflict between the two militias, in 2002, Machar reconciled with Garang and rejoined the SPLM.

The South Sudanese Civil War began in 2013 between factions supporting president Kiir on the one side and vice president Machar on the other, after Machar led an attempted coup. American imperialism’s criminal operation has reached its bloody apogee with the utter devastation of South Sudanese society.

In addition to Washington’s hand in choreographing the slaughter in South Sudan are Africom’s increased military operations in the region, in which Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia function as proxies in furtherance of US economic objectives in Africa.

Kenya is currently engaged in a war on the population of Somalia on behalf of its patrons in Washington, and Uganda is a key ally of the US in lending its military bases, armed forces, and logistical support, including allowing the US to utilize a section of the international airport at Entebbe for its drones which carry out their deadly airstrikes in Somalia and surveillance missions across Africa. Ethiopia is also a key ally, lending unequivocal support and its armed forces as proxies for Washington’s bloody operations.

UN-Habitat “We are climate change” Youth Photography Competition 2017

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Bonn, Germany

About the Award: Here is your opportunity to add your voice to the foremost conference on climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 23rd Conference of Parties (COP-23) that will be hosted in the historical city of Bonn, Germany, from 6th -17th November 2017.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

1. Candidate has to be the owner of and have rights to the image that they submit. By submitting an image, candidate gives UN-Habitat the right to share your image on social media, display hardcopies at COP-23 as well as on the UN-Habitat website competition gallery.
2. Images should be submitted in JPEG or TIFF in high resolution.
3. Candidate should clearly explain climate change solutions in candidate’s image. Remember to also include: The neighbourhood, city and country of image captured.
4. Candidate must be between 18-35 to qualify as a participant.
5. Participants from all over the world are encouraged.
6. Participants are allowed one entry in to the competition.
7. 20 winning images will be selected and displayed at COP-23 and on social media. One image will be selected as the overall winning piece.
8. Winners will be messaged privately before UN-Habitat makes a formal announcement.
9. Should the overall winner require a visa, he/she will handle visa paperwork and fees for quick processing of tickets. The visa fee is refundable. Keep receipts for reimbursement. UN-Habitat will provide a supporting letter for the visa application.
10. Contestants from all over the world are encouraged to participate.
11. This contest is void where prohibited or restricted by law.
12. UN-Habitat takes no responsibility for infringement of 3rd party rights. The submitter of the photograph will incur any and all penalties associated with infringing on a 3rd Party’s rights to the photo.
13. Entrants may not submit images containing nudity, personal attacks, and expletives.

Value of Award: The winner of this contest will be sponsored to a fully funded trip to Bonn, Germany where their work will be displayed to gain exposure on a global environmentally conscious platform.

How to Apply: 

1. Post a picture with a caption on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter while tagging @UN-HABITAT and @UN-HabitatYouth using the hashtag #weareclimatechange.
2. Send a high-resolution image to advocacy@unhabitat.org, and cc faderr.johm@unhabitat.orgtogether with your full name and contact information (email address, current address and phone number).

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: UN-Habitat

Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth & Advancement (YIAGA) Campaign, Advocacy and Movement Building Workshop 2017

Application Deadline: 15th September 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria 

About the Award: The Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth & Advancement (YIAGA) is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that promotes democratic governance, human rights and active youth participation in democratic process through research, policy advocacy and capacity development.

As part of her activities, YIAGA is implementing the Promoting Inclusive Governance for Development (PIG–D) project supported by the Ford Foundation. The aim of the project is to promote civic activism and effective youth political participation. In order to contribute to the promotion of effective civic activism, YIAGA will host a Campaign, Advocacy and Movement Building Workshop that is aimed at improving the capacity of state based groups coordinating movements at the state level.

Type: Workshop/Conferences

Eligibility: Interested applicants must:

• Be young people between the ages of 16 – 30;
• Be based in one of the 36 States of Nigeria
• Be members of students associations or civil society organizations. Holding a leadership position in such structures is an advantage;
• Have demonstrated commitment in advocating for issues affecting the lives of Nigerian youth.

Young women are strongly recommended to apply for this programme.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: YIAGA will cover transportation, accommodation and feeding costs for selected participants.

How to Apply: To apply click here

Visit Program Webpage for Details

Award Provider: Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth & Advancement (YIAGA)

Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Fellowship Program for Member Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 31st December 2017

Eligible Countries: FAO Member countries.

To Be Taken At (Country): Multiple. FAO Regional, Sub-regional, Country Offices or Headquarters.

About the Award: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) leads international efforts to defeat hunger and to support development in member countries in the areas of agriculture, fisheries and forestry. FAO’s mandate is to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.

The Fellowship Programme is designed to attract fellows, typically PhD students, researchers and professors, who have an advanced level of relevant technical knowledge and experience in any field of the Organization. They are willing to fulfil their specialized learning objectives and at the same time, contribute their technical expertise and knowledge through time-bound arrangements with FAO. Assignments should be in line with FAO Strategic Objectives and UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Graduate or post-graduate degree (Master’s or PhD) or be enrolled in a PhD programme.
• Working knowledge of at least one FAO official language (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian or Spanish). Knowledge of a second FAO official language will be considered an asset. Only language proficiency certificates from UN accredited external providers and/or FAO language official examinations (LPE, ILE, LRT) will be accepted as proof of the level of knowledge of languages indicated in the online applications.
• Be nationals of FAO Member Nations
• Age: no age limits.
• Candidates should be able to adapt to an international multicultural environment, have good communication skills and be knowledgeable in the use of basic computer programmes.
• Candidates with family members (defined as brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter) employed by FAO under any type of contractual arrangement are not be eligible for the Fellowship Programme.
• Candidates should have appropriate residence or immigration status in the country of assignment
• Qualified female applicants and qualified nationals of non- and under-represented member countries are encouraged to apply.
• Persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply

Selection Criteria: Candidates may be assigned in a field relevant to the mission and work of FAO.

Number of Awards: Numerous

Duration of Program: According to time bound agreement with hiring office

How to Apply: To apply, visit the iRecruitment website at http://www.fao.org/employment/irecruitment-access/en/ and complete your online profile.

• Only applications received through iRecruitment will be considered.
• Candidates are requested to attach a research proposal.
• Vacancies will be removed from iRecruitment at 23:59 Central European Time (CET) on the deadline for applications date. We encourage applicants to submit the application well before the deadline date.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)

Important Notes: 

• Qualified female applicants and qualified nationals of non- and under-represented member countries are encouraged to apply.
• Persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply.
• All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.
• FAO strongly encourages candidates from the Global South and Indigenous Peoples to apply to this Call for Expression of Interest

AINnovation Spaces Competition for Entrepreneurs in MENA Countries (Fully funded internship at Qatar Mobility Innovation Center) 2018

Application Deadline: 1st September 2017

Eligible Countries: Arab countries

To be Taken at (country): Internships will take place at QMIC in Qatar

About the Award: AINnovation Spaces Competition is AIN’s most prestigious competition, designed to allow students from across the Arab world to showcase their ideas in front of judges and experts in various fields. AINnovation Spaces challenges student to come up with innovative ideas to solve health, environmental, and engineering problems. Ideas are not limited to solving problems only, but can be ‘anything’ that will better people’s lives and the world. Selected participants are invited to AIN’s annual conference (AINAC) to present their ideas. Our winner(s) receive a fully funded two-months internship at Qatar Mobility Innovation Centre (QMIC) in Qatar.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:

• Arabs or any person residing in the Arab world with an innovative mind and bright new ideas.
• Persons with a prototype
• The team is 1 individual or a team of 2 people

Value of Award: 

• Great exposure and opportunity to meet professionals in various fields, and expand their professional network
• Receive constructive criticisms from experts, which interim, allows participants to further enhance their ideas.
• Winner(s) receive a two month fully funded internship in Qatar, at one of the world’s leading research and development centre. The internship offered for 1 individual or a team of 2 people.

Competitors who require financial support to attend AINAC can apply for travel and accommodation grant. This is available only for one person per team. The accommodation covers two nights in a shared room.

Duration of Award: 

• Participation Application: 1st Sep 2017
• Invitation Letters: 7th Sep 2017
• Checklist submission: 25th Sep 2017
• Register to conference 5th Oct 2017
• Invite judges: 31st Oct 2017
• Evaluate your project: 9th, 10th Nov 2017
• Awards announced: 10th Nov 2017

SUBMIT HERE

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Arab Innovation Network

Important Notes: Successful applicants will be notified and will receive invitation letters by 7th September 2017. Applicants will receive a notice if application has been declined.

LEXUS Design Award for Design Students and Enthusiasts (Funded to Milan Design Week) 2018

Application Deadline: 8th October 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Milan, Italy

Categories:

• Environmental
• Products
• Technology
• Fashion

About the Award: This year’s creative theme for the Lexus Design Award 2018 is “CO-,” a Latin prefix meaning with or together in harmony.

Lexus believes that great design can ensure the harmonious coexistence of nature and society.

In that sense, “CO-” is an approach that allows the brand to explore its true potential and that of the environment by creating new possibilities through collaboration, coordination and connection. Now, young designers get their turn for “CO-” to inspire them to conceive a better world.

First launched in 2013, the Lexus Design Award is an international platform to identify and recognize the next generation of global creators and designers. Imagination, Craftsmanship and Design has always been a fundamental part of Lexus brand. At Lexus, we believe in the power of creativity to change the world and build a better future. The award seeks to foster the growth of ideas that contribute to society by supporting designers and creators whose works can help to shape a better future.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Participation is open to professionals, students and design enthusiasts from every country in the world and only to individuals who have reached the age of majority. Free registration required.

Value and Number of Award: Through the Lexus Design Award, 12 finalists will have their visions showcased to the world at Milan Design Week 2018. An experience of a lifetime awaits for 4 of these finalists, who will receive funding and work with world-renowned design mentors to bring their vision for a better world to life and share it in-person at Milan. Awards include:

1) Invitation to Milan Design Week
2) Prototype Production Cost Assistance
3) Mentorship
4) An invitation to Press Party
5) Presentation Opportunity at Milan Event
6) Providing Award Certificate
7) Providing Award Press Kit

Four Prototype Winners will each receive a mentorship by an acknowledged professional to develop a prototype of his/her submitted Work. The Sponsor will cover the prototype production costs up to 3 million Yen (*includes tax, customs duty, construction fee and part of a packaging fee). Prototypes will be developed through sessions with the mentors.

In addition, the 4 (four) Prototype Winners plus 8 (eight) additional panel finalists will receive a ‘Trip Prize’ to Milan, Italy during Milan Design Week (taking place between April 16-22, 2018) and are required to attend the LEXUS DESIGN AWARD 2018 Exhibition and Ceremony, where the Four prototypes, and panel displays for the other eight awarded designs, will be exhibited.

‘The ‘Trip prize’ includes 1 (one) round-trip between a major airport near Finalist’s home and Milan, Italy plus accommodation for 2 (two) nights. Only one individual will be invited, regardless of whether the winning entries are submitted by an individual or a group. The Prizes are non-transferable and no cash alternative is available.

Duration/Timeline of Program: 

1. Finalist Screening Session: mid Nov
2. Announcement of 12 Finalists: Jan 2018
3. Milan Design Week – Grand Prix Winner Announcement: Apr 17th – 22nd 2018

How to Apply: SUBMIT YOUR DESIGN

Information on how to enter and prizes form part of the Official Rules, please read them carefully before entering. Below we summarize the most important steps.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Designboom, Lexus