29 Aug 2017

Trump orders resumption of military supplies to local police

Patrick Martin 

President Trump signed an executive order Monday morning reinstituting a federal program to supply military-grade weaponry and equipment to state and local police forces. The program had been suspended since May 2015 under an executive order signed by Barack Obama that Trump has now rescinded.
The Obama administration was compelled to restrict, at least temporarily, the distribution of “surplus” military equipment after widespread public outrage following the deployment of armored vehicles and other military weaponry in Ferguson, Missouri, after mass protests that followed the August 2014 police murder of 18-year-old Michael Brown Jr.
When thousands took to the streets in anger over the police killing of the unarmed youth, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, mobilized the National Guard, backing the local authorities, who employed armored cars, armed helicopters and police equipped with assault rifles pointed at demonstrators.
Trump signed the executive order without ceremony, leaving it to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to announce the policy change formally in an address to the convention of the Fraternal Order of Police held in Nashville, Tennessee.
“I am here to announce that President Trump is issuing an executive order that will make it easier to protect yourselves and your communities,” Sessions declared, to loud applause from the assembled police. “He is rescinding restrictions from the prior administration that limited your agencies’ ability to get equipment through federal programs…”
The program to supply military gear to local police, known as the 1033 program, after the section in the National Defense Authorization Act which first established it in 1990, allows the Pentagon to transfer equipment ranging from body armor and bullets to aircraft, armored cars and tanks, at no cost to the local or state government.
Obama’s executive order did not halt the entire program, but restricted distribution of the most flagrant offensive weapons, including grenade launchers, armored cars and armored helicopters. Last year there was a limited recall of equipment that had been placed on a “prohibited” list, including armored cars, aircraft and explosives.
Sessions boasted that the latest executive order was only one part of a wide range of measures taken by the Trump administration to boost local police, including the reinstatement of civil asset forfeiture, which allows local police to confiscate cash and property from people based only on suspicion of crimes, without a warrant or court hearing.
Local police officials interviewed by the press in Nashville said their departments had become increasingly dependent on the free hand-me-down equipment from the Pentagon, under conditions of mounting budgetary pressures on state and local government.
The program was created under the first Bush administration, initially limited to drug enforcement units, but in 1997, under the administration of Democrat Bill Clinton, it was expanded to include all local law enforcement units. More than $5.4 billion has been transferred to local police, a huge subsidy from the Pentagon for building up a police-state apparatus in America.
A White House background paper rejected claims that military-style equipment made the police look like “an occupying force,” saying that the decision “sends the message that we care more about public safety than about how a piece of equipment looks, especially when that equipment has been shown to reduce crime, reduce complaints against and assaults on police, and makes officers more effective.”
The document characterized the equipment as “entirely defensive in nature,” although it includes helicopters, armored cars, battering rams, explosives and .50 caliber machine guns, as well as assault rifles.
The White House cited mass casualty shootings in San Bernardino, California and Orlando, Florida, as well as the current flood rescue operations related to Hurricane Harvey, as instances in which such equipment had been put to use. There was no mention of the far more frequent use of such materiel in protests over police violence, or its likely future use in the event of more widespread civil disorder provoked by the economic and social crisis of American capitalism.
Trump’s action seemed deliberately timed to mark the third anniversary of the police violence in Ferguson—Michael Brown was shot to death on August 9, 2014, and his funeral, attended by thousands, took place on August 25, 2014.
The policeman who shot the 18-year-old to death, Darren Wilson, was never tried for the killing, after a grand jury refused to bring charges against him, in a rigged proceeding stage-managed by St. Louis County prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch, a Democrat.
Both Trump and Sessions have been vehement defenders of killer cops, opposing all efforts to hold police accountable for killing more than 1,000 Americans every year, nearly all of them poor and working class, black, white, Hispanic and immigrant.
Trump’s executive order came barely 48 hours after his issuance of a full pardon to Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix), who was convicted of contempt of court for defying injunctions against racial profiling in the arrest and detention of Hispanics under “suspicion” of being undocumented immigrants.

28 Aug 2017

GSBI Accelerator Program for Social Entrepreneurs (Silicon Valley Mentorship) 2018

Application Deadline: 20th October, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Silicon Valley, California, USA
About the Award: Past participants include many in water supply, energy, agriculture, and environment in developing countries. The Global Social Benefit Institute (GSBI) at Santa Clara University serves social entrepreneurs around the world who are developing innovative solutions that provide a sustainable path out of poverty. The GSBI Accelerator assists selected participants with business plans and other capacity building in support of investment.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility: GSBI seeks applicants who:
  • Lead an existing for-profit, nonprofit, or hybrid enterprise
  • Are a mid-stage enterprise (3+ years) ready for scale and investment
  • Develop innovative solutions to provide sustainable paths out of poverty
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Program: Program staff time, in-residence meals, and accommodations for the GSBI Accelerator program are all paid through the fundraising efforts of Miller Center. Participants in the GSBI Accelerator are expected to pay only for round-trip airfare to San Jose or San Francisco, California for the August in-residence portion of the program.
  • Silicon Valley mentorship
  • Due diligence folder
  • Financial plan for scaling
  • Organizational development
  • Talent management
  • Marketing strategy and execution
  • Operational excellence at scale
Duration of Scholarship: 10 months
How to Apply: Please read the Eligibility and Programme Details carefully before you apply here
Award Provider: Santa Clara University, The Global Social Benefit Institute (GSBI)

Columbia University International Postdoctoral Humanities Fellowship 2018/2019 – USA

Application Deadline: 2nd October, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): USA
Field of Study: Humanities
About the Award: Fellows are appointed as Postdoctoral Research Scholars (Mellon Fellows) in the Society of Fellows in the Humanities and as Lecturers in appropriate departments at Columbia University (departments are listed in the link below).
In the first year, Fellows teach one course per semester. At least one of these courses must be in the undergraduate (“Core”) education program: Contemporary Civilization, Literature Humanities, Music Humanities, Art Humanities, Asian Civilizations, Asian Humanities, or Global Cultures.
The second course may be a departmental course, the design of which will be determined jointly by the Fellow and the Fellow’s academic department. In the second year, Fellows teach one course: either a Core course (if only one of the two first-year courses was in the Core) or a departmental course. This will leave one semester in the second year free of teaching responsibilities. In the third year, Fellows again teach one course, either a Core course or a departmental course (to be decided jointly by the Fellow and the Fellow’s department), leaving one semester again free of teaching responsibilities. Please note that all teaching–whether a Core class or a department one–is to be arranged by the Fellow through the Fellow’s home academic department. At least two of the three courses taught in the first two Fellowship years must be in the Core.
In addition to teaching and research, the duties of Fellows include planning a weekly Thursday Lecture Series, which is open for attendance to members of the University community, and participation in the intellectual life of the Society and of the department with which the Fellow is affiliated. The Society also cosponsors conferences and special events planned by Fellows around their special interests.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Fellows newly appointed for 2018/2019 must have received their PhD between 1 January 2016 and 1 July 2018.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Fellowship Stipend for 2018-2019 is $63,000. Medical benefits are provided, and subsidized housing is available. There is a $7,000 research allowance per annum. To aid in the research process, each Fellow is assigned to a private office with a phone, and access to campus Wi-Fi. The research allowance may be used to pay for research-related expenses such as conferences, professional memberships, and research materials.
Duration of Fellowship: The one-year Fellowship renews automatically for a second and a third year.
How to Apply: Go here to apply
Award Provider: Columbia University Society of Fellows in the Humanities

Sydney Scholar Awards for International Undergraduate Students 2018 – Australia

Application Deadline: 2nd October 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): Australia
About the Award: These prestigious scholarships will be offered to students who meet the eligibility and selection criteria below.  If you are an international student, have recently completed an International Baccalaureate or educational award equivalent to the HSC, and are applying for admission through UAC, you are also eligible to apply.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: 
  • Sydney Scholars Awards supports students with excellent academic ability who have faced significant challenges, such as financial, medical or disability issues, have refugee status or live in a rural area.
  • To be eligible you will need to apply for a Sydney Scholars Award on hardship grounds.
  • You will also need to submit a separate equity scholarship application to UAC. The University will link your Sydney Scholars Awards application to your UAC application for assessment purposes.
  • An ATAR requirement of 95 and above also required. Students applying to the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and Sydney College of Arts require an ATAR of 90 or above. If you are an international student, have recently completed an International Baccalaureate or educational award equivalent to the HSC, and are applying for admission through UAC, you are also eligible to apply.
Selection Criteria: Selection criteria will be on the basis of equity and a broader level of academic ability.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Scholarships ranging from $6,000 to $10,000
Duration of Scholarship: From one year, up to 5 years
How to Apply: For Sydney Scholars Awards, you will need to complete an online application form and upload your most recent school report.
Provision for a personal statement will be included in the online application. We suggest that you complete a draft first and then cut and paste your final answers into the text boxes provided. Please note there is a 1000 character limit on each text box (approximately 150-200 words). Strict character limits apply.
Award Provider: University of Sydney

UNESCO/Czech Republic Joint Fellowships for Developing Countries 2018/2019 – Bachelors and Masters

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017 (Midnight Paris time)
Eligible Countries:
  • Iraq
  • Zimbabwe
To be taken at (country): Czech Republic
Eligible Fields of Study: Candidates who wish to study in the fields of medicine, natural resources and environment, agriculture and forestry, water and landscape management, technology and environmental engineering would be given priority.
About the Award: In order to promote human resource capacities in the developing Member States and to enhance friendship among peoples of the world, the Government of the Czech Republic has placed at the disposal of UNESCO three long-term fellowships for undergraduate studies (which comprises the Bachelor’s and Master’s study programmes for the academic year 2018-2019) for the benefit of certain developing Member States. Neither a citizen of the Czech Republic, nor a citizen of a Member State of the European Union, nor any other foreign national with a permanent residence permit on the territory of the Czech Republic may therefore be granted this type of scholarship.
The studies being conducted in Czech language, the candidates to benefit from these fellowships will be required to take a special language and preparatory course before starting their studies. The Czech language course will be provided by the Charles  University in Prague.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Language requirement would be English or French
Selection Criteria: Selection will be made on a competitive basis and priority will be given to applicants who, apart from meeting the academic qualifications required, opt for the fields of study enumerated above. It is important to note that there is no possibility to change the field of study or the study programme once the fellowship has been awarded.  We would also wish to emphasize that only applications with complete documentation shall be considered for evaluation. 
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: 
Facilities offered by the Government of the Czech Republic
  1. Tuition is free of charge
  2. A monthly allowance of 14,000 Czech Crowns (1 euro = approximately 25 crowns) for students undertaking bachelor and master’s study programmes (Should this allowance be considered insufficient, the applying Member State may consider granting a partial contribution, or, the candidate may have to seek other funds from private sources to complement this allowance)
  3. Accommodation at the student dormitories at reduced rates (to be paid by the fellow from the monthly allowance mentioned in (2) above)
  4. Access to meals (to be paid with the monthly allowance) in the student dining halls
  5. Access to discounts for urban transportation
  6. The Ministry of Health provides medical care to fellows.
Facilities offered by UNESCO
  1. UNESCO will cover international travel expenses within the framework of the Fellowships Programme under the Regular Programme.  Upon selection of the candidates, UNESCO will undertake the necessary action to authorize tickets to the beneficiaries before their departure for the Czech Republic.  And,
  2. A special one-time allowance of US$200 to cover transit and other miscellaneous expenses.
Duration of Fellowship: 3 to 6 years
How to Apply: 
  • All applications should be endorsed by the relevant Government body (such as the National Commission or Permanent Delegation), must be made on a Czech fellowship application form, filled out in English in electronic form until 30 September 2017 (http://registr.dzs.cz/registr.nsf/unesco).
  • After filling out the application, the candidate is requested to submit an online motivation letter and take a test.
Award Provider: UNESCO, Czech Republic
Important Notes: 
  • All foreigners who are to study in the Czech Republic are required to obtain a long-term residence permit. Details of the procedures to be followed to obtain this visa will be provided to selected candidates.
  • Selected candidates will be required to provide a certificate attesting a clean criminal record
  • No provision to finance or lodge family members can be made. It is the National authorities’ responsibilty to ensure that all candidates are duly informed of the above conditions prior to submission of their applications for these fellowships.

Caine Prize for African Writing 2018. Full Travel Scholarship plus £10,000 Prize

Application Deadline: 31st January 2018.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: African countries
About the Award: The Caine Prize for African Writing is a literature prize awarded to an African writer of a short story published in English. The prize was launched in 2000 to encourage and highlight the richness and diversity of African writing by bringing it to a wider audience internationally. The focus on the short story reflects the contemporary development of the African story-telling tradition.
Offered Since: 2000
Type: Contest
Eligibility: 
  • Unpublished work is not eligible for the Caine Prize.
  • Submissions should be made by publishers only.
  • Only fictional work is eligible.
  • Only one story per author will be considered in any one year.
  • Submissions should specify which African country the author comes from and the word count.
  • We require 6 copies of the work in its originally published version.
  • If the work is published in a book or journal, we would like to receive at least one copy of the book / journal and five photocopies; but particularly where several stories are submitted from one anthology we would like if possible to receive six copies of the book / journal itself.
  • If the work is published online, we would like to receive six photocopies.
Please note that works which do not conform to the criteria will not be considered for the prize. Please do not waste your own time and postage by sending in material which is unsuitable. Works not eligible for entry include stories for children, factual writing, plays, biography, works shorter than 3000 words and unpublished work. If you are not sure whether your work is eligible, please email us for advice.
Number of Awardees: 5
Value of Contest: Winning and short-listed authors will be invited to participate in writers’ workshops in Africa, London and elsewhere as resources permit. There is a cash prize of £10,000 for the winning author and a travel award for each of the short-listed candidates (up to five in all). The shortlisted candidates will also receive a Prize of £500. The winner is also invited to go to three literature festivals in Kenya, South Africa and Nigeria.
How to Apply: There is no application form. To apply please send six original published copies of the work for consideration to the Caine Prize office.
  • If the work is published in a book or journal, we would like to receive at least one copy of the book / journal and five photocopies; but particularly where several stories are submitted from one anthology we would like if possible to receive six copies of the book / journal itself.
  • If published in a magazine or journal we will accept one original copy plus five photocopies, but would prefer six original copies.
  • If the work is published online, we would like to receive six printed copies.
Award Provider: Caine Prize

Syria’s Survival

Barbara Nimri Aziz

I’m talking about Syria here. Knowing that I write this at my peril, I continue. Not as a defense, but as an argument, one from a different and, I believe, a worthy perspective. Because some acknowledgement must be made– especially by those who are aware of the terrible might of US power and Washington’s determination to destroy Syria at any cost–of that small, ancient nation’s astonishing ability to resist. Just as those who applaud Palestinians’ resolute pursuit of statehood; just as those who now regard Viet Nam with admiration for its emergence as a self-reliant, noble nation.
Syria’s current struggle against multiple assaults is not over by any means. It remains in a highly vulnerable state. Its people are scattered across the globe, its highly educated citizens lost to other nations ready to exploit their skills. Refugees in camps and those suffering at home are uncertain of anything at all. Syria’s military has lost tens of thousands of mortally wounded men. (And what about the injured?) Its youths flee conscription. Syria’s once strong economy is crippled and barely recognizable. Its social institutions are overwhelmed, and its cultural riches, including contemporary theater and television, are shrunken or destroyed.
Yet, more than six years into a war that’s caused such hardship and destruction, after so many attacks against it, Syria stands. Its leader, an inexperienced and fallible man but no tyrant, has thus far withstood Washington’s scurrilous pursuit of his removal. American-led military and diplomatic efforts to overthrow his government have failed, even with the Arab League’s shameless ejection of this founding member.
Not only is Syria still intact, albeit terribly crippled on so many levels. It has managed to sustain alliances with its few supporting powers—from Iran to China. Its military gains (regains really) in the past two years are astonishing by any standard, however high the cost and however unlikely it seemed, considering the formidable opposition it faced. (Compare this with US military impotence in Afghanistan.)
Assaults are directed at Syria by US-supported Arab forces, by ISIS and Al-Qaeda militants, by local insurgents, by Arab Gulf States lined up with the West and Israel, by Turkey on its northern border and by Israel and Jordan along its southern frontier, with Israeli and US fighter jets bombing at will. (One strike by US bombers killed dozens and maimed another hundred Syrian soldiers.) What an opposition lined up against a nation of under 30 million people! All this without Syrian (or Russian) retaliation against either Israel or the USA.
Unquestionably Syria’s military achievements have been possible with Russian air support. Russia’s diplomatic assistance has also been critical: first in arranging for the removal of chemical threats, and before that in preventing the UN Security Council backing an American anti-regime agenda.
Early in the crisis in 2011, living in Damascus, I spoke with a longtime colleague, an experienced bureaucrat but no longer a government official. I was struck by his confidence in the Russia-China veto just declared in the UN Security Council. (Both countries rejected the US-led attempt to censure and sanction Syria.) Six months on, when we met again, there was widespread belief among foreigners and some expectation within Syria too that Al-Assad’s government would soon collapse. My colleague however was emphatic in his assessment of the Russia-China veto: “Russia will stay with us”, he declared confidently. I guess government insiders and military leaders shared this judgment. But who could have anticipated how many months of war would follow before the tide began to turn?
In early 2016, Syria (and Russia) achieved the first of a series of impossible victories against its ISIS foes.   Meanwhile the western press (despondently) described successfully recovered territory as “falling into government hands”.  Even from afar, with no inside track about military strategies, one could sense that those victories exhibited a resolve of a special order, akin perhaps to the victories of Cuba and of Venezuela under Chavez—also targets of US imperial power.
Some American allies who had once endorsed the removal of the Syrian president now appear to be backing away from that position. Opponents have never been able to convincingly prove that Syria deployed chemical weapons, more so after research findings by MIT chemical weapons expert  Theodore Postol,  and following journalist Seymour Hersh’s investigations on the subject.(Hersh’s report has been ignored by the US media.) Wikileaks’ release of US state department exchanges on Syria that point to plans by the US to overthrow the Syrian government have also undermined Washington’s arguments.
As for “the people”, this month witnessed some easing of their hardships. Although US air strikes continue, aimed ostensibly at ISIS but taking a heavy civilian toll. A sign of renewed vitality for besieged civilians was the international fair that recently took place in Damascus.   It drew hundreds of exhibitors from many nations, and offered rare respite and pleasure to tens of thousands of citizens. That such an international gathering could even be arranged is remarkable. Yet, so threatening was this promise of renewed hope for peace that the site was bombed, resulting in the death of several fairgoers.
During the 1990s and up to the outbreak of conflict, Syria had achieved remarkable progress on a number of fronts– diplomatic, economic, educational, social and cultural. Yet, Washington and its allies, the U.K and Israel, persisted with their agenda. Sanctions against Syria remained and were enhanced, and vilification of its leader and attacks on Baath ideology by a compliant press persisted. In the face of Syria’s survival as a state, if ISIS is crushed, what are the options for an alliance of the US, UK and Israel who would never admit defeat?

Shia Insurrection in Saudi Arabia; The Battle for Awamiya

Thomas C. Mountain

Since May, 2017 an ongoing insurgency has been raging in the Shia heartland town of Awamiya in eastern Saudi Arabia and it’s only thanks to the BBC being allowed to enter the area and film the destruction that the world can see how the House of Saud’s war against the Shia population of Yemen has now expanded to include the Shia population of eastern Saudi Arabia.
The BBC World report shown on Wednesday, August 16, seemed to have come from Syria, with al-Zara, the ancient Shia capital of the Persian province of Bahrain and the rest of the town of Awamiya showing a level of devastation resembling that in Syria or to the Kurdish cities destroyed recently by Erdogan Ottoman’s Janissarris.
Block by block destruction of the Old City with no visible signs of the Shia people who once lived here for millenia with almost 500 buildings destroyed and over 20,000 driven from their homes by Saudi airstrikes, artillery and mortar fire.
The BBC crew was only allowed there in armored vehicles, filming through bullet proof windows while traveling as a part of an armored convoy. The one time they were allowed to stop and step outside the battlewagons they were riding, firing could by heard and they were quickly ordered to return to their vehicles so they could escape.
This short view of an almost unknown urban war in the midst of the Saudi oilfields, with 2 million barrels a day being pumped via Awamiya alone (20% of total Saudi exports) with the House of Saud, after Russia, being the 2nd largest oil producer worldwide, should be sending shivers down the spines of those occupying the seats of power both east and west.
How long the Shia rebellion in eastern Saudi Arabia, home to almost all Saudi oil reserves, will be able to maintain an armed resistance to the Saudi military assault is the 10 million barrel a day question.
The excuse given by the House of Saud royal family mouthpieces is they were driving the Shia from their ancient homeland for “urban renewal” purposes. Never mind the “renewing” would destroy world heritage sites such as the ancient town of al-Zara, capital of the Shia, Persian province of Bahrain for millenia past and sacred to the Shia population and in the process “relocate” the Shia population as far a possible from the Saudi oil fields.
Wahabi is as Wahabi does with the crimes committed in the name of Sunni Islam in Yemen now being carried out next door to their cousins, the Saudi Shia. Only the silence of the media lambs internationally alongside the UN, allows this to go unnoticed, for a double standard has long existed when it comes to condemning the crimes of the House of Saud. After the latest round of beheadings of Shia leaders protests turned to gunfire in Awamiya and the fires of armed revolution have been lit for the first time in Saudi Arabia.
The Shia of eastern Saudi Arabia are cousins to their rather unorthodox Houthi neighbors in Yemen with a long history of intermarriage and commerce. The flood of small arms that has plagued Yemen for decades past have over the years made its way into the hands of the Shia population in the midst of the House of Saud’s oil fields. While many waited in vain for the armed struggle to break out in Bahrain instead it exploded in the cultural heartland of this once Persian province and in a much more strategically critical location, in Awamiya and ancient al-Zara.
While still early, for almost 4 months now the armed resistance in Awamiya appears to have fought the Saudi army into a stalemate, surviving heavy air and artillery bombardment, with shots still ringing whenever the armed might of the House of Saud ventures within range of their small arms. If this very first armed uprising is able to maintain their determination to see an end to their oppression by their Wahabi occupiers similar to the relentless fight being waged by the mainly Houthi based resistance in Yemen then all hell could break lose.
Losing control of their oil fields would inevitably bring down the Royal House of Saud, in power since their installation by the British after WWI.
If this armed uprising survives the Saudi Army onslaught and can spread to villages and towns throughout Shia eastern Saudi Arabia and the over 3 million strong Shia people take up arms against the regime similar to their cousins in Yemen those shivers running down the spines of the lords of power east and west could quickly grow to be migraine headaches as a major portion of the world’s oil supplies could be threatened if not cut off.

Spain: Breaking Up is Hard to Do

Conn Hallinan

When the Catalans goes to the polls Oct. 1, much more than independence for Spain’s restive province will be at stake. In many ways the vote will be a sounding board for Spain’s future, but it is also a test of whether the European Union—divided between north and south, east and west—can long endure.
In some ways, the referendum on Catalan independence is a very Spanish affair, with grievances that run all the way back to Catalonia’s loss of independence in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). But the Catalans lost more than their political freedom when the combined French and Spanish army took Barcelona, they lost much of their language and culture, particularly during the long and brutal dictatorship of Francisco Franco from 1939 to 1975.
The current independence crisis dates back to 2010, when, at the urging of the rightwing Popular Party, the Spanish Constitutional Court overturned an autonomy agreement that had been endorsed by the Spanish and Catalan parliaments. Since then, the Catalans have elected a pro-independence government and narrowly defeated an initiative in 2014 calling for the creation of a free republic. The Oct. 1 vote will re-visit that vote.
But the backdrop for the upcoming election has much of Europe looking attentively, in part because there are other restive independence movements in places like Scotland, Belgium and Italy, and in part because many of the economic policies of the EU will be on the line, especially austerity, regressive taxation, and privatization of public resources as a strategy for economic recovery.
When the economic meltdown of 2008 struck, there were few countries harder hit than Spain. At the time Spain had a healthy debt burden and a booming economy, but one mainly based on real estate speculation fed by German, Austrian, French, British and U.S. banks. Real estate prices ballooned 500 percent. Such balloons are bound to pop, and this one did in a most spectacular fashion, forcing Spain to swallow a bailout from the EU’s “troika”—the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, and the European Bank.
The price of the bailout—the bulk of which went to pay off the banks whose speculation had fed the bubble in the first place—was a troika-enforced policy of massive austerity, huge tax hikes, and what one commentator called “sado-monetarism.” The results were catastrophic. The economy tanked, unemployment rose to 27 percent—over 50 percent for youth—and some 400,000 people were forced to emigrate.
While the austerity bred widespread misery, it also jump-started the Left Podemos Party, now the third largest in the Spanish parliament and currently running neck and neck with the Spanish Socialist party. Podemos-allied mayors control most of Spain’s largest cities, including Madrid, Valencia, and Barcelona.
In the 2015 election the ruling Popular Party lost its majority and currently rules as a minority party, allied with the conservative Catalan Ciudadanos Party and the main Basque party.
Needless to say, the PP’s control of Spain is fragile.
Starting in 2014 the Spanish economy began to grow, unemployment came down, and Spain seemed on its way back to economic health. Or at least that is the story the Popular Party and the EU is peddling.
The economy is the fastest growing in the EU, averaging around 3 percent a year. Next year projections are that it will grow 2.5 percent. Unemployment has dropped from 28 percent—50 percent for youth—to just over 17 percent.
But youth unemployment is at 37 percent, the second highest in Europe, and wages have still not caught up to where they were before the 2008 crisis. Spain is adding some 60,000 jobs a year, but many of them are temporary and without the same benefits as full time workers.
This temp worker strategy is continent-wide. Of the 5.2 million jobs created between 2013 and 2016, some 2.1 million were temporary.
The “recovery” is partly due to “labor reforms” that make it easier to layoff workers and replace full-time workers with “temps.” The shift has been from full-time workers protected by labor agreements to insecure temps with few protections. While that might make products cheaper and, thus, more attractive, it impoverishes the work force.
The strategy has become so widespread that economists have borrowed a term from physics to describe it: hysteresis.
Hysteresis describes a phenomenon where force permanently distorts what it is applied to.
“When unemployment is high for a long period of time, the shape of the labour market alters,” says Financial Times economist Claire Jones. “Would-be workers lose their skills, or find that technology or other economic forces make them obsolete. When the recovery comes, they are unable to join in. longer-term, or structural levels of unemployment set in and economy’s potential diminishes.”
In short, hysteresis produces an army of under and unemployed workers, whose living standards decline and who are economically marginalized. It also creates a vicious cycle that eventually dampens an economy. If governments are not spending—and under the strictures of the troika that is a given—and if consumers don’t have money, growth will eventually come to a halt, or at least become so anemic that it will be unable to absorb the influx of a younger generation.
Those marginalized communities and sectors of the economy are fertile ground for rightists who use xenophobia and racism to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment, as recent elections in Europe and the U.S. have demonstrated.
The vote by Britain to withdraw from the EU was put down to racism, but ,while anti-immigrant sentiment did play a role in the Brexit, that argument is a vast oversimplification of what happened. Much of the Brexit vote was not so much xenophobic as a repudiation of the major political parties that abandoned whole sectors of the country.
This particularly included the policies instituted by former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the “New Labour Party” that jettisoned its ties with the trade union movement and bought into the neo-liberal policies of free trade and globalization.
However, many of those Brexit voters turned around a few months later and backed the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbin’s left agenda. Given an opportunity to vote for ending the long reign of austerity, and for free university tuition, improved health services, and re-nationalizing transportation, they voted Labour, xenophobia be dammed.
Because the Spanish Popular Party claims that the current economic recovery is the direct result of its austerity and labor policies, other EU players are paying attention to the Catalan vote. If the vote goes badly for Catalan independence—and polls are currently showing it will be defeated 42 percent to 48 percent—the PP will claim a victory, not only over Catalan separatism, but also for the Party’s economic recovery strategy.
The French are certainly paying attention. Newly elected President Emmanuel Macron is preparing a similar program of cutbacks and labor “reforms” that he intends to ram through by executive decree, bypassing the French parliament.
A  victory for the PP is also in the interests of the troika as proof that its recovery formula works, even though the track record of austerity as a cure has few success stories, and even those are questionable. For instance, low energy prices and a weak euro have more to do with the Spanish recovery than cutbacks in social services and the evisceration of labor codes.
The Popular Party should be riding high these days, but in fact its poll numbers are declining. It is still the largest party in Spain, but that translates into only 31 percent of the voters. Between them, the Spanish Socialist Party and the leftist Podemos Party garner just short of 40 percent.
Part of the PP’s woes stem from the fact that many Spaniards recognize there is something sour about the recent “recovery,” but there are also the corruption charges leveled at the PP, charges that have even ensnared Mariano Rajoy. The Prime Minister was recently forced to testify in a bribery and fraud case against some leading members of his Party.
While the Socialists have also been tarred with the corruption brush, the current case has riveted the public’s attention because some of it reads like a script from the Sopranos. The key defendant is Francisco Correa, who likes to be called Don Vito, Marlon Brando’s character in The Godfather. Two of his associates are known as The Moustache and The Pearl. Correa and 10 others have already been sentenced to prison for fraud and bribery, but Correa is also on trial for setting up a slush fund. Rajoy testified in that trial, although so far the Prime Minister is not accused of any wrongdoing.
A survey by the CIS Institute found that almost 50 percent of Spanish voters are deeply concerned with corruption, and that sentiment is dragging the Popular Party down.
The left and center-left parties are split on the Catalan question. Both oppose separatism, but they come at it very differently. Podemos is urging a “no” vote Oct. 1, but it supports the right of the Catalans to have their initiative. That position, along with Podemos’s progressive political program, has made it the number one party in Catalonia.
The Socialists have traditionally opposed Catalan separatism, and even the right of the Catalans to vote on the issue. But that position has softened since a major upheaval in the party that began last year when the Socialist’s right wing pulled off a coup and drove the Party’s left wing out of power. But the Socialist right-wingers made a major mistake by voting to allow Rajoy to form a minority government and continue the austerity policies. That move was too much for the Party’s rank and file, who threw out the right this past May and reinstated the Socialist’s left wing.
The Socialists’ willingness to consider allowing the initiative is partly a matter of simple math. The Party’s opposition to Catalan independence has resulted in it being virtually annihilated  in the province, and no Socialist Party has ever come to power in Spain without winning Catalonia.
Whatever happens Oct. 1, Spain is not going to be the same country it has been since the restoration of democracy in 1977. The old two-party domination of the government is over, and there is general recognition that there has to be some shift on the Catalan question. Even Rajoy—who has hinted that he might consider using the military to block the Oct. 1 vote, or ruling the province from Madrid—has offered to give Barcelona the same deal the Basque province have. That would include collecting taxes, something Catalans now don’t have the right to do.
There is no little irony in Rajoy’s offer. When the Catalans made that same offer in 2012, Rajoy and the Popular Party wouldn’t even discuss the proposal. It is a measure of how the issue has evolved that Rajoy is now making the same offer as the Catalans did a half decade ago.
Polls—weak reeds to lean on these days—show the initiative going down to defeat, but the situation is fluid. Rajoy’s recent proposal and the softening of the Socialist Party’s position might convince the majority of Catalans that some kind of deal can be cut. Young Catalans favor independence, but older Catalans are uncomfortable with what will be a leap into darkness.
On the other hand, if Rajoy comes down hard it will likely bolster the “no” vote.
The European Union is in a crisis of its own making. By blocking its members from pursuing different strategies for confronting economic trouble and, instead, insisting on one-size-fits-all strictures, the trade group has set loose centrifugal forces that now threaten to tear the organization apart.
The eastern members of the EU have charted a course that throttles democracy in the name of stability. The southern members of the bloc are struggling to emerge from austerity regimes that have inflicted widespread, possibly permanent, damage to their economies. Even members with powerful economies, like Germany and France, are trying to keep the lid on the desire of their people for a better standard of living.
The Catalan vote reflects many of these crosscurrents, and is likely to be felt far beyond the borders of Iberia.

Growing concerns in Bangladesh over India-China tensions

Rohantha De Silva

The ongoing standoff between India and China over Doklam, a narrow plateau in the Himalayas at the junction of Bhutan, China and India, has seen a number of concerned political comments in the Bangladesh media. Bangladesh has close relations with both India and China.
The conflict over the Doklam Plateau began in mid-June when Indian troops crossed into the territory in an attempt to prevent road expansion by Chinese forces, raising the danger of a military conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.
China wants to build a link road to access the Chumbi Valley, already the subject of a border dispute between China and the small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan. The Chumbi Valley adjoins India’s Siliguri Corridor, a narrow stretch of land also known as the Chicken’s Neck. India’s rail and road connections to its north-eastern states pass through this corridor, which is sandwiched between Bangladesh and China.
Bangladesh has previously attempted to politically balance between US-backed India and China but its ability to continue these manoeuvres is being hampered by the Doklam dispute. The government of Prime Minister Sheik Hasina has not issued any official statements on the issue.
The political silence is in contrast to Dhaka’s reaction to conflicts between India and Pakistan. Last November, India withdrew from the South Asian Association of Regional Corporation summit in Islamabad after accusing Pakistani troops of attacking its army post at Uri, in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in September 2016. India carried out so-called surgical strikes into Pakistan-held Kashmir in retaliation for Uri. Hasina supported New Delhi’s cross border military attacks and later followed India in withdrawing from the event.
While the Bangladesh government remains silent, local media commentators and strategic analysts have voiced their concerns.
On August 7, the Dhaka Tribune published an article entitled, “What does the China-India standoff mean for Bangladesh?” Noting that Bangladesh had “extensive ties with both countries on the political, economic and military front,” it said that Dhaka was in a “precarious situation.” It warned that if China took control of the Doklam Plateau, Bangladesh would be in a “serious predicament” and that “India would want to use Bangladesh as a transit for military purposes” to counter China.
Bangladesh, which has a 4,000 km border with India, is heavily dependent on India for water, trade and security. Dhaka is attempting to improve relations and plans to develop four river ports between the two countries and improve infrastructure in three existing ports.
New Delhi, however, is concerned about Dhaka’s close military and economic ties with Beijing. In an effort to counter Beijing’s influence, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Bangladesh in May 2015, promising economic and military assistance. Bangladesh signed a comprehensive defence agreement with India during the trip.
In April, Bangladesh Prime Minister Hasina travelled to New Delhi. During the visit officials from both countries signed a number of agreements, including on defence, cyber security, information technology, connectivity, energy and human resource development and a civil nuclear cooperation pact.
An August 4 article on wionews.com by Sarvar Jahan Chowdhry from BRAC University in Bangladesh, noted that the “worst thing for Bangladesh would be if the Chinese and the Indians start fighting each other in a big way and Bangladesh is forced to take sides.”
The author commented that so far, Bangladesh “has been careful about Indian sensitivities and honoured it even by accepting losses,” and cited the country’s cancellation of a contract with China’s state-owned company to build a deep seaport at Sonadia. The deal was called off after Dhaka came under pressure from New Delhi and Washington, as part of US-led efforts to diplomatically isolate Beijing.
While arguing the merits of Bangladesh maintaining good relations with China and India, the author failed to explain how this could be achieved under conditions of increasing US economic and military provocations against China.
For its part, China is boosting its economic and military ties with Bangladesh. The Tribune comment pointed out that the two countries have signed agreements worth $US13.6 billion and Beijing has promised to provide $20 billion in loan assistance.
In 2016, China channeled $61 million in foreign direct investments (FDI) into Bangladesh. While this is small compared with US investment, it is a marked increase on the $18 million Chinese FDI in 2011. The Hasina government has also joined China’s ambitious “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which is aimed at boosting trade and transport links across Asia and into Europe.
Bilateral trade between the two countries has increased dramatically over the past four years. According to Export Promotion Bureau of Bangladesh statistics, Dhaka’s total merchandise exports to China climbed to $US808.14 million in 2015–16, up from $US319.66 million in 2010–11.
China is also Bangladesh’s principal supplier of military hardware. Dhaka’s recent purchase of two Chinese submarines for $203 million has provoked concerns in New Delhi.
On July 31, the Chinese embassy in Dhaka hosted a function to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The embassy’s military attaché declared that military relations between China and Bangladesh had reached “unprecedented heights.”
While media commentators have limited their analysis to the strategic and economic impact on Bangladesh of the Doklam Plateau conflict, the rivalry between India and China—two nuclear-armed countries—could erupt into war with far-reaching implications for South Asia and throughout Asia. Such a conflict could involve the US, which would back India, and become a catastrophic global conflagration.
The major destabilising factor in the geopolitical tensions in South Asia is the US. Having made India one of its principal regional partners in the military build-up against China, Washington has fueled New Delhi’s geopolitical ambitions and, in turn, provoked Beijing’s counter-moves.