North Korea: Time to Focus on Minimisation, Not Denuclearisation

Rahul Raj


The North Korean nuclear programme has been the focus of international attention over the last two decades because Pyongyang’s development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles cannot be separated from its bellicose behaviour, which has caused a great deal of tension in the region and the world. Since revelations of North Korean nuclear weapons development surfaced, the US and South Korea have tried unsuccessfully to bring the programme to a halt. Denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula has been central to the foreign policy of both countries for decades, yet one presidential administration after another has left office without deterring North Korea’s steady progress in becoming a nuclear-armed state. In fact, just the opposite has occurred, with North Korea currently developing even more sophisticated nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems.

US intelligence services have recently reported that North Korea has developed miniaturised nuclear weapons that can fit into the heads of a new class of ballistic missiles, which Pyongyang has successfully tested in the waters between Korea and Japan. These tests began a war of words between Washington and Pyongyang, with President Donald Trump promising “fire and fury” if North Korea attempts to threaten the US. North Korea retorted by threatening to conduct missile tests directed towards the US territory of Guam in the Pacific Ocean, edging both states to the brink.

Although President Trump tried to adopt a fresh approach soon after taking office, ignoring a North Korean missile launched in February 2017 and saying he “would be honoured” to meet with the North’s leader Kim Jong-un, he soon reverted to the rhetoric of previous administrations, vowing to resolve the crisis through harsh sanctions and tough talk. Meanwhile, South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who took office this year, pledged to engage North Korea, although his pronouncement that a nuclear freeze would make possible the beginning of official talks, and that denuclearisation would be the final outcome of such talks, seems farfetched.

One of the problems in the approaches taken by South Korea and the US is that both countries want North Korea to accept their terms and conditions before they consider Pyongyang’s demands, which include a peace treaty, political normalisation, and a suspension of joint military exercises. They discount the fact that Pyongyang is pinning the survival of the regime on nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the advanced weaponry of the US and South Korea. Hence, North Korea is not likely to give up its nuclear weapons programme as long as it feels threatened and vulnerable to attack or invasion. Ironically, North Korea had agreed in the past to drop its nuclear programme but backed away after a number of events which might have forced it to reconsider, including the 1994 Agreed Framework with the US that saw Washington fail to live up to its own pledges to deliver fuel oil to North Korea, build two light water nuclear reactors in the country, and other promises. Then, there was the pronouncement by President George Bush Jr calling North Korea part of an “axis of evil,” and the failure of the Six Party Talks. North Korea has also been witness to what happened in Iraq and Libya, where regimes that were in confrontation with the US were destroyed after they gave up their nuclear weapons. With Iran, too, President Trump has pushed for new sanctions despite Tehran's adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

Consequently, North Korea has every reason to distrust the US and hold onto technology it sees as levelling the playing field between itself and the world’s superpower. Even the former US Director of National Intelligence, James R Clapper Jr, has said that “the notion of getting the North Koreans to denuclearise is probably a lost cause.” North Korea will likely continue to develop its nuclear weapons until it gets a second strike capability, which would be a credible deterrent against attack by a more powerful opponent. Given the reckless rhetoric coming from the White House – including that the US has a military offensive for North Korea “locked and loaded” – the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsula may be an unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future. Perhaps it would be better to focus on a different goal, one of minimising the nuclear weapons North Korea is willing to possess, and sending tangible encouragement to get Pyongyang to observe a moratorium on launching more missiles in the region. Any proposals for talks that have pre-conditions of denuclearisation however, especially given the recent round of UN Security Council sanctions and the continuing joint South Korean-US military exercises, are likely to be a non-starter. 

The time has come to accept the reality on the ground – North Korea is a nuclear-armed state – and find ways to dissuade Pyongyang from further nuclear and ballistic missile tests. More rhetoric of fire, fury, and war between the US and North Korea will only further escalate tensions and reinforces Pyongyang’s belief that it is only safe if it continues to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to countries within the region and eventually, the US.

60 Max Weber Post-Doctoral Fellowships for International Scholars 2018/2019 – Florence, Italy

Application Deadline: 25th October, 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All countries

To be taken at (country): Italy

Eligible Fields of Study: Economics, History, Law and Social and Political sciences. All areas and types of research within these fields are considered.

About the Award: Amongst the largest, most prestigious and successful post doctoral programs in the historical and social sciences, and located in one of the most beautiful settings, with truly outstanding research facilities, we offer from 50-60 fully funded 1 and 2 year post doctoral fellowships to applicants from anywhere in the world in the fields of economics, history, law and social and political sciences. All areas and types of research within these fields are considered. Last year 98% of Fellows found an academic position on completing the Fellowship.

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

• Candidates must have received their Ph.D within the past 5 years or have official approval to defend their thesis by the time of the start of the programme (1 September). Therefore, to apply for 2018-19 they should have received or submitted their Ph.D. between 1/9/2013 and 1/9/2018 and the Ph.D defence should take place no later than 31/12/2018.
• Extensions to the five-year rule are allowed for applicants whose academic career has been interrupted for maternity or paternity leave, illness or mandatory military service. Cite circumstances in the application form in the field ‘Additional Notes’. Successful candidates will be asked to provide supporting documents.
• EUI graduates can only apply for a Max Weber Fellowships after having been away from the EUI and in a full-time occupation or another fellowship for at least a year after defending their Ph.D
• Candidates of any nationality are eligible for the Max Weber Fellowships.
• The expected level of English proficiency is level C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Successful candidates will be requested to provide a certificate/supporting document on registration. This can be one of the international certificates listed below, or a supporting document showing that the candidate has written the doctorate, or published an article or a book chapter of at least 6000 words in English, or has studied and hold a qualification from a University where the language of instruction and assessment was English. Native English speakers are exempt of proof.
• The following international certificates of English proficiency are recognised by the EUI:
  • IELTS: From 7.5
  • TOEFL (IBT)
  • Cambridge Proficiency
  • Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE)

Selection Criteria:

• Academic accomplishments and potential: Academic excellence is assessed on the basis of the candidate’s contributions (publications, PhD thesis, etc. as outlined in the CV), their plans and commitment to an academic career as outlined in their ‘Research Proposal’ and ‘Academic career statement’, and other supporting evidence (i.e. two letters of reference). Preference is given to applicants in the early stages of their post-doctoral career, who can gain most from the programme.
• Research Proposal: the proposal must be clear and well structured, with well-defined and realistic goals that can be achieved within the duration of the fellowship.
• Mentorship: The capacity and availability of EUI faculty, be it in the departments or the RSCAS, to provide mentorship is taken into account; however, while having common research interests may be helpful, it is not a necessity for mentorship

Number of Awardees: 50 to 60 candidates

Value of Fellowship:

• The Fellowship provides a grant of 2000 euro per month plus – when appropriate – a family allowance.

• The Max Weber Fellows enjoy the superb research facilities of the European University Institute (including an outstanding library, a shared office space, and a personal research fund of 1000 euros).

• The MWP is unique among postdoctoral programmes in helping Fellows to become full members of a global academic community.

• Fellows are given training and support in all aspects of an academic career – from publishing and presenting, teaching, applying for research grants and jobs. A particular focus is placed on communicating effectively in English to different kinds of academic audiences.

• Its placement record is second to none: most Max Weber Fellows secure an academic position in the finest institutions around the world upon completion of the Programme.

Duration of Fellowship: 1 and 2 year post doctoral fellowships

How to Apply: The annual deadline is 25 October, but applications for self-funded fellowships will be considered until 25 March. Visit Application Webpage to apply

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Max Weber Fellowship

UN Economic Commission for Africa Internships for African Students 2017 – Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Application Deadline: 11th September 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

About the Award: OHCHR-EARO (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights – East Africa Regional Office) is based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and was established in 2002.

The core functions of the Office are to: serve as OHCHR office in the region developing and implementing country engagement strategies requiring more focused attention in East Africa; mainstream human rights in the work of the African Union, sub-regional intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations; and, support United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs) and UN offices in the region including UNECA by providing relevant thematic expertise for capacity-building, advocacy, and other activities.

Under the general guidance of the Regional Representative and the direct supervision of staff members of the EARO, the intern will assist the team in achieving the annual work plan of the office. The intern may be assigned to different thematic and regional focal areas as needs arise and in order to best utilize and develop the intern’s skills.
The responsibilities are as follows:
•He/she assists the team in developing, planning, implementing and evaluating training and human rights promotion activities in cooperation with the concerned governments, national institutions, regional organizations (AU, ECA), NGOs, and UN agencies.
•He/she contributes to the team in developing activities aimed at promoting international and regional human rights mechanisms.
•He/she will prepare the bi-annual newsletter on the activities of the office for the corresponding period.
•He/she participates, as relevant and appropriate, in various meetings, consultations and co-ordination fora with various partners in the region.
•He/she participates in internal staff meetings and follow-up on relevant issues upon request.
•Assist in day-to-day work of the office: the intern is expected to participate and familiarize herself in administrative work of the office. This may include but is not limited to: providing support in the organization of training workshops, searching requested information, preparing reports documentation/presentations for professional staff, drafting correspondence letters, etc.
•Assist in preparing monthly reports.
•Contribute to the preparation of internal and external reports on the work of the Regional Office.

Interns work five days per week (35 hours) under the supervision of a staff member in the department or office to which they are assigned.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: To qualify for consideration for an internship by the United Nations Headquarters Internship Programme, the following conditions must be met:

• Be enrolled in a graduate school programme (second university degree or equivalent, or higher);
• Be enrolled in the final academic year of a first university degree programme (minimum Bachelor’s level or equivalent);
• Have graduated with a university degree as defined in (1) and (2) above.(4) Candidates who are selected, must commence the internship programme either prior to graduation or within one year of graduation from an academic programme as describe in (1) and (2). Applicants who are unable to commence the internship within one year of graduation shall not be accepted.

Applicants are not required to have professional work experience for participation in the programme.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The internship is UNPAID and full-time.

How to Apply: A completed online application (Cover Note and Personal History Profile) is required. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed.

The Cover Note must include:
– Title of degree you are currently pursuing;
– Graduation Date (when will you be graduating from the programme);
– List the IT skills and programmes that you are proficient in;
– List your top three areas of interest/department preferences;
– Explain why you are the best candidate for our office;
– Explain your interest in the United Nations Internship Programme.

In your Personal History Profile, be sure to include all past work experience, IT skills, and three references.

Due to a high volume of applications received, ONLY successful candidates will be contacted.

Apply Now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: United Nations

Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study (JIAS) Funded Writing Fellowships 2018 – South Africa

Application Deadline: 15th September, 2017

To Be Taken At (Country): Johannesburg, South Africa

About the Award: The Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study (JIAS) is a joint initiative of the University of Johannesburg (UJ), South Africa, and Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Its purpose is to promote advanced research in the humanities and natural sciences, beyond the regular teaching and research activities at institutions of higher learning. JIAS is the first fully fledged institute of advanced learning in Gauteng, South Africa’s political and economic heartland.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Fellowships are open to any field of expertise. Previous fellows have included academics, novelists, scientists, poets, playwrights, humanities specialists, independent researchers and journalists.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: JIAS Writing Fellows enjoy a quiet space for work, reflection and academic community building amidst the Melville Koppies of Johannesburg. Each Writing Fellow will receive:

• Accommodation in one of 12 private residential suites at JIAS
• Breakfast and lunch each day
• Access to the facilities of the nearby University of Johannesburg
• A monthly stipend

Duration of Program: 1 February to 31 May 2018.

How to Apply: To apply, please submit a two-page outline of a writing proposal, a comprehensive CV, and the name and contact details of three referees. Applications must be sent to jiasinfo@uj.ac.za before 15 September, 2017.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study (JIAS)

World Economic Forum (WEF) Young Global Leader Program 2019

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The Forum of Young Global Leaders is a community of over 800 enterprising, socially-minded men and women selected under the age of 40, who operate as a force for good to overcome barriers that elsewhere stand in the way of progress. The community is made up of leaders from all walks of life, from every region of the world, and from every stakeholder group in society.

Type: Award

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Young Global Leaders Class of 2019,

• the candidate must have been born on or after 1 January, 1980.
• · He/she has a recognized record of extraordinary achievement and a proven track record of substantial leadership experience. Typically, this means 5-15 years of outstanding professional work experience and a clear indication of playing a substantial leadership role for the rest of his or her career.
• · He/she has demonstrated a personal commitment to serve society at large through exceptional contributions and a deep ethical fiber, and has earned significant trust at both local and global levels.
• · He/she has an impeccable record in the public eye and good standing in his/her community, as well as show great self-awareness and a desire for learning.
• · Candidates from the business sector must be responsible for the full operation of a qualifying corporation or division and must hold one of the following titles: President, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director, Managing Partner or Publisher, or equivalent of any of the above. If the company is a Member or Partner of the World Economic Forum, the candidate requires the approval of the CEO or Chairman of the Board of the respective company.
• · Companies, organizations and entities can only nominate one candidate from the qualifying company every two years

Selection: Nominated under the age of 40, Young Global Leaders (YGLs) are proposed through a qualified nomination process and assessed according to rigorous selection criteria that creates a diverse and truly representative body, while accepting only the very best leaders who have already demonstrated their commitment to serving society at large.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• YGLs are fully involved in the Forum’s meetings, initiatives and research and interact with the Forum’s wider multistakeholder community.
• YGLs have a powerful role in determining the community’s activities. They are governed by a foundation board of respected leaders and are managed by a dynamic team of young professionals based in Geneva and China.
• Set up as an independent, not-for-profit foundation under the Swiss government, the Forum of Young Global Leaders is an integral part of the World Economic Forum.

Timeline/Duration of Program: 5 years

• Summer: The World Economic Forum shortlists candidates for further review
• Fall: The shortlisted candidates are reviewed by Heidrick & Struggles, recognised as one of the world’s leading executive search and leadership consulting firms
• Winter: A Selection Committee reviews the top candidates and selects 100 to be honoured as Young Global Leaders
• January of subsequent year: The candidates are informed of their selection as Young Global Leaders*
• March of subsequent year: The press announcement for the new Class of Young Global Leaders is released

How to Apply:  submit nominations 

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: World Economic Forum

Important Notes: Kindly note that self-nominations are not accepted.

NNPC/SNEPCo National University Scholarship for Undergraduate Nigerian Students 2017

Application Timeline: 

• Deadline: 1st September, 2017.
• Examination Date: 16th September 2017

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Undergraduates in universities in Nigeria

To be taken at: Nigerian Universities

Accepted Subject Areas: The merit-based scholarship is open to FULL TIME undergraduates studying any of the under listed courses in Universities within Nigeria.

• Agricultural Science
• Chemical / Process Engineering
• Chemistry
• Civil Engineering
• Economics
• Electrical Engineering
• Finance
• Geophysics
• Geoscience / Geology
• Instrumentation Engineering
• Marine Engineering
• Materials / Corrosion Engineering
• Mathematics / Applied Mathematics
• Mechanical / Aerospace Engineering
• Medicine
• Metallurgical Engineering
• Mining Engineering
• Petroleum Engineering
• Pharmacy
• Physics / Applied Physics
• Process Control Engineering

About SNEPCo Scholarship: SNEPCo on behalf of itself and its co-venturers is launching the SNEPCo National Merit University Scholarship Scheme.  The programme aims to promote academic excellence and improve the skills of young Nigerians.Type: Undergraduate

Eligibility: Applicant must:

• Be a citizen of Nigeria, currently enrolled in an accredited and approved university in Nigeria.
• Currently be in their second year of fulltime study in a Nigerian university accredited by NUC.
• Have a minimum grade point average of 3.0 – 5.0 at the time of application (attach  transcripts or official records).
• Not be a beneficiary of any other scholarship.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Scholarship Worth: Grant for the remainder of student’s Program

Duration of Scholarship: Scholarships are renewable through graduation. Recipients are expected to maintain high academic / ethical standards, and other conditions outlined in the scholarship award letter.

How to Apply: Please take the following steps to access the website:

1. Use the direct link https://www.nnpc-snepco-scholarship.shell.com/
2. The last three lines of the error message on the website presents three options, click on the second option which states: “Continue to the website”
3. If you are using a mobile phone to access the site, click “Advanced” and  “Continue”

Every applicant should have a valid personal email account (for communication purposes)

Candidates who meet the above entry qualifications should apply online at www.nnpc-snepco-scholarshipshellnigeria.com and to provide the required personal and educational details, and load scanned copies of the following:

• A recent passport-sized photograph of the applicant (i.e. jpeg format, not more than 200kilobytes);
• University or JAMB (UTME or D/E) Admission Letter;
• Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examinations (UTME) Scores;
• ‘O’ Level Result(s); and ‘A’ Level /OND /NCE Result(s) as applicable; and
• Letter of Identification from State (showing Local Government) of Origin.
• Students are to upload their 100l results

Sponsors: Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company (SNEPCo)

As US Empire Fails, Trump Enters a Quagmire

Kevin Zeese

A quagmire is defined as a complex or unpleasant position that is difficult to escape. President Trump’s recently announced war plans in Afghanistan maintain that quagmire. They come at a time when US Empire is failing and its leadership in the world is weakening. The US will learn what other empires have learned, “Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.”

During the presidential campaign, some became convinced that Trump would not be an interventionist president. His tweets about Afghanistan were one of the reasons. In January of 2013, he tweeted, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.” Now, we see a president who carries on the interventionist tradition of US Empire.

While Afghanistan has been a never-ending active war since 9-11, making the 16-year war the longest in US history, the truth is the United States became directly involved with Afghanistan some 38 years ago, on July 3, 1979. As William Rivers Pitts writes “On that day, at the behest of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive in an operation meant to destabilize the Soviet-controlled government of Afghanistan.” In fact when the US dropped the MOAB bomb, Trump was bombing tunnels built with the assistance of the CIA in the 1980′s for the mujaheddin and Bin Laden.

Trump’s Afghan policy is inaccurately described as a new approach but has only one element that is new – secrecy, as Trump will not tell us how many soldiers he will send to this war. His so-called new strategy is really a continuation of the permanent war quagmire in Afghanistan, which may be an intentional never ending war for the empire’s geopolitical goals. Ralph Nader reviews 16 years of headlines about Afghanistan, calling it a “cruel boomeranging quagmire of human violence and misery… with no end in sight.”

Another Afghan Review Leads To Same Conclusion: More War

During his campaign for president, Trump called for the US to pull out of Afghanistan. Early in his administration, President Trump announced a review of the Afghanistan war. This week when he announced escalation of the war, Trump noted this was his instinct. Unfortunately, the president did not trust his previous instincts and missed an opportunity to end the war.

We have seen how President Trump refuses to admit mistakes, so it is highly unlikely he will change course from this mistaken path. His rationale is so many US soldiers have given their lives that we must stay until the United States wins. This is the quandary – the US must continue the war until we win because soldiers have died but continuing the war means more will die and the US must stay committed to war because more have died.

After we read President Trump’s Afghanistan war speech, we went back and re-read President Obama’s Afghanistan war speech given in March 2009.  It is remarkable how similar the two speeches are. When Russian president Putin was interviewed by filmmaker Oliver Stone as well as when he was interviewed by Megyn Kelly, he made a point proven by US policy in Afghanistan, “Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change.”

Both presidents conducted a lengthy review early in their administration and both talked with generals and diplomats who convinced them to escalate rather than end the war. Both presidents put forward what they claimed was a new strategy but in reality, was just doing the same thing over again: more troops, building up Afghanistan’s military by working closely with them, using economic and diplomatic power and putting pressure on Pakistan not to be a safe haven for the Taliban and those fighting against the United States.

To ensure a quagmire both presidents said that decisions would not be based on a timeline but on conditions on the ground. Both promised victory, without clearly defining what it would mean; both raised fears of the Taliban and other anti-US militants using Afghanistan to attack the United States again. Trump had the advantage of knowing that President Obama’s approach had failed despite repeated bombings in Pakistan and working with Afghan troops, but that didn’t alter his course.

Afghanistan Victims of a February, 2012 US air strike that killed 8 children in Kapisa, Afghanistan.

Failure To Learn Lessons Ensures Repeating Them

According to Mike Ludwig, since President Obama approved a troop surge in 2009, the war in Afghanistan has claimed at least 26,512 civilian lives and injured nearly 48,931 more. In July, the United Nations reported that at least 5,243 civilians have been killed or injured in 2017 alone, including higher numbers of woman and children than previous in years. Trump seems less concerned than previous presidents with killings of civilians.

Trump noted that the Afghanistan-Pakistan region was now the densest part of the world when it comes to anti-US militants, saying there were 20 terrorist groups in the area. President Obama added tens of thousands of troops to the Afghanistan war, dropped massive numbers of bombs and the result was more terrorism. The US was killing terrorists but the impact was creating more anti-American militants. Trump failed to connect these dots and understand that more US attacks create more hatred against the United States.

After Obama failed to ‘win’ the war by adding tens of thousands of troops, with more than 100,000 fighting in Afghanistan at its peak, Trump should have asked his generals how adding thousands more (reports are between 4,000 and 8,000 soldiers) would change failure to success. Wasn’t there anyone in the room who would tell Trump there is nothing new in the Trump strategy that Obama and Bush had not already tried. Steve Bannon was the most opposed to war in the administration and reportedly fought against more war, but he was not in the room. Did anyone in the room stand up to the hawk-generals?

The policy of working more closely with the Afghan military in order to build them up ended in disaster in the Obama era. The New Yorker wrote in 2012: “We can’t win the war in Afghanistan, so what do we do? We’ll train the Afghans to do it for us, then claim victory and head for the exits.” But, the US discovered that it could not train the Afghans in the ‘American way of war.’ In 2012, the Obama administration ended the program of fighting alongside Afghan soldiers to train them because those soldiers were killing US soldiers. How many US soldiers will die because Trump was ignorant of this lesson?

Trump also took the wrong lesson from the Iraq war and occupation. He inaccurately described the so-called withdrawal from Iraq as hasty. He points to the rise of ISIS as created by the vacuum in Iraq when the US reduced its numbers of troops. Trump said the US “cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq.”

In fact, ISIS rose up because the killing of hundreds of thousands, some reports say more than a million, of Iraqis, displacement of more than a million more, the destruction of a functioning government as well as war crimes like the Abu Gharib torture scandal made it easy to recruit fighters. Furthermore, the training and supply of weapons to Sunnis during the ‘Awakening’ created armed soldiers looking for their next job.

It was US war and occupation that created ISIS. The seeds had been planted, fertilized and were rapidly growing before the US reduced its military footprint. Trump is repeating the mistake of more militarism, and in the end ISIS or some other form of anti-US militancy will thrive.

The US does not want to face an important reality – the government of the United States is hated in the region for very good reasons. Bush lied to us about 9-11 when he claimed they hate us for our freedoms. No, they hate the US because US militarism kills hundreds of thousands of people in the region, destroys functioning governments and creates chaos.

Victory Means Something Different to an Empire

In trying to understand why the US is fighting a war — a war that has been unwinnable for 16 years — it helps to look at a map and consider the resources of an area.

Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former adviser, predicts the US will be in Afghanistan for the next 50 years. Indeed, that may be the ‘victory’ the empire seeks. Afghanistan is of geopolitical importance. It is a place where the US can impact China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ to Europe where China can take the place of Russia and the United States in providing wealthy Europeans with key commodities like oil and gas. Just as the United States has stayed in Germany, Italy and other European states and Japan after WW II,  and in Korea after the Korean war, the empire sees a need to be in Afghanistan to be well positioned for the future of the empire. Terrorism is not the issue, economic competition with China, which is quickly becoming the leading global economic power, is the real issue.

And, competition with Russia and China is at the top of the list of the bi-partisan war party in Washington. Pepe Escobar points out that “Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution hatched by Afghans and supervised by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (of which Afghanistan is an observer and future full member). So from the point of view of neocon/neoliberalcon elements of the War Party in Washington, Afghanistan only makes sense as a forward base to harass/stall/thwart China’s Belt and Road Initiative.”

Afghanistan is next to China, India and Pakistan, three nuclear powers that could pose military risks to the United States. Having multiple bases in Afghanistan, to allegedly fight terrorists, will provide the forward deployment needed to combat each of those nations if military action is needed.

Afghanistan also borders on Iran, which could be a near-future war zone for the United States. Positioning the US military along the Afghanistan-Iran border creates a strategic advantage with Iran as well as with the Persian Gulf where approximately 18.2 million barrels of oil per day transit through the Strait of Hormuz in tankers.

Afghanistan’s land contains $3 trillion in rare earth minerals needed for computers and modern technology including rich deposits of gold, silver, platinum, iron ore and copper. The US has spent $700 billion in fighting a failed war and President Trump and empire strategists are looking to make sure US corporations get access to those minerals. Since the US Geological Survey discovered these minerals a decade ago, some see Afghanistan as the future  “Saudi Arabia of lithium”, a raw material used in phone and electric car batteries. US officials have told Reuters that Trump argued at a White House meeting with advisers in July that the United States should demand a share of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.

Jeffrey St. Clair reminds us not to forget the lucrative opium trade. Afghanistan is the largest source for heroin in the world. He writes:

Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom.

The decision on a never ending war — with no timetable for exit — is evidence that the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are in charge of US foreign policy with Trump as a figurehead.  Of course, the war also ensures immense profits for the war industry. St. Clair emphasizes that “in 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan.  A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as ‘private military units’ or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration.”

The firing of Steve Bannon just before the meeting that decided Afghanistan’s future was not coincidence as he was the opponent of escalation. Glenn Greenwald writes in the Intercept that this permanent power structure has been working since his election to take control of foreign policy. He also points to the appointment of Marine General John Kelly as chief of staff and how National Security Adviser, General McMaster, has successfully fired several national security officials aligned with Steve Bannon and the nationalistic, purportedly non-interventionist foreign policy. The deep state of the permanent national security complex has taken over and the Afghan war decision demonstrates this reality.

With these geopolitical realities, staying Afghanistan may be the victory the Pentagon seeks — winning may just be being there. The Intercept reported this week that the Taliban offered to negotiate peace, but peace on the terms of the Taliban may not be what the US is seeking.

Call for an End to War for Empire

It would be a terrible error for people to blame Trump for the Afghanistan war which began with intervention by Jimmy Carter, became a hot war after 9-11 under George Bush, escalated under Obama and now continues the same polices under Trump. The bi-partisan war hawks in Congress for nearly 40 years have supported these policies. Afghanistan is evidence of the never ending policy of full spectrum dominance sought by the US empire. The bi-partisans warriors span the breadth of both parties, Jeffrey St. Clair highlights the Afghanistan war cheering by Senator John McCain and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Throughout recent decades the United States has failed to show what Kathy Kelly called the courage we need for peace and continues the cowardice of war. In fact, many ask why are we still at war in Afghanistan: Osama bid Laden is dead, other alleged 9-11 attack attackers are caught or killed. This shows that calling Afghanistan the longest running Fake War in US history is right — fake because it was never about terrorism but about business. If terrorism were the issue, Saudi Arabia would be the prime US enemy, but Saudi Arabia is also about business.

We share the conclusion of human rights activist and Green vice presidential candidate in 2016 Ajamu Baraka who wrote for the Black Alliance for Peace that:

In an obscene testament to U.S. vanity and the psychopathological commitment to global white supremacy, billions have already been wasted, almost three thousand U.S. lives lost and over 100,000 dead. It is time to admit defeat in Afghanistan and bring the war to an end. Justice and common sense demand that the bloodletting stop.

When we understand the true motives of US Empire, that conclusion is even worse — to steal resources from a poor nation and put in place permanent bases from which to conduct more war. US hegemony is costly to millions of people around the world and at home it sucks more than 54% of discretionary spending from the federal budget and creates an empire economy that only serves the wealthiest corporate interests that profit from transnational military dominance while creating a record wealth divide where most people in the United States are economic slaves. It is not only time to end the Afghanistan war but to end US Empire.

The Stomach-Churning Violence Of Monsanto, Bayer And The Agrochemical Oligopoly

Colin Todhunter

As humans, we have evolved with the natural environment over millennia. We have learned what to eat and what not to eat, what to grow and how to grow it and our diets have developed accordingly. We have hunted, gathered, planted and harvested. Our overall survival as a species has been based on gradual, emerging relationships with the seasons, insects, soil, animals, trees and seeds. And out of these relationships, we have seen the development of communities whose rituals and bonds have a deep connection with food production and the natural environment.

However, over the last couple generations, agriculture and food production has changed more than it had done over previous millennia. These changes have involved massive social upheaval as communities and traditions have been uprooted and have entailed modifying what we eat, how we grow our food and what we apply to it. All of this has been driven by geopolitical concerns and powerful commercial interests with their proprietary chemicals and patented seeds. The process of neoliberal globalisation is accelerating the process as farmers are encouraged to produce for global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness.

Certain crops are now genetically engineered, the range of crops we grow has become less diverse, synthetic biocides have been poured on crops and soil and our bodies have been subjected to a chemical bombardment. We have arrived at a point where we have lost touch with our deep-rooted microbiological and social connection with nature and have developed an arrogance that has placed ‘man’ above the environment and all other species. One of the consequences is that we have paid an enormous price in terms of the consequent social, environmental and health-related devastation.

Despite the promise and potential of science, it has too often in modern society become a tool of vested interests, an ideology wrapped in the vestiges of authority and the ‘superstition’ that its corporate-appointed priesthood should not be challenged nor questioned. Instead of liberating humankind, it has now too often become a tool of deception in the hands of companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta which make up the oligopoly that controls what is an increasingly globalised system of modern food and agriculture.

These corporations have successfully instituted the notion that the mass application of biocides, monocropping and industrial agriculture are necessary and desirable. They are not. However, these companies have used their science and propaganda to project certainty in order to hide the fact that they have no real idea what their products and practices are doing to human health or the environment (and in cases when they do know, they do their best to cover it up or hide behind the notion of ‘commercial confidentiality‘).

Based on their limited, tainted studies and co-opted version of science, they say with certainty that, for example, genetically engineered food and glyphosate are ‘safe’. And when inconvenient truths do emerge, they will mobilise their massive lobbying resources to evade regulations, they will seek to hide the dangers of their products or they will set out to destroy scientists whose findings challenge their commercial bottom line.

Soil microbiologists are still trying to fully comprehend soil microbes and how they function as anintegrated network in relation to plants. The agrochemical sector has little idea of how their biocides have affected soils. It merely churns out public relations spin that their inputs are harmless for soil, plants and human health. Such claims are not based on proper, in-depth, long-term studies. They are based on a don’t look, don’t find approach or a manipulation of standards and procedures that ensure their products make it on to the commercial market and stay there. The devastating impacts on soil are increasingly clear to see.

And what are these biocides doing to us as humans? Numerous studies have linked the increase in pesticide us with spiralling rates of ill health. Kat Carrol of the National Health Federation is concerned about the impacts on human gut bacteria that play a big role in how organs function and our neurological health. The gut microbiome can contain up to six pounds of bacteria and is what Carroll calls ‘human soil’. She says that with their agrochemicals and food additives, powerful companies are attacking this ‘soil’ and with it the sanctity of the human body.

And her concerns seem valid. Many important neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking. Feed gut bacteria a cocktail of biocides and is it any surprise that many diseases are increasing?

For instance, findings published in the journal ‘Translational Psychiatry’ provide strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression, and Parkinson’s Disease.

Environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has written extensively on the impacts of agrochemicals (especially glyphosate) on humans, not least during child and adolescent development. In her numerous documents and papers, she cites a plethora of data and studies that link the use of agrochemicals with various diseases and ailments. She has also noted the impact of these chemicals on the human gut microbiome.

Writing in The Guardian, Mo Costandi discusses the importance of gut bacteria and their balance. In adolescence the brain undergoes a protracted period of heightened neural plasticity, during which large numbers of synapses are eliminated in the prefrontal cortex and a wave of ‘myelination’ sweeps across this part of the brain. These processes refine the circuitry in the prefrontal cortex and increase its connectivity to other brain regions. Myelination is also critical for normal, everyday functioning of the brain. Myelin increases a nerve fibre’s conduction velocity by up to a hundred times, and so when it breaks down, the consequences can be devastating.

Other recent work shows that gut microbes control the maturation and function of microglia, the immune cells that eliminate unwanted synapses in the brain; age-related changes to gut microbe composition might regulate myelination and synaptic pruning in adolescence and could, therefore, contribute to cognitive development. Upset those changes, and, As Mason argues, there are going to be serious implications for children and adolescents. Mason places glyphosate at the core of the ailments and disorders currently affecting young people in Wales and the UK in general.

Yet we are still being subjected to an unregulated cocktail of agrochemicals which end up interacting with each other in the gut. Regulatory agencies and governments appear to work hand in glove with the agrochemical sector.

Carol Van Strum has released documents indicating collusion between the manufacturers of dangerous chemicals and regulatory bodies. Evaggelos Vallianatos has highlighted the massive fraud surrounding the regulation of biocides and the wide scale corruption at laboratories that were supposed to test these chemicals for safety. Many of these substances were not subjected to what was deemed proper testing in the first place yet they remain on the market. Shiv Chopra has also highlighted how various dangerous products were allowed on the commercial market and into the food chain due to collusion between these companies and public officials.

Powerful transnational corporations are using humanity as their collective guinea pig. But those who question them or their corporate science are automatically labelled anti-science and accused of committing crimes against humanity because they are preventing their products from being commercialised ‘to help the poor or hungry’. Such attacks on critics by company mouthpieces who masquerade as public officials, independent scientists or independent journalists are mere spin. They are, moreover, based on the sheer hypocrisy that these companies (owned and controlled by elite interests) have humanity’s and the environment’s best interests at heart.

Many of these companies have historically profited from violence. Unfortunately, that character of persists. They directly profit on the back of militarism, whether as a result of the US-backed ‘regime change’ in Ukraine or the US invasion of Iraq. They also believe they can cajole (poison) nature by means of chemicals and bully governments and attack critics, while rolling out propaganda campaigns for public consumption.

Whether it involves neocolonialism and the destruction of indigenous practices and cultures under the guise of ‘development’, the impoverishment of farmers in India, the twisting and writing of national and international laws, the destruction of rural communities, the globalisation of bad food and illness, the deleterious impacts on health and soil, the hollowing out of public institutions and the range of human rights abuses we saw documented during The Monsanto Tribunal, what we are witnessing is structural violence in many forms.

Pesticides are in fact “a global human rights concern” and are in no way vital to ensuring food security. Ultimately, what we see is ignorance, arrogance and corruption masquerading as certainty and science.

“… when we wound the planet grievously by excavating its treasures – the gold, mineral and oil, destroy its ability to breathe by converting forests into urban wastelands, poison its waters with toxic wastes and exterminate other living organisms – we are in fact doing all this to our own bodies… all other species are to be enslaved or driven to extinction if need be in the interests of human ‘progress’… we are part of the same web of life –where every difference we construct artificially between ‘them’ and ‘us’ adds only one more brick to the tombstone of humankind itself.” – from ‘Micobes of the World Unite!’ By Satya Sager