28 Sept 2017

World Bank Africa Fellowship Program for African Graduates 2018

Application Deadline: 15th November, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): World Bank offices in Washington, D.C. or in a Sub-Saharan country
About the Award: Fellows will spend a minimum of six months at the World Bank offices in Washington, D.C. or in field offices, getting hands-on experience in development work. This includes knowledge generation and dissemination, design of global and country policies, and the building of institutions to achieve inclusive growth in developing countries. While benefitting from research and innovation in multiple sectors, fellows will also work on research, economic policy, technical assistance, and lending operations that contribute to the World Bank goal of eliminating poverty and increasing shared prosperity.
This year, thanks to a generous contribution from the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), there are 10 additional fellowship positions with a special focus on forced displacement. The 10 selected fellows will work on forced displacement research in the context of operations led by the World Bank Group (WBG) or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, or the Middle East. For these additional 10 positions, candidates from refugee and internally displaced communities and/or with proven experience on forced displacement will be given a priority. Selected candidates with a strong interest in the area of forced displacement will work on research programs targeting refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and host communities.
Eligible Fields: Sub-Saharan nationals who are recent Ph.D. graduates, or current doctoral students within a year of completing or graduating from a Ph.D. program in the following fields: economics, applied statistics and econometrics, impact evaluation, education, health, energy, agriculture, infrastructure, demography, forced displacement, and all relevant development fields.
Fellows will be expected to complete a research project or prepare a research paper to present to staff. High-standard papers may be published internally.
Type: PhD, Fellowship
Eligibility: Candidate must:
  • Be a recent graduate or be enrolled in an academic institution and returning to university after the fellowship
  • Be 32 years of age or below
  • Have an excellent command of English, both written and verbal
  • Possess strong quantitative and analytical skills
Selection Criteria: The following additional attributes are highly desirable:
  • a command of an additional World Bank official language
  • national from fragile and conflict-affected countries
  • candidates from refugee and internally displaced communities and/or with proven experience on forced displacement
After submitting an application online, the most promising candidates will be identified, and their application packages forwarded to World Bank Africa Region managers and participating departments for consideration. Departments and managers will then indicate their preferences, as well as the project to be undertaken.
Selected candidates will then be notified and, upon acceptance, will be hired as short-term consultants for a minimum of six months.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive consultant fees, round-trip economy class air travel to Washington, D.C. or a WBG country office from their university, and worker’s compensation insurance.
Duration of Fellowship: Fellows will spend a minimum of six months.
Award Provider: World Bank Group

Privacy and Politics: The Hypocrisy of the Surveillance Statists

Thomas L. Knapp

The New York Times reports that at least six members of the Trump administration used personal email accounts to discuss White House matters.
Given president Donald Trump’s campaign and post-campaign harping (as the Times puts it) on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private server and mishandling of classified information, it’s unsurprising to hear charges of hypocrisy from Democratic quarters. But the hypocrisy here  a matter of  political class elitism, not partisan politics. Those in power, regardless of party, want to know what you’re doing, but think what they’re doing is none of your business (except when they send you the bill for all of it).
The US government and its state and local subsidiaries operate the largest and most far-reaching surveillance apparatus in the history of humankind. Their intelligence and police agencies intercept, analyze and catalog our phone calls and emails, create and install malware on our computers to keep track of what we do online, and watch us via satellite and over vast networks of  cameras in public areas. They track our activities using our Social Security numbers, drivers’ licenses, car VINs and license plates, banking and employment information, and electronic device IP address and MAC IDs. Modern America puts the Third Reich’s death camp tattoo system and the Soviet Union’s internal passport scheme to shame in this respect.
Whenever we mere mortals notice and complain about any aspect of this surveillance state, the response consists of operatic appeals to “national security,” “fighting crime,” and other variations on the theme of “we’re just trying to protect you.”
But whenever an Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange pulls back the curtain, revealing  crimes committed by the political class, all hell breaks loose. How DARE these pesky whistle-blowers show the serfs that  their emperor isn’t just naked, but also killing and stealing on a scale that would make Ted Bundy and Bernie Madoff blush? And how dare the serfs notice?
Excuse me for a moment while I break out the world’s smallest violin and compose “Dirge for the Lost Privacy of Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Jared Kushner, Stephen Bannon, Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn, Ivanka Trump and Stephen Miller.”
So long as American politicians and bureaucrats continue to put the rest of us under a magnifying glass, they deserve no sympathy when they  get caught trying to hide their own actions from public view.

Human Rights: the Latest Weapon Against Venezuela

RICARDO VAZ

On occasion of the 36th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 116 “NGOs” signed a letter demanding that Venezuela be a priority for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The effort was spearheaded by none other than Human Rights Watch (HRW). HRW has a long and documented history of bias and outright lies in their reports on Venezuela, which is no surprise given their blatant revolving door with the US government. Among the signatories are several usual suspects such as Provea or Foro Penal, whose president Alfredo Romero was a recent speaker in a “US Democracy Support” forum.
Another organisation on the list is Transparencia Venezuela, which includes as sources of funding the EU, several embassies and the parent organisation Transparency International. And although Transparency International is much shadier than it sounds, at least we can laud their transparency in listing their backers. The list includes the US State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros’ Open Society, even corporations such as Shell. One more that stands out, and is quoted regularly by the media, is the International Commission of Jurists, which sounds very noble and independent until you discover that they were initially funded by the CIA.
The issue here is with the term “non-governmental organisation”, which are always presented by the media as faultless, impartial actors. While there are many scenarios in which independent organisations can step in and provide invaluable services, this is hardly the case of groups funded by the NED (or USAID, or similar agencies) to “promote democracy” or “defend human rights” in countries like Venezuela. These are merely extensions of the US and western foreign policy apparatus, working as the local infrastructure that is necessary in regime change operations as well as a source for the media to build its biased narrative.
At the end of the day, it is the term “non-governmental organisation” that falls very short of describing the nature and activities of these groups. If an organisation in Venezuela, or anywhere else, is funded by the US government, in what world is it a “non-governmental organisation”? One cannot prove that all the “NGOs” standing with HRW are western-funded, but advancing western interests is very much advancing corporate interests, and it is doubtful that anyone would do that for free.
Weaponising human rights
While one should not judge a book by the cover, it might be useful to consider the background of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad al Hussein. A member of the royal family of Jordan, he comes from a Hashemite dynasty whose calling card has been its pliancy to imperial interests in the Middle East. And having served as ambassador to the US and permanent representative to the UN, he is, much like Jordan, someone the US can rely upon.
His most recent statement, which could just as well have been written by the US State Department, was delivered during the 36th Session of the Human Rights Council. It takes aim at every inconvenient country, from Iran to North Korea, while important US allies like Bahrain or Egypt are invited to “engage more productively” with his office. Israel is treated with kid gloves, and somehow the blame for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is supposed to be shared between Israeli and Palestinian authorities. And there is no mention whatsoever of Saudi Arabia, where surely there are no human rights issues… Even when addressing the catastrophe in Yemen there is only a passing mention to “coalition airstrikes”.
And then the High Commissioner gets to Venezuela, sounding like any opposition leader or US official on “human rights violations” during anti-government protests or the “crushing [of] democratic institutions”, and suggesting an investigation into possible “crimes against humanity”. Never mind Colombia, where for years the army killed thousands of civilians and dressed them as rebels to collect rewards. Never mind Saudi Arabia, conducting double tap strikes against funerals in Yemen, or the US “torturing some folks” , or Israeli soldiers killing children because they were “running like terrorists”. The High Commissioner is worried that crimes against humanity have been committed in Venezuela!
This statement comes on the heels of a OHCHR report about Venezuela that Joe Emersberger described as “embarrassingly shoddy and biased”. It barely mentions any violence coming from the opposition ranks, and while offering a tally of deaths allegedly caused by government forces and the bogeyman colectivos, there is no detailed breakdown to be compared with other accounts such as the one by Venezuelanalysis. Remarkably, given the importance of the issue and the damning verdict that the OHCHR wishes to pass, no investigators from the UN body set foot in Venezuela. Instead the report relies on carefully selected testimonies and the “NGOs” we just discussed.
True NGOs strike back
While the amenable High Commissioner and the poorly-named “NGOs” put on their show to further the regime-change operation in Venezuela, others were not about to take it sitting down. True NGOs, independent organisations that are not pawns in imperialist machinations, and which are truly committed to human rights, condemned foreign meddling in Venezuela and the politicisation of human rights. One example was Swiss-based CETIM, an organisation focused on supporting social movements in the Global South. Concerning Venezuela, it released a statement that said:
“[…] we declare ourselves for an immediate return to calm and to dialog, for the respect of Venezuelan peoples’ right to self-determination and the deepening of the process of democratic transformation that they have freely and courageously undertaken for two decades […]”
Another organisation that reacted to the recent actions of the OHCHR was the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), through its representative at the UN, Micòl Savia, during one of the plenary meetings of the 36th Session of the Human Rights Council (intervention #35 in this link)
“The IADL expresses its most profound dismay at the recent OHCHR report […]. Given its severity, we are particularly concerned by the High Commissioner’s mention of […] crimes against humanity, which lacks any legal grounds or sense of proportion. […]
The report is selective and biased, and represents a further example of the unfortunate politicisation that affects the work of the OHCHR, undermining its credibility and standing. Use of firearms, explosives, setting up barricades, people burned alive, attacks against hospitals, […], is this the model of “peaceful protests” that this council wants to promote?”
Judge, jury and executioner
In the end the bias and lack of standards, or outright falsehood, of these claims and reports does not matter, because if the target is Venezuela they only have to look credible. The media will then do the rest, creating a background by repeating that “Venezuela has been accused by the UN of human rights abuses”, regardless of the shoddiness of the accusations, and this will be the basis to justify future escalations and aggressions as the empire pulls out all the stops to get rid of the biggest threat in its “backyard”. 
This is a good time to stress that legal systems are not moral or just by definition, but a reflection of who holds power, and this is especially true of international law. Though the struggle for an arena where all countries have the same weight is imperative, we are fooling ourselves if we are counting on international bodies to be impartial upholders of justice (just look at Palestine). Recent international tribunals have only served to reinforce the US/western narrative, either as a posteriori justification for past wars such as the one in Yugoslavia, or to justify upcoming ones against troublesome leaders like Gaddafi.
We should clarify that our argument is not some kind of moral relativism, whereby we defend that the alleged crime A should not be investigated until justice is served for (the much worse) crime B. We are not arguing that nobody can be guilty of crimes against humanity until Henry Kissinger is tried, although it is hard to take any international tribunal seriously if the most blatant crimes are immune from prosecution. But what is definitely absurd and unacceptable is to have the US empire, either directly or through its proxies, be the judge trying other people and countries.

Hezbollah Has Launched The Initial Phase Of The Next Israel-Hezbollah War

Franklin P. Lamb


For Israel, the initial phase of its next long predicted war with Hezbollah is focused on neutralizing Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah while destroying factories allegedly under construction to build long-range missiles. Some Israeli recently bombed sites are also claimed to have been housing chemical weapons. Earlier this month Israeli jets attacked a Syrian military installation near the city of Masyaf that allegedly produces chemical weapons and advanced missiles.
Israel has recently increased its targeting of claimed Hezbollah/Iranian sites followed by diplomatic warnings by Israel’s leadership that it will not accept an enhanced Iranian and Hezbollah presence on its northern borders. Israel has bombed more than 100 targets since 2011 including some Iranian positions around Damascus military airport, West and South Syria as well as in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley and down south. The latest reported attack comes only days after Israel shot down an Iranian-made drone operated by Hezbollah after it entered the demilitarized zone along the border between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights.  Israel insists that it will continue to target Hezbollah’s expanding military operations in Syria and in Lebanon. In addition, this month (9/2017) Israel conducted the largest military exercise in decades in what an IDF/IAF spokesperson suggested was a rehearsal for the certain coming war with Hezbollah.
While Israeli rhetoric has focused attention on the widely predicted soon to ignite Hezbollah-Israel war, it is Hezbollah which this month has launched the first stage of its fateful war with Israel.
Hezbollah’s activation this month of more than a dozen intense initiatives includes but are not limited to those noted below and they enumerate how Hezbollah intends to achieve another Devine Victory by being adjudged the winner of the approaching conflagration.  For security reasons, other Hezbollah initiatives now being activated have been omitted from discussion for the time being per a request from Hezbollah’s politburo.
Despite its November 2013 offensives in the strategic Qalamoun region close to the Syria-Lebanon border as an insurgency and then recently switching to becoming a counter-insurgency/conventional force in Syria, Hezbollah will discard the conventional force model to battle Israel. Especially in the early stages of the coming conflict according to a Party of God official in Damascus.
Not all the members of Hezbollah’s Politburo or its military hierarchy want to give up the idea of developing a regular army. One Hezbollah officer recently explained to this observer:  “Since we went into Syria, we have become much stronger. Like a regular army.  What was Hezbollah before? We were only defenders. Now, we’ve learned how to attack offensively.”
Despite the gentleman’s confidence, Hezbollah plans to continue employing tactics it learned from the PLO in 1982 and stick with what brought it relative success during its 18 years (1978-2000) guerilla war targeting Israel’s occupation of South Lebanon. Hezbollah learned in the early 1980’s that when the PLO stood its ground or behaved like a regular army, Israel’s superior force quickly destroyed its soldiers despite heroic fighting by the Palestinians. However in 1982 when the PLO mounted urban warfare as a resistance/guerilla force and fought Israel’s army in locales such as the alleys of Ein al Helweh refugee camp south of Beirut in Saida, the PLO twice bested its enemy, causing many casualties and forcing Israel to withdraw from the urban area in humiliation.
As part of its initial phase launch, Hezbollah has already deployed troops and rockets to more than 100 south Lebanon villages for waging attacks on Israeli troops from civilian neighborhoods. The missile launches be fired mainly from built up civilian areas. Israel’s predictable counter-attacks on Lebanon’s civilian population will cause high civilian casualties.  Hezbollah and its media allies will immediately publicize in Lebanon and globally via social media the civilian death tolls in order to create international condemnation of Israeli excesses and build pressure, as in 2006 and in Gaza 2014, for a an early UN sponsored ceasefire.
Hezbollah is also beginning work on militia cells on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, to provide a base for strikes against military and civilian targets in Israeli-held territory during the future conflict.
The Party of God has made clear it intends to remain in Syria, and has established missile bases in Qusayr and Qalamoun to protect its longer-ranger projectiles from Israeli attacks. It has also engaged in sectariancleansing of Sunnis from this area to secure its Bekaa Valley and Baalbek strongholds across the border to keep open the key route toDamascus.
Hezbollah is known for its careful-even cautious- planning yet it openly admits to making several battlefield miscalculations and errors in 2006 and before. Today it is urging its fighters and civilian population not to be daunted by the past and to be steadfast and to take risks, believing that this has also paid off in the past. With this in mind, Hezbollah has recently started a program to build confidence among its Shia supporters in Lebanon. This reportedly includes training civilians to improve their ability to shoot, move accurately and communicate under fire. A Hezbollah official during a recent media tour of some of its positions in the south, explained: “It’s part of our culture to teach our children and children’s children to fight.”
During the 2006 war with Israel Hezbollah claimed at various times that its rockets were aimed primarily at military targets in Israel, or that its attacks on civilians were justifiable as a response to Israel’s indiscriminate fire into southern Lebanon and as a tool to draw Israel into a ground war. Hezbollah rockets killed 43 civilians and 119 Israeli soldiers during the course of the 34-day conflict (over 1,700 dead on the Lebanese side, including approximately 500-600 Hezbollah combatants).
This month (9/2017) Hezbollah is readying for launch its large arsenal of medium and long-range rockets to fire from day one of the coming open warfare stage. Hezbollah sources report that approximately 2000 rockets will be fired daily at Israel’s military, infrastructure, and civilian neighborhoods across Israel.  This number exceeds the total average weekly number fired into Israel during the height of the 34 day 2006 war.
One Hezbollah officer on leave from Syria recently mentioned to this observer in its security zone in Dahayeh south Beirut that Hezbollah can and may well fire as many as 4000 missiles into Israel in less than one hour.   By far the greatest number of missiles being distributed to sites in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley and readied for launch areKatushya’s. Followed by Iran’s Fajr-3 and -5 (forty and seventy kilometers range), the Syrian Khaybar-1 (100 kilometers), and the Iranian Zelzal-3 (250 kilometers). Among Hezbollah’s rocket collection are the Syrian M600 — based on Iran’s Fateh-110 (250 kilometers), and SCUD-B/C/D missiles (300-700 kilometers). In addition, Russian missiles are reportedly being purchased on the black market.
Hezbollah is reportedly also deploying improved types of man-portable surface-to-air missiles including the SA-18, and vehicle-mounted and SA-17 and SA-22 as well as concealed antitank missiles including the AT-14 Kornet) all supplied by Iran. Israel claims withut proof that the Party of God is stockpiling chemical weapons as well. Hezbollah’s acquisition of the 300-kilometer range P-800 Oniks (Yakhont) can strike Israel’s warships and offshore natural gas facilities and well as targets including the Hadera power plant near Haifa. Also being positioned in various locations in Lebanon is Iran’s M-600 and SCUD missiles. Just as Iranian armed and trained Houthis are using them in Yemen against the Saudi-led coalition.
In addition, Hezbollah has kept many of its anti-tank teams and rocket/missile crews in Lebanon and is deploying hundreds of additional antitank weapons, and improved its air and coastal defense capabilities with modern systems acquired since the start of the war in Syria.  Hezbollah continues this week of 9/25/2017 improving its defense capabilities in southern Lebanon, deeply embedding its forces and many of its missiles in tunnels near towns and villages throughout the region.
And while Israel has rocket/missile defenses including 12 Iron Dome missile batteries, three Arrow-2 and 3 missile batteries, and one David’s Sling battery, Hezbollah is confident that its large rocket and missile force will- at least in the early days of a conflict- swarm and quickly overwhelm Israeli defenses.
Hezbollah has also begun using the first stage of its unfolding war with Israel for psychological projects such as instilling fear in Israel’s civilian population and military. Hezbollah leaders have increased the frequency and volume of their threats to Israel including promises that the “Resistance” would move ground forces into the Galilee and Golan Heights. Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and his deputy NaimQassim regularly promises that there will be “no red lines” in the coming war with Israel. In April, Hezbollah held a press conference along the border to highlight Israeli defensive preparations and to declare its readiness for war. And in June, Nasrallah pledged that Hezbollah would be joined in its next war with Israel by “tens…or even hundreds of thousands” of Shi’a fighters from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In the past few months, whenever US planes struck Hezbollah targets in Syria, Hezbollah-related media to warned of retaliatory strikes against US target is the Middle East region and beyond.
As part of its opening salvo for the widely expected coming war with Israel, Hezbollah has also launched a large scale regional combatant recruitment effort. Having to date lost in Syria approximately 2000 dead and 8000 wounded and with growing doubts among would-be recruits and their families and friends about its continuing killing of Muslims and Palestinians, Hezbollah is working with Iran’s IRGC to swell its ranks. This is proceeding via various attractive recruiting offers while training, deploying and commanding mainly Shia from six countries in the region.  Meanwhile Iran reportedly pays the would-be fighters and Popular Mobilization Brigades (PMB) loyal to Tehran; allegedly with high quality counterfeit US dollars and promises of Iranian residency or citizenship for the recruits and their families after the war should the recruits survive. Iran and Hezbollah also provides the Shia recruits with arms and some training inside Iran and increasingly Hezbollah commanders direct them during battles while keeping in mind their potential future use in Lebanon.
As the Hezbollah and Israel military buildup  continues ,the coming war, like preceding ones between the parties, including July of 2006 Conflict,  is less likely to be the consequence of a  calm rational decision than of  miscalculations and a misreading of the likely battlefields. Unleashing a rapid and unintended escalation in this unstable region, and public pressure once the war ignites.
One example of hypothetical miscalculations leading to an unprecedented destructive war between Israel, Hezbollah and various Shia militias with horrific consequences for their civilian populations could result from the following. Hezbollah and Iran ratchet up their building of underground and surface positions between Damascus and the Golan Heights on orders from Iran’s IRGC’s leader QassimSolemani. Israel immediately conducts intensive air strikes to destroy the new facilities. Hezbollah retaliates from South Lebanon to relieve pressure on Shia villages and the Syrian army near the Golan.
Despite that neither of the two main belligerents may not want a war just now, nevertheless an escalatory all-out war spiral may unleash which cannot be stopped easily or quickly. Especially once high causalities are sustained followed by snowballing violence and both sides upping their commitment, or domestic pressure to achieve victory
Another not so farfetched script could involve Hezbollah or various regional-drafted Shia militias fighting in Syria responding ‘disproportionately’ to Israel’s attack on their allies and while destroying their arms deliveries from Iran. Israel would likely escalate its attacks and the battle becomes a full-scale war with Iran and the USA considering what if any their own involvement will be.
An additional  factor that militates in favor of rapid escalation between the parties are the military advantages of escalating more quickly than your enemy to take the initiative and establish the scope and sequence of operations and influencing the UN ceasefire that would likely be demanded immediately and before long, globally.
Will Hezbollah, eager to burnish its tattered “Resistance” brand risk another war to unite its increasingly questioning base and attempt to unite former supporters and bring back recently lost support from Palestinians?  By provoking war with Israel?
Or will Israel be the first to launch the likely catastrophic second phase in reaction to Hezbollah’s launch of the first phase noted above– with an all-out war unlikely to put an end to Hezbollah’s growing military capabilities?

Debunking The Myth of Islamic State’s Presence in Af-Pak

Nauman Sadiq 


Recently, the Islamic State’s purported “terror franchises” in Afghanistan and Pakistan have claimed a spate of bombings against the Shi’a and Barelvi Muslims who are regarded as heretics by Takfiris. But to contend that the Islamic State is responsible for suicide blasts in Pakistan and Afghanistan is to declare that the Taliban are responsible for the sectarian war in Syria and Iraq.
Both are localized militant outfits and the Islamic State without its Baathist command structure and superior weaponry is just another ragtag, regional militant outfit. The distinction between the Taliban and the Islamic State lies in the fact that the Taliban follow Deobandi sect of Sunni Islam which is a sect native to South Asia and the jihadists of the Islamic State mostly belong to Wahhabi denomination.
Secondly, and more importantly, the insurgency in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Pashtun uprising which is an ethnic group native to Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan, while the bulk of the Islamic State’s jihadists is comprised of Arab militants of Syria and Iraq.
The so-called “Khorasan Province” of the Islamic State in the Af-Pak region is nothing more than an alliance of several breakaway factions of the Taliban and a few other inconsequential local militant outfits that have adopted the name “Islamic State” to enhance their prestige, but that don’t have any organizational and operations association, whatsoever, with the Islamic State proper in Syria and Iraq.
Conflating the Islamic State either with Al-Qaeda, with the Taliban or with myriads of ragtag, local militant groups is a deliberate deception intended to mislead public opinion in order to exaggerate the threat posed by the Islamic State which serves the scaremongering agenda of security establishments.
Regardless, the only difference between the Afghan jihad back in the ‘80s that spawned Islamic jihadists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for the first time in history and the Libyan and Syrian civil wars, 2011-onward, is that the Afghan jihad was an overt jihad: back then, the Western political establishments and their mouthpiece, the mainstream media, used to openly brag that the CIA provides all those AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and stingers to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, which then distributes those deadly weapons amongst the Afghan so-called “freedom fighters” to combat the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.
After the 9/11 tragedy, however, the Western political establishments and corporate media have become a lot more circumspect, therefore this time around they have waged covert jihads against the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi regime in Libya and the anti-Zionist Assad regime in Syria, in which Islamic jihadists (aka terrorists) have been sold as “moderate rebels” with secular and nationalist ambitions to the Western audience.
Since the regime change objective in those hapless countries went against the mainstream narrative of ostensibly fighting a war against terrorism, therefore the Western political establishments and the mainstream media are now trying to muddle the reality by offering color-coded schemes to identify myriads of militant and terrorist outfits operating in Syria: such as the red militants of the Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front which the Western powers want to eliminate; the yellow Islamic jihadists, like Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, with whom the Western powers can collaborate under desperate circumstances; and the green militants of the Free Syria Army (FSA) and a few other inconsequential outfits which together comprise the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition.
If we were to draw parallels between the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the ‘80s and the Syrian civil war of today, the Western powers used the training camps located in the Af-Pak border regions to train and arm Afghan “Mujahideen” against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.
Similarly, the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan are being used to provide training and weapons to Sunni Arab militants to battle the Shi’a-dominated Syrian regime with the collaboration of Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intelligence agencies.
During the Afghan jihad, it is a known historical fact that the bulk of the so-called “freedom fighters” was comprised of Pashtun Islamic jihadists, such as the factions of Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf and scores of other militant outfits, some of which later coalesced together to form the Taliban movement.
Similarly, in Syria, the majority of the so-called “moderate rebels” is comprised of Sunni Arab jihadists, such as Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham, al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State and myriads of other militant groups, including a small portion of defected Syrian soldiers who go by the name of Free Syria Army (FSA).
Moreover, apart from Pashtun Islamic jihadists, various factions of the Northern Alliance of Tajiks and Uzbeks constituted the relatively “moderate” segment of the Afghan rebellion, though those “moderate” warlords, like Ahmad Shah Massoud and Abul Rashid Dostum, were more ethnic and tribal in character than secular or nationalist, as such.
Similarly, the Kurds of the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” can be compared to the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan. The socialist PYD/YPG Kurds of Syria, however, were allied with the Baathist regime against the Sunni Arab jihadists for the first three years of the Syrian civil war, i.e. from August 2011 to August 2014.
At the behest of American stooge in Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, the Syrian Kurds have switched sides in the last three years after the United States policy reversal and declaration of war against one faction of the Syrian opposition, the Islamic State, when the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in June 2014, from where the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011.
Regarding the creation and composition of the Islamic State, apart from training and arms which have been provided to Syrian militants in the training camps located in the Turkish and Jordanian border regions adjacent to Syria by the CIA in collaboration with Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intelligence agencies, another factor that has contributed to the stellar success of the Islamic State is that its top cadres are comprised of former Baathist military and intelligence officers from the Saddam era.
According to reports, hundreds of ex-Baathists constitute the top and mid-tier command structure of the Islamic State who plan all the operations and direct its military strategy. The only feature that differentiates Islamic State from all other insurgent groups is its command structure which is comprised of professional ex-Baathists and its state-of-the-art weaponry that has been provided to all the Sunni Arab militant outfits fighting in Syria by the intelligence agencies of the Western powers, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf states.
Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that morale and ideology plays an important role in battle, and well-informed readers must also be aware that the Takfiri brand of most jihadists these days has directly been inspired by the puritanical Wahhabi-Salafi ideology of Saudi Arabia, but ideology alone is not sufficient to succeed in battle.
Looking at the Islamic State’s astounding gains in Syria and Iraq in 2014, a question arises that where does its recruits get all the training and state-of-the-art weapons that are imperative not only for hit-and-run guerrilla warfare but also for capturing and holding large swathes of territory?
According to a revelatory December 2013 news report from “The National” newspaper affiliated with the UAE government which supports the Syrian opposition: it is clearly mentioned that along with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and other military gear, the Saudi regime also provides machine gun-mounted Toyota pick-up trucks to every batch of five jihadists who have completed their training in the training camps located at the border regions of Jordan.
Once those militants cross over to Daraa and Quneitra in southern Syria from the Jordan-Syria border, then those Toyota pick-up trucks can easily travel all the way to Raqqa and Deir al-Zor and thence to Mosul and Anbar in Iraq.
Moreover, it is clearly spelled out in the report that Syrian militants get arms and training through a secret command center based in the intelligence headquarters’ building in Amman, Jordan, that has been staffed by high-ranking military officials from 14 countries, including the US, European nations, Israel and the Gulf Arab States to wage a covert war against the government in Syria.
Finally, unlike al Qaeda, which is a transnational terrorist organization that generally employs anticolonial and anti-West rhetoric to draw funds and followers, the Islamic State and the majority of Sunni Arab militant groups fighting in Syria are basically anti-Shi’a sectarian outfits. By the designation “terrorism” it is generally implied and understood that an organization which has the intentions and capability of carrying out acts of terrorism on the Western soil.
Although the Islamic State has carried out a few acts of terrorism against the Western countries, such as the high profile Paris, Brussels and Manchester attacks, but if we look at the pattern of its subversive activities, especially in the Middle East, it generally targets the Shi’a Muslims in Syria and Iraq. A few acts of terrorism that it has carried out in the Gulf Arab states were also directed against the Shi’a Muslims in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia and Shi’a mosques in Yemen and Kuwait.

Puerto Rico Is Our Future

Richard Heinberg 

News reports tell of the devastation left by a direct hit from Category 4 Hurricane Maria. Puerto Ricans already coping with damage from Hurricane Irma, which grazed the island just days before, were slammed with an even stronger storm on September 20, bringing more than a foot of rain and maximum sustained winds of at least 140 miles per hour. There is still no electricity—and likely won’t be for weeks or months—in this U.S. territory of 3.4 million people, many of whom also lack running water. Phone and internet service is likewise gone. Nearly all of Puerto Rico’s greenery has been blown away, including trees and food crops. A major dam is leaking and threatening to give way, endangering the lives of tens of thousands. This is a huge unfolding tragedy. But it’s also an opportunity to learn lessons, and to rebuild very differently.
Climate change no doubt played a role in the disaster, as warmer water generally feeds stronger storms. This season has seen a greater number of powerful, land-falling storms than the past few years combined. Four were Category 4 or 5, and three of them made landfall in the U.S.—a unique event in modern records. Puerto Rico is also vulnerable to rising seas: since 2010, average sea levels have increased at a rate of about 1 centimeter (0.4 inches) per year. And the process is accelerating, leading to erosion that’s devastating coastal communities.
Even before the storms, Puerto Rico’s economy was in a tailspin. It depends largely on manufacturing and the service industry, notably tourism, but the prospects for both are dismal. The island’s population is shrinking as more and more people seek opportunities in the continental U.S.. Puerto Rico depends entirely on imported energy sources—including bunker oil for some of its electricity production, plus natural gas and coal. The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) is a law unto itself, a monopoly that appears mismanaged (long close to bankruptcy), autocratic, and opaque. Over 80 percent of food is imported and the rate of car ownership is among the highest in the world (almost a car for each islander!).
To top it off, Puerto Rico is also in the throes of a debt crisis. The Commonwealth owes more than $70 billion to creditors, with an additional $50 billion in pension obligations. Puerto Rico’s government has been forced to dramatically cut spending and increase taxes; yet, despite these drastic measures, the situation remains bleak. In June 2015, Governor Padilla announced the Commonwealth was in a “death spiral” and that “the debt is not payable.” On August 3 of the same year, Puerto Rico defaulted on a $58 million bond payment. The Commonwealth filed for bankruptcy in May of this year after failing to raise money in capital markets.
A shrinking economy, a government unable to make debt payments, and a land vulnerable to rising seas and extreme weather: for those who are paying attention, this sounds like a premonition of global events in coming years. World debt levels have soared over the past decade as central banks have struggled to recover from the 2008 global financial crisis. Climate change is quickly moving from abstract scenarios to grim reality. World economic growth is slowing (economists obtusely call this “secular stagnation”), and is likely set to go into reverse as we hit the limits to growth that were first discussed almost a half-century ago. Could Puerto Rico’s present presage our own future?
If so, then we should all care a great deal about how the United States responds to the crisis in Puerto Rico. This could be an opportunity to prepare for metaphoric (and occasionally real) storms bearing down on everyone.
It’s relatively easy to give advice from the sidelines, but I do so having visited Puerto Rico in 2013, where I gave a presentation in the Puerto Rican Senate at the invitation of the Center for Sustainable Development Studies of the Universidad Metropolitana. There I warned of the inevitable end of world economic growth and recommended that Puerto Rico pave the way in preparing for it. The advice I gave then seems even more relevant now:
  • Invest in resilience. More shocks are on the way, so build redundancy in critical systems and promote pro-social behavior so that people’s first reflex is to share and to help one another.
  • Promote local food. Taking advantage of the island’s climate, follow the Cuban model for incentivizing careers in farming and increase domestic food production using permaculture methods.
  • Treat population decline as an opportunity. Lots of people will no doubt leave Puerto Rico as a result of the storm. This represents a cultural and human loss, but it also opens the way to making the size of the population of the island more congruent with its carrying capacity in terms of land area and natural resources.
  • Rethink transportation. The island’s current highway-automobile dominance needs to give way to increased use of bicycles, and to the provision of streetcars and and light rail. An interim program of ride- and car-sharing could help with the transition.
  • Repudiate debt. Use aid money to build a sharing economy, not to pay off creditors. Take a page from the European “degrowth” movement. An island currency and a Commonwealth bank could help stabilize the economy.
  • Build a different energy system. Patching up the old PREPA electricity generating and distribution system would be a waste of money. That system is both corrupt and unsustainable. Instead, invest reconstruction funds in distributed local renewables and low-power infrastructure.
These recommendations met with a polite response in 2013, but there was little subsequent evidence of a dramatic change of direction. That’s understandable: people tend to maintain their status quo as long as it’s viable. However, when people are in dire straits, they’re more likely to listen to unconventional advice. And when denial is no longer possible, they’re more likely to face reality.
In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein described how free-market policy wonks and neoliberal economists—and the financial and corporate interests that back them—look for moments of crisis as opportunities to trap countries in a cycle of massive infrastructure projects, rising consumption, and debt. No doubt neoliberal vultures are readying to swoop down on Puerto Rico at this very moment with their brand of “aid.” The government and people of the island will have some important choices to make in the coming weeks—whether to double down on infrastructure investments that lock them into a brittle and unsustainable way of life, or to break out in a different direction. They might take inspiration from Greensburg, Kansas—a town that was devastated by a powerful tornado in 2007 and chose to rebuild as “the greenest town in America.”
Obviously, the Puerto Rican people have immediate needs for food, water, fuel, and medical care. We mainland Americans should be doing all we can to make sure that help reaches those in the throes of crisis. But Puerto Ricans—all Americans, indeed all humans—should be thinking longer-term about what kind of society is sustainable and resilient in this time of increasing vulnerability to disasters of all kinds.

Australia: Senate committee calls for flammable cladding ban

Richard Phillips

The ongoing Senate investigation into “non-conforming building products” has released an interim report on the widespread use of polyethylene core aluminum composite panels (ACP) in Australia in the past two decades.
Published on September 6, the report called for a total ban on the importation, sale and use of flammable aluminum composite panels, declaring that there should be no “legitimate” use of the product in Australia.
The report also called for a national licensing scheme for all building professionals, increased accountability, easier access to Australian Standards construction rules, a strict penalties regime for non-compliant work and national “duty of care rules”—i.e., the legal obligation of builders and developers to pay for repairs to faulty and unsafe or illegal construction work.
One inquiry member, cross-bench Senator Nick Xenophon, told the media that if the government did not ban the product, he would introduce an amendment to Australian custom laws stopping the import of flammable cladding. “We cannot under any circumstances bear the tragedy that occurred in London. We must prevent any risk of that happening here,” he declared.
Labor’s spokesman on industry innovation, science and research, Kim Carr, backed Xenophon’s comments, declaring that there had been a “fundamental failure of public safety.”
These comments are disingenuous and are designed to obscure the fact that the responsibility for compromising the health and safety of thousands of people rests with federal and state governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, which have privatised safety inspections and undermined building regulations over the past 20 years.
The decision to issue an interim report was only made after the Grenfell Tower fire in London and angry concerns by fire safety and building engineer peak bodies and apartment block owners over the glacial pace of the Senate investigation.
The committee has been investigating “non-conforming products” since June 2015, following the potentially fatal fire in late November 2014 at the multi-storey Lacrosse apartment block in Melbourne’s Docklands. It initially promised to complete its work within four months, at the end of 2015, but after seven deadline extensions it will not hand down its final report until April 2018—three and a half years after the Lacrosse blaze.
Over 160 submissions to the inquiry, along with testimony from senior firefighters, construction engineers, building safety inspectors and bodies representing unit owners, have thoroughly exposed the parlous state of the industry.
Building safety regulators told hearings that fraud and corruption were widespread but confessed that no builders or developers had been prosecuted for these violations.
While the interim report voiced concern about extensive use of flammable cladding, its recommendations will be ignored. Anything that might significantly undermine the massive profits being made in Australia’s property market will not be implemented.
The two government senators on the Senate committee—Jane Hume and Ian Macdonald—issued a dissenting report. They rejected the call for a ban on the flammable cladding and claimed that the federal government only had limited power to impose penalties for using dangerous and non-conforming products and violating building codes.
Likewise, the assistant federal minister for industry, innovation and science, Craig Laundy also rejected the call for a ban. He is chairman of the federal-state Building Ministers Forum, which is supposed to be conducting a national audit of ACP-clad buildings. Laundy falsely compared the material to timber, arguing, “We are not going to ban all timber production and importation.”
Ron Lawson, a spokesman for the Insulated Panel Council Australasia, the peak body for cladding importers and sellers, said that the Senate committee’s call for bans were a “knee jerk reaction”. He told Fairfax Media that there was “hysteria” about ACP cladding and it “had to stop.”
Whether or not ACP cladding is finally banned in Australia or stricter safety laws or heavier fines imposed for its use, the Senate inquiry will change nothing for those already living or working in buildings covered in this dangerous product.
Building engineers recently told ABC television’s “Four Corners” program that up to 10,000 buildings in Australia could be covered in flammable cladding. Federal and state government authorities, however, have only publicly identified a handful. State governments, moreover, have directed those living in private apartment blocks to organise their own inspections.
The cost of these safety inspections—up to $30,000 per building—is to be borne by the building owners. They will also have to pay for any remedial work or the fitting of internal sprinkler systems, which can amount to millions of dollars. Anyone seeking financial recompense from builders or developers confronts complex multi-million dollar court action and no guarantee of a legal victory.
Those who cannot afford to repair their properties and make them safe are penalised with sharp falls in the value of their homes. Moreover, insurance companies will impose huge premiums and could refuse outright to insure the flammable clad buildings.
While Australian governments, state and federal, feign concern about flammable cladding and other unsafe practices, they have created the conditions for them to flourish. The Senate inquiry’s interim recommendations will be brushed under the carpet and the drive for profit for the few at the expense of the safety of the majority will continue.

More disturbances in UK prisons as conditions worsen

Peter Reyd

“In short, warehousing has largely replaced rehabilitation. It is small wonder that prison riots and disturbances are no longer a rarity; prisons are dangerous places.”
This was said earlier this month of the prison system in the UK by former Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is an apt description.
Brown spoke after yet another disturbance broke out on September 3 at the category B and C prison, HMP Birmingham, after inmates refused to return to their cells late in the afternoon.
This was the spark for a standoff between inmates and officers, in which a small number of prisoners took over a wing. A specialist police attachment, known as Tornado squads, was called in to quell the riot which lasted for more than six hours.
The disturbance took place at what was previously known as the Wilson Green Prison, run by the private security firm G4S since 2011. It was stoked by the introduction of a smoking ban throughout the prison system in England and Wales. Inmates were heard chanting “We want Burn, We want Burn [tobacco].”
Such events are a regular occurrence, given the fact that prisons are social powder kegs due to the hellish conditions prisoners are held in.
The riot took place just one week before the start of a trial of seven inmates for prison mutiny at the same prison on December 16, last year. This was the largest since the riot in 1990 at HMP Manchester, then known as Strangeways. It involved 600 inmates who took over four wings. During the riot millions of pounds of damage was caused.
Only two months prior, inmates at HMP Lewes rioted for six hours against conditions that one refugee inmate described as “worse than Syria.”
Last November over 200 prisoners took over parts of HMP Bedford.
At the end of 2016, on December 22, around 60 inmates at HMP Swaleside in Kent took control of parts of a wing.
On July 23, 2017, Tornado squads were called in to deal with disturbances at HMP Hewell near Redditch in Worcestershire.
This was followed, at the end of July and beginning of August, by riots at Mount Prison in Bovingdon village near Hemel Hempstead. Over two days of rioting, prisoners took over a wing housing more than 200 inmates.
This list covers only the latest and larger prison disturbances in England and Wales. Smaller ones hardly make the news.
Last year evidence submitted to MPs by prison officers revealed that riot squads had been called to prisons 30 to 40 times a month—between March and November 2016—to deal with serious disorder including rooftop protests, hostage-taking and incidents of “concerted indiscipline.”
Prisons have become the breeding ground of substance abuse, violence—among both guards and the prisoners—mental illness, suicide and squalor.
The Annual Report 2016–17 by Peter Clarke, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, found a drastic decline of conditions within the prison system. It described “facilities” as “filthy and dilapidated,” noting that prisons are vermin infested, overcrowded and violent.
A staggering increase in all types of violence was recorded. In the months to December 2016, there was a 27 percent increase in assaults, amounting to 26,000, with assaults on staff up by 38 percent, to 6,844. In the same period, 113 prisoners took their own lives between April 2016 and March 2017—a more than doubling of self-inflicted deaths since 2013.
Mental illness is becoming the norm. A recent report published by the National Audit Office, “Mental health in prison,” states, “Rates of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm have risen significantly in the last five years, suggesting that mental health and well-being in prison have declined.”
It adds, “The number of self-harm incidents rose by 73% between 2012 and 2016. In 2016 there were 40,161 incidents of self-harm in prisons, the equivalent of almost one incident for every two prisoners, although some prisoners will self-harm multiple times.
“There are no reliable data on the prevalence of mental illness in prisons. The most commonly used estimate is that 90% of the prison population are mentally unwell, but this figure dates from 1998 and uses a broader definition of mental illness than many clinicians would recognise.”
These hellish conditions are compounded by overcrowding, which saw a surge of new inmates in England and Wales and a decline in staffing levels of prison officers—which are far too low to accommodate the most basic needs of prisoners—including exercise, training, education, or even access to basic facilities.
The chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook, explained, “Prisons are out of control. A prisoner dies by suicide every three days. Children are locked up with nothing to do for 23 hours a day.
“Record levels of violence mean that men are too scared to leave their cells. Women are injuring themselves more and more. Staff fear for their lives. Conditions are filthy. Enough is enough.”
The former director-general of the Prison and Probation Service, Phil Wheatley, said in a Guardian interview that prisoner numbers had risen by 1,200 since May alone. He noted that the current population of 86,413 is 1,900 higher than the official 2016 projection of prison numbers for this summer—which anticipated jail numbers would fall to 83,700 by next June.
Year on year reports by successive Chief Inspectors of Prisons for England and Wales report a worsening of conditions. There are countless warnings by prison campaigners and civil rights groups.
Scores of documentaries with undercover film footage have been aired, yet the crisis deepens continuously due to austerity measures by successive Labour and Conservative governments, starving not only the prison system of funds but destroying the living conditions of the working class at large.
One of the latest documentaries by whistle blowers filming their experiences from the inside was aired by the BBC on September 5. Panorama showed footage secretly filmed by a young prison officer. Straight out of school and needing a job, he applied for the vacancy as a Detainee Custody Officer at the Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, situated next to Gatwick airport.
Immigration Removal Centres are part of the prison system. The difference is that they do not hold convicted criminals serving their sentence, but foreign nationals waiting to be deported from Britain.
Brook House holds 500 males deemed to be illegal immigrants. Over half are seeking asylum or are deemed to have overstayed their visa. They are meant to stay for a short period, but are there for months or even years. If anything, the situation for those detained at Brook House is more severe than for “normal” prisoners as they are not detained for committing a criminal offence.
People that have come to Britain to escape the horrors of war zones or a life in poverty are left helpless in the face of the brutality they face. The programme graphically showed how they are terrorised with violent and brutal bullying by prison staff and other inmates. Prison officers taunt inmates with racist language and use physical force to deal with prisoners in mental distress.

Trump’s tax plan provides massive windfall to the rich

Trévon Austin 

President Donald Trump revealed his tax cut plan Wednesday, calling it “a revolutionary change.” The plan consists of an array of cuts which would provide a historic windfall for large corporations and the rich. If passed by Congress it would represent the most expansive change to the tax code since the New Deal reforms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The proposal was produced after months of secret talks between the so-called “Big-Six,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, both multi-millionaire former employees of Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, and leading Republicans from the House and Senate.
Trump sought to give the plan a populist touch during a speech announcing the plan in Indianapolis, framing his proposals as a boon for the middle class, American workers and American manufacturing.
“I’ve been waiting for this for a long time. We're going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and more fair for everyday Americans. And we are going to bring back the jobs and wealth that have left our country and most people thought left our country for good,” Trump claimed.
However, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates approximately half of the tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of households, those making more than $700,000 per year, for an average cut of $150,000 per year. Within in this group, the richest of the rich, the top 0.1 percent, would receive 30 percent of the tax cuts, for an average cut of $800,000 per year.
Meanwhile there would be “little discernable” benefit for working class families under Trump’s plan, according to the CBPP. A married couple with one child that earns less than $24,850 a year will receive no tax cut under the plan, while a similar family earning $48,700 will see a cut of just $180.
For individuals, the tax plan would ditch the current system of seven tax brackets and collapse them into three brackets, with 12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent tax rates. This would constitute a tax cut for the wealthiest individuals, who currently have a top tax rate of 39.6 percent, and an increase for the poorest individuals, with a current tax rate of 10 percent.
The proposal contains a suggestion that Congress consider creating a fourth tax rate above 35 percent, which Trump touted as a measure to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share.
However, the plan does not specify what income level the new tax bracket would be associated with, nor does it explicitly tell Congress to create the fourth bracket. This was obviously placed in the plan to ensure that the president can claim he did not rescind his promise that the rich would not benefit from his tax reforms. One can expect the two big business parties to ignore this section of the proposal as a tax bill makes its way through Congress.
Significantly, the plan also calls for the abolition of the estate tax, a tax on inherited wealth. Opponents of the estate tax argue family-owned small farms are endangered by the tax. However, an analysis of data from the Tax Policy Center shows that only 50 small farms are affected by the estate tax in the United States. The overwhelming beneficiaries of this cut will be the heirs and heiresses of wealthy estates such as Trump’s own children.
Furthermore, corporations would save billions under Trump’s plan, as it calls for a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. A proposed transition from an international tax system to a territorial tax system means that corporations would not be taxed on their overseas earnings. This includes a one-time “repatriation tax” aimed at encouraging corporations to bring offshore profits and jobs back to the United States. The level of this tax is left for Congress to decide.
A new tax rate for “pass-through businesses” would be implemented as well. These include businesses and corporations whose profits “pass through” to their owners. The businesses would be taxed at a rate of 25 percent instead of the individual rate that their owners are currently taxed at. Approximately 95 percent of businesses in the United States are structured as “pass-throughs.” Again, this new tax rate would constitute a reduction in the amount of taxes the wealthiest corporation owners would be required to pay.
Trump administration officials have not commented on the cost of the proposed plan. One estimate from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the policies in the plan would cost about $2.2 trillion over ten years.
Beyond reducing deficit spending, top Republicans claim that the resulting economic growth would compensate for the loss in revenue. During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump claimed that his tax plan would raise the economic growth rate to 4 percent.
While leading Democrats, including Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, have postured publicly against Trump’s proposals they are eager to work behind closed doors with the president to slash the taxes for the rich.
Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee received an advance briefing Tuesday on the president’s proposal at the White House. On Wednesday, Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana accompanied Trump on Air Force One to the rally in Indianapolis.