Canada integrating universities into its militarist foreign policy

Laurent Lafrance

An important aim of the new national defence policy Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government announced last June is to integrate the country’s universities more fully into the ruling class’ aggressive and increasingly militarist foreign policy.

The 113-page defence policy document outlines policy changes to draw universities, individual academics, and “promising” graduate students into playing a more important role in developing high-tech armaments and formulating strategy and propaganda for the aggressive assertion of Canadian imperialism’s interests and ambitions around the world.

The defence policy calls for a major rearmament program as well as the “modernization” of NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defence Command), in furtherance of the Canadian Armed Forces’ participation in ongoing and future US-led wars around the globe.

The real objective of the policy was made clear by Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland in early June when she said Canada must be ready to use “hard power,” i.e. wage war, to defend its interests under conditions of growing “threats” arising from the rise of China, “Russian expansionism,” and the collapse in popular support for the US-led world capitalist order.

The document commits the government to a $62 billion increase in military spending over the next two decades, including a 73 percent hike in the next 10 years, which will boost the annual defence budget from its current level of $18.9 billion to $32.7 billion in 2026-27. It includes plans for an additional 5,000 troops, the purchase of 88 fighter jets rather than the 65 proposed by the previous Conservative government, 15 new warships, the procurement of armed drones for surveillance and combat, and additional armoured and supply vehicles for the army. Canada’s military will also develop a team of cybersecurity experts to conduct offensive cyber warfare.

The defence policy argues that in all these initiatives the Canadian Armed Forces must collaborate more closely with the “academic community.” In other words, the Canadian ruling class wants to transform universities into research laboratories for the military, including in the development of new high-tech armaments, cyberwar software, aerospace technologies, and electronic and photographic surveillance.

The government is also seeking to use universities as think tanks and propaganda departments for Canadian imperialism. It aims to use them more explicitly and systematically to recruit and train academics who can assist in developing Canada’s geostrategic-military policy and promoting an aggressive foreign policy, including by providing “humanitarian” and “social justice” pretexts for imperialist war. In this regard, it is important to note that Canadian academics, politicians and retired officers including Michael Ignatieff, Lloyd and Tom Axworthy, General Romeo Dallaire, and Jennifer Welsh played an important role in fashioning and popularizing the so-called “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine that the US and Canada have repeatedly invoked to justify imperialist “regime-change” wars.

The latest effort by the Canadian bourgeoisie to cloak its predatory ambitions in “progressive” garb is a defence policy pledge, which will no doubt find favour among the well-paid purveyors of identity politics on campuses across the country, to significantly increase the percentage of women and “visible minorities” serving in the armed forces.

An explicit aim of the new defence policy is to draw top-level students into Canadian military-strategic/foreign policy circles. The policy statement calls for developing “collaborative networks of academic and analytic communities,” so as to be able to “broaden the diversity of the pool of experts that we can draw upon.”

As part of its increased military budget, the CAF will dedicate $4.5 million per year in a revamped and expanded “defence engagement program.” According to the document, this money will be used to develop networks of researchers and experts, a new scholarship program for graduate students and post-Doctoral fellows as well as the expansion of an existing “expert-briefing” program.

The defence policy statement also announced the launching of a new program called Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEAS), which will see $1.6 billion invested over the next 20 years to develop “new cooperative partnerships with the private sector, universities, and academics.” Fields of research for these new “clusters” will include “surveillance, cyber tools for defence, space, alternative fuels, remotely-piloted systems, data analytics, and counter-improvised explosive device solutions.”

The Liberals’ defence policy exposes the fraudulent character of Prime Minister Trudeau’s anti-war posturing during the 2015 election campaign. In fact, his government has expanded Canada’s involvement in Washington’s military-strategic offensives in the Middle East as well as against Russia and China.

While the Liberals are intent on expanding the Canadian bourgeoisie’s economic and military partnership with the US, the crisis of American capitalism is also pushing them to strive for a larger role for Canada in world affairs and this is a key aim of the new defence policy. One of the major points Foreign Minister Freeland made in her June speech is that Canada must set its “own clear and sovereign course” and this requires that it expand its capacities to intervene militarily in conflicts around the globe.

Longstanding collaboration between universities and the military

The new defence policy notes that the Canadian Armed Forces has worked with academia for many years and that continuing to do so “will deepen the Government’s understanding of global threats and the complexity of modern conflict.”

It commits the Defence Ministry to working more closely with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the ministry in charge of Canada’s economic policy, including financing university science research aimed at fostering a “competitive, knowledge-based economy.”

Mechanisms are already well established for merging universities with the imperialist agenda of the Canadian bourgeoisie. Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), an agency of Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND), explains on its website that it “provides the DND, the Canadian Armed Forces and other government departments as well as the public safety and national security communities, the knowledge and technological advantage needed to defend and protect Canada’s interests at home and abroad.”

DRDC also claims that “Universities can generate knowledge, provide access to resources and develop highly-qualified personnel in support of the (military’s) Science & Technology investment in defence and security”; and it stipulates that the required science and technology should be accessed directly from industry and academic institutions “in areas where DRDC cannot or should not be the source of supply and where legal, security or sovereignty issues are not impediments.”

The ties between the military, private companies and academia have expanded rapidly over the past decade. An anti-militarist group called “De-militarize McGill,” active at Montreal’s McGill University, exposed that one of Canada’s principal research universities has increasingly become the site of a wide range of military research projects, for both the Canadian military and the US Air Force. It reported that between 2011 and 2014, McGill received more than $1 million in defence contracts from Canada’s Department of National Defence.

The student organisation revealed through documents gained from access-to-information requests that some McGill professors led research aimed at developing software for guided missiles and for drones to be used in urban warfare. Other researchers were involved in developing lethal thermobaric explosives and tools for surveilling social media, profiling real-world communities, and influencing and controlling social movements that might destabilize governments.

In 2016, De-militarize McGill showed that McGill professor and director of the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Laboratory, Wagdi Habashi, used the CFD lab to develop military software that was then sold to aerospace companies via his own private company, Newmerical Technologies International. The lab is funded in large part by aerospace manufacturers Bombardier, CAE, and Bell Helicopter Textron, all of which have close ties to the Canadian and US militaries.

The CFD software, called FENSAP-ICE, is used to optimize the design of drones and to develop discrete anti-icing systems. As Habashi noted in a 2009 paper, UAV (drone) missions during the NATO war in Afghanistan were marked by “unforeseen mid-level icing encounters.” FENSAP-ICE sought to provide a new form of ice protection. Habashi’s company also sold software to Lockheed Martin in the early 2000s for use in the development of the F-35 fighter jet.

Many more such examples were exposed by De-militarize McGill, and it is not hard to imagine that military-oriented research, often conducted without public scrutiny, is widespread across Canadian universities.

The arms industry is a major player in Canada. A governmental study published in 2014 showed that the Canadian defence industry had annual sales of almost $10 billion in goods and services, produced by close to 640 firms. The industry boasts that it accounts for some 63,000 jobs spread throughout Canada and contributes $6.7 billion to GDP. This has increased in recent years and continuing expansion is a specific defence policy goal. According to IHS Jane’s, the defence industry publisher that tracks military spending, Canada ranked sixth overall among all arms-exporting countries in 2016 and became the second biggest arms-seller to the Middle East after the United States.

Since the Second World War, Canada’s armaments industry has been deeply integrated into the American military machine. With the 1956 Defence Industry Productivity Sharing Agreement, the defence sector became the first industry to achieve a form of Canada-US free trade, giving Canadian arms manufacturers duty-free access to the US market.

The growing military involvement of Canada’s academic institutions should be vigorously opposed by students and youth. Universities and colleges should be institutions where science and knowledge are taught and research and experimentation encouraged with the aim of elevating the intellectual and cultural level of the population—not tied to the military and to private enterprises dedicated to enabling an aggressive, militarist foreign policy in pursuit of profits, resources and strategic advantages for Canadian big business.

New Zealand: Pike River mine disaster families make Supreme Court appeal

Tom Peters

The Supreme Court in Wellington heard an appeal on October 5 by family members of some of the 29 men who died in the 2010 explosion at the remote Pike River Coal (PRC) mine. The families sought a judicial review of the government regulator WorkSafe’s decision in 2013 to drop charges against PRC chief executive Peter Whittall.

In February, the Court of Appeal rejected the families’ case. The five Supreme Court judges have not said when they will make a decision.

No one has been held accountable for the disaster despite a 2012 Royal Commission finding that it was entirely preventable and that PRC had prioritised production over safety. Government regulators allowed PRC to operate despite flagrant safety breaches, including no adequate emergency exit, and inadequate ventilation and methane gas monitoring.

In 2013, PRC was found guilty of safety breaches and ordered to pay $3.41 million in reparations, but the company was bankrupt and refused to pay. In December that year, WorkSafe reached a back-room deal with Whittall’s lawyers to drop 12 health and safety charges against him in exchange for payment to the families by Whittall and other company directors of the $3.41 million.

Police also decided in July 2013 not to press any charges over the disaster. Earlier this year it emerged that police had suppressed video footage taken inside the mine, which proved it could be re-entered safely to gather evidence. The mine has never been re-entered and the 29 bodies have not been recovered.

The families’ lawyer Nigel Hampton argued in the Supreme Court that the “bargain,” made by WorkSafe and Whittall without the approval of the families, was “unprecedented, unprincipled and unlawful.” He said it “sets a dangerous precedent” for wealthy individuals to be able to buy themselves out of prosecutions.

In response, WorkSafe’s lawyer Aaron Martin declared there was no “improper bargain” because WorkSafe was not “benefiting” from the non-prosecution of Whittall. In fact, any trial would inevitably have exposed the regulator’s failure to prevent the explosion and the role played by successive governments in deregulating safety in the mining industry.

Martin descended into semantic sophistry. He admitted “there was an understanding” that WorkSafe would drop charges against Whittall in exchange for the payment to the families, but then added, “that doesn’t mean there was a deal.”

The lawyer said WorkSafe decided a prosecution of Whittall was “not in the public interest” because of “a range of factors,” including the probability of a “long, costly trial,” which would have covered material already examined by the Royal Commission. Under questioning, Martin admitted there was no evidence WorkSafe had considered dropping the charges prior to the offer of payment.

Kath Monk, Bernie Monk, Sonya Rockhouse and Anna Osborne outside the Supreme Court

Anna Osborne, whose husband Milton died in Pike River, told the World Socialist Web Site that the regulator’s defence was “absolute nonsense.” She described the Royal Commission as “a farce,” adding, “I think it was done way too early. What came out of it was best guesses as to what happened and we’ve got no real answers and still no accountability. What I’d like to see is an independent inquiry to properly get to the bottom of it all.”

Sonya Rockhouse, who lost her son Ben, said if the families succeed in their application for a judicial review it would be “a moral victory” against the government. She added, “There’s a lot more we would like to happen. We’d like Whittall to be brought back; we’d like the charges to be reinstated. None of that realistically is going to happen.”

Rockhouse said the families would continue to demand justice “because no one’s been held to account, not one person.” She pointed out that after 96 people were crushed to death in 1989 at the Hillsborough stadium in Britain, it took 28 years before any of the police officers whose actions led to the disaster were charged.

The families hope the next government will organise a manned re-entry of the drift tunnel that leads into the mine. Seven years after the disaster, the opposition Labour, Green and New Zealand First Parties have promised to carry out a re-entry. Following the inconclusive election result on September 23, NZ First is currently deciding whether to form a coalition government with the National Party or the Labour-Greens bloc.

The government-owned company Solid Energy had wanted to permanently seal the mine entrance and only backed down earlier this year after months of protests by the families, which gained widespread public support.

Bernie Monk, whose son Michael died in the mine, told the WSWS that former Prime Minister John Key had made empty promises to re-enter the mine and retrieve the bodies. He said although many people were excited by the opposition parties’ promises, “I’ll never be excited till the job is finished.”

Monk said the Pike River case “needs to be reopened, that’s pretty obvious,” and a re-entry of the mine “will bring a lot of evidence.” He added that the families were still trying to obtain more information held by the police about the mine. “We’re fighting for justice and accountability in New Zealand,” he said.

None of the political parties has committed to reinstating charges or called for reopening the criminal investigation.

Monk said he had heard of recent attempts to cut staff at WorkSafe’s specialist mining inspectorate, which was boosted following the Pike River disaster. He said a WorkSafe employee “came to me personally and asked me to do something about it. The disasters are going to start all over again.”

Monk listed those he held responsible for the disaster in addition to the company: “The Department of Labour [now WorkSafe] cut back the inspectorate in 1992 under the National Party. The Labour Party didn’t do anything [to reverse the cuts]; they were in power for three terms. They have honestly come forward and told us that.”

He continued: “Mines Rescue did work at Pike River; they knew that that mine was unsafe. And number four is the unions, because they did not do their job.”

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, now called E Tu, represented about half the workforce at Pike River. It worked hand-in-hand with the company. The union knew about safety breaches at the mine, which had prompted one walkout by workers in protest, but it never organised industrial action to ensure the mine was safe.

The union made no public statement about the unsafe conditions. Immediately after the explosion EPMU leader Andrew Little, who later became the Labour Party leader, defended Pike River Coal. He told the media there was “nothing unusual” about the mine and nothing that the union had been concerned about.

Outgoing German finance minister warns of financial bubbles

Nick Beams

The outgoing German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has warned the policies of the world’s major central banks have created the danger of a new financial crisis due to the formation of speculative bubbles in the system.

His concerns were voiced in an interview with the Financial Times, published on Monday, as he steps down from his position as the country’s finance minister after eight years to take up the post of speaker in the German parliament.

Schäuble, who has been one of the chief architects of the austerity measures that have devastated the conditions of workers, pensioners and youth in Greece, along with other European countries, told the newspaper he objected to the term (austerity), saying it was an Anglo-Saxon way of describing a “solid financial policy.”

“The IMF and others agree with us that we are in danger of encouraging new bubbles to form. We have no idea where the next crisis will happen but economists all over the world are concerned about the increased risks arising from the accumulation of more and more liquidity and the growth of public and private debt. And I myself am concerned about this too,” he said.

These remarks are a telling admission on two counts. First, that another crisis will take place, with potentially even more devastating consequences than 2008, indicating that governments and central banks have done nothing to overcome the conditions that led to the meltdown a decade ago. And secondly, that they “have no idea” about how and when it might occur, much less have put in place measures to prevent it.

Schäuble, whose views reflect those of key sectors of German finance capital, also warned there were risks of stability in the euro zone as a result of large amounts of non-performing loans held by major banks.

His warnings of the dangers of a financial bubble echo those of the Deutsche bank chief John Cryan. In speech last month, Cryan warned of “signs of financial bubbles in more and more parts of the capital market where we wouldn’t have expected them.” He called for an end to the “era of cheap money,” saying it was causing “ever greater upheavals.”

As a result of their quantitative easing policies since 2008, the world’s four major central banks—the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan and Bank of England—now hold $14 trillion of financial assets. This compares with their holdings of $6 trillion before the financial crisis. The Fed has increased its holdings from around $800 billion to $4.5 trillion.

The Fed has ended quantitative easing and has announced that it will start to run down its asset holdings to the tune of $100 billion a month from the start of next year. But interest rates remain at historically low levels and the monthly reduction in holdings is small compared to the overall holdings. Announcing the decision last month, Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen emphasised she did not want to spark any “outsized” movement in financial markets as a result of the new policy.

With the current program due to expire in December, the ECB has yet to indicate how it will reduce its purchase of financial assets. At present it has €2.3 trillion on its balance sheet.

The official rationale for the ECB policy is that it was needed to lift inflation near but below 2 percent. However, there are indications that asset purchases may extend well into 2018, possibly at a lower rate, because inflation is still stuck at around 1.5 percent and may even go lower.

The minutes of the ECB September meeting, released earlier this month, indicated that the central bank could remain an active force in European bond markets longer than had been previously expected. According to the minutes, members of the EBC governing council expressed the wish “to keep monetary conditions across the 19-member area loose and cement the region’s economic recovery.”

The next meeting of the ECB scheduled for October 26 has been described by analysts at the finance corporation ING as “likely to be one of the greatest balancing acts” in the central bank’s history.

The ECB would have to announce some kind of tapering in the bond-purchasing program, while, at the same time, “it will have to try to avoid markets interpreting the announcement as overly hawkish, thereby leading to a premature tightening of financial conditions,” they wrote.

So far as its official policy is concerned, the ECB is caught in a contradiction. On the one hand, the limited economy recovery in the euro zone points to a cutback in the level of financial support it is providing. But on the other hand, the rise in the value of the euro is pushing inflation further below the bank’s target rate because of the cheapening of imports.

The main danger of a new financial bubble appears, at this point, to be in the stock markets. The US market continues to trade at record highs while markets in Japan and Europe have also lifted.

Last Thursday, the S&P 500 index closed at its sixth daily consecutive record, its longest streak of highs since 1997 during the dotcom boom. But despite warnings that stocks are historically overvalued—only during 1929 and the lead-up to the collapse of the dotcom bubble have valuations been higher, according to finance economist Robert Shiller—the market continues to rise.

The mood was summed up by one financial analyst, cited by the Wall Street Journal. He likened the situation to 1996 when the head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, pointed to “irrational exuberance” yet the market kept rising for the next three years.

Last week the financial web site MarketWatch reported that the market appeared to be in a “melt-up stage” driven by excessive credit and by a “timid Fed” reluctant to raise interest rates.

It defined melt-up as a “dramatic and unexpected” rise in an asset class “driven in part by a stampede of investors who don’t want to miss out on the rise rather than by improvements in fundamentals.”

This brings to mind nothing so much as the famous comment of Citigroup CEO Chuck Prince who noted in July 2007: “When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

While there were signs at that time of a major crisis in formation, the financial boom continued. But it led to the greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression. Present conditions, in which rising markets are fuelled not by growth in the real economy, but by ultra-cheap money point in the same direction.

British government prepares further draconian legislation to censor Internet

Steve James 

British Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s speech at last week’s Conservative Party conference elaborated on the government’s proposal for a Commission on Countering Extremism, announced in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing in May.

The measures being put together to expose “extremism and division” amount to a fundamental attack on democratic rights, free speech and privacy.

Rudd described “extremism” in sweeping terms, underscoring that the government is seizing on recent attacks as the pretext for all-embracing Internet censorship and the criminalisation of free speech. Besides “warped Islamist ideologies,” Rudd insisted, “violent and non-violent extremism in all its forms—anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, intolerance of women’s rights—these, and others, cannot be permitted to fester.”

Rudd and her government’s view of extremism could be extended ad infinitum to all forms of political dissent and criticism . “The safer Britain I want to build is a united one,” she said.

The home secretary asserted that recent attacks “include an element of online radicalisation.” She complained that “extremist and terrorist material can still be published online, and is then too easily accessible on some devices within seconds.”

Following last month’s bombing at Parsons Green Underground station in London, calls for further Internet censorship were being made before the bomber’s identity had even been established.

Contrary to Rudd’s assertions, the main and only proven common element between the recent terroristic attacks on innocent concertgoers and tube travellers is that the perpetrators have been known to the police and security forces for an extended period.

Nevertheless, the government intends to change the law “so that people who repeatedly view content deemed terroristic online could face up to 15 years in prison.”

Currently, material falling foul of section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has to be saved locally to a computer drive or printed to be deemed criminal. In future, if the government gets its way, the mere act of repeatedly viewing a video stream of a site deemed extremist without “reasonable excuse” could be enough to merit a jail sentence. According to the Home Office, “reasonable excuse” will be restricted to academics, journalists and others who may have what the Home Office view as a legitimate reason.

Rudd also harangued the giants of social media, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft, with whom she is already collaborating closely, to “bring forward technology solutions to rid your platforms of this vile terrorist material.” “Act now,” Rudd went on. “Honour your moral obligations.”

Under the guise of clamping down on images of child abuse, Rudd made clear that she wanted widespread deployment of crawler technology, described as Project Arachnid, to rapidly identify offensive images and automate their instant removal. “Our investment,” Rudd continued, “will also enable internet companies to proactively search for, and destroy, illegal images in their systems.”

A technology that can identify images of child abuse can target images of anything else and, in the hands of the Home Office and the Web giants, would be used to suppress alternative opinions, and consolidate the immense worldwide program of Web censorship already being developed.

Rudd used the same hysterical technique to propagandise for the government’s attack on encryption, the basis of most secure data transmission on the Internet. “We also know that end to end encryption services like Whatsapp, are being used by paedophiles. … I do not accept it is right to allow them and other criminals to operate beyond the reach of law enforcement.”

According to this logic, all means of communication and transport, not to mention public utilities, should be suppressed because paedophiles and other criminals use them.

Under powers contained in the Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force last year, Rudd can already issue a technical capability notice (TCN) to demand companies undermine the security of their own technology. Any organisation with over 10,000 users in the UK can be instructed to alter their product to allow interception of communications and metadata collection.

In practice, the government confronts major problems in pushing through its attack on encryption because so much of modern finance and industry depends on it. Moreover, by the nature of encryption, which involves the exchange of keys generated at each end of a communication session, and which are then used to encrypt traffic during that session, the very notion of a “back door” is fraudulent.

Encryption either works, or it has been broken. Once an exploit exists, it is only a matter of time before its use becomes widespread, with potentially catastrophic consequences, as was shown with the Wannacrypt ransomware outbreak earlier this year, which brought much of the National Health Service to a standstill but was based on the Eternal Blue exploit developed by the US government’s National Security Agency (NSA).

Rudd has been repeatedly advised, including by industrial and technical commentators by no means otherwise hostile to her government’s agenda, where this might lead. Speaking in the House of Lords last month, Baroness Martha Lane Fox, founder of LastMinute.com, criticised earlier comments from Rudd banging the drum against encryption. Fox described Rudd’s approach as “asinine” and “alarmist and a disservice to the people we serve.”

None of this bothers Rudd, however, who is one of the candidates to replace Theresa May when her premiership finally disintegrates. Rudd declared that she doesn’t “need to understand how encryption works to understand how it’s helping the criminals.”

More than mere ignorance is on ostentatious show here. Nor should one rely on a scenario where the “voice of sanity” within ruling circles somehow acts as a counter to the sharp turn to state repression. For Rudd, the target is neither potential terrorists nor sex criminals but the entire working population at a time of acute and growing social and political tensions.

Rudd’s initial focus is on clamping down on opposition to British imperialism’s predatory wars in the Middle East, but this will inevitably be extended to cover all anti-war sentiment and commentary at a time when Britain and its major ally, US imperialism, are threatening North Korea with military intervention as part of a general patter of threats and aggression against Both China and Russia.

The same concerns inform proposals for a new Espionage Act to replace the Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1929 and 1939. Still at the level of proposals with the Law Commission, the statutory body that reviews and updates legislation in line with government demands, the Espionage Act proposals, “Protection of Official Data: A Consultation Paper,” include measures that would, according to the British-based Open Rights Group (ORG):

• Make persons who are not British subjects or citizens, and who have never been on British territory, potentially chargeable and subject to extradition;

• Eliminate the requirement to prove that any alleged release of information actually caused damage;

• Prohibit a defence of prior disclosure unless information was already “lawfully in the public domain”;

• Include economic information as a punishable disclosure;

• Prohibit any form of public interest defence.

The ORG noted that the proposals are in part a reaction to the efforts by Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and former NSA agent turned whistle-blower Edward Snowden to expose imperialist war crimes and secret electronic surveillance of the population, although neither Assange nor Snowden is mentioned in the Law Commission documents.

In 2013, Snowden exposed the extent of Internet surveillance organised by the British and US intelligence agencies. WikiLeaks continues to reveal numerous vast data troves exposing the machinations of the rich and powerful to the world’s working population, despite Assange’s incarceration in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. Seeking to guard against future such exposures, the Law Commission insists it is “necessary to ensure sensitive information is safeguarded against those whose goal is to obtain it contrary to the national interest.”

Ten dead, thousands displaced as wildfires rip through northern California

Trévon Austin

At least 10 people have died and more than 20,000 evacuated, in what authorities are calling one of the most destructive fire emergencies in California’s history. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, an estimated 1,500 structures have been destroyed and 73,000 acres burned.

Firefighters are battling at least 15 different fires spread across eight counties—Napa, Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino, Yuba, Nevada, Calaveras, and Butte.

The largest of the blazes began around 10 p.m. Sunday night and spread rapidly due to 50 mph winds and dry conditions in Napa and Sonoma counties, a region known for its vineyards and wineries. The fires sent smoke as far south as San Francisco, about 60 miles away.

The fire spread so quickly that some residents received an official evacuation notice three hours after they had already evacuated in the face of the advancing flames.

A group of elderly evacuees in Sonoma County, California

A large section of Santa Rosa, a city with about 175,000 in Sonoma County, has been ordered to evacuate. Over 200 patients were forced to evacuate from Kaiser Permanente Hospital and Sutter Hospital, including expectant mothers. At Kaiser Permanente, nurses had to race patients away from the area in their own personal vehicles.

Over 100 patients have been treated at local Napa and Sonoma county hospitals for fire-related illnesses—including burns, smoke inhalation and shortness of breath.

The immediate cause of the fire is unknown but authorities noted that dry conditions made it easy for the fires to spread. Janet Upton, a deputy director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, told the New York Times that October is typically the busiest month for wildfires in California. Low humidity, dry conditions, a buildup of vegetation, and heavy winds known as diablo winds create prime conditions for wildfires to spread rapidly. “Combined, that’s a recipe for disaster,” she noted.

“I’ve been with the department for 31 years, and some years are notorious,” Upton said, concluding, “I’m afraid that 2017 is going to be added to that list now.”

Governor Jerry Brown issued an emergency proclamation for Napa, Sonoma and Yuba counties. “These fires have destroyed structures and continue to threaten thousands of homes, necessitating the evacuation of thousands of residents,” his emergency proclamation stated.

“This is really serious. It’s moving fast. The heat, the lack of humidity and the winds are all driving a very dangerous situation and making it worse,” Brown said at a news conference. “It’s not under control by any means. But we’re on it in the best way we know how.”

Napa County Fire Chief Barry Biermann pointed to a lack of resources that exacerbates the danger posed by wildfires and limits the ability to contain fires when they break out. “As of right now, with these conditions, we can’t get in front of this fire and do anything about the forward progress,” he said. Firefighters have been forced to focus on evacuation efforts.

Because fires are blazing in more than one part of California, firefighters are not able to focus their efforts on properly combating the flames.

Additionally, state and federal budgets have not kept up with the increasing scope and intensity of wildfires. At the beginning of this month, before the latest fires, Cal Fire had used $250 million of its $426.9 million emergency fund which was expected to last until June of next year.

On federal lands, which account for one-third of the state, there is no emergency fund for fighting wildfires, meaning that money is taken from fire prevention and forest health budgets, only exacerbating the dangers.

“So real work on the ground to reduce the intensity of fires isn’t getting done or is being delayed,” the director of Cal Fire, Ken Pimlott, told KQED news earlier this month. “It really just further exacerbates the intensity of fires because we can’t get on the federal ground in particular to get the fuels treated.”

Recent budget cuts have also hampered efforts to prevent and battle wildfires. California’s proposed 2017-18 budget cut funds for local efforts to remove dead trees to just $2 million. Acres of dead trees are a central problem fueling wildfires.

Cal Fire saw funding slashed nearly in half from $91 million to $41.7 million for the extended fire season, increased firefighter surge capacity, Conservation Corps fire suppression crews, and aerial assets.

Active wildfires were reported across the state this weekend. A fire burning through Orange County in Southern California burned multiple structures and forced residents of about 1,000 homes to evacuate. The wildfire spread over more than 4,000 acres and has burned at least six buildings in Anaheim.

US, Turkey suspend visa services in diplomatic row

Halil Celik

On October 8, both the USA and Turkey mutually suspended all non-migrant visa services, amid an accelerating deterioration in relations between the two NATO allies and the Trump administration’s escalating war threats against North Korea and Iran.

In a statement issued on Twitter, the US Embassy in Ankara announced the suspension of all non-immigrant visa services at its diplomatic facilities in Turkey: “Recent events have forced the United States Government to reassess the commitment of the Government of Turkey to the security of US Mission facilities and personnel. In order to minimize the number of visitors to our Embassy and Consulates while this assessment proceeds, effective immediately we have suspended all non-immigrant visa services at all US diplomatic facilities in Turkey.”

Immediately afterwards, the Turkish Embassy in Washington responded in kind, declaring that it had “suspended all non-immigrant visa services at all Turkish diplomatic facilities in the US.”

This came after the chief prosecutor in Istanbul issued a detention warrant for a local employee of the US Consulate. The employee has reportedly not yet been apprehended.

On September 25, Metin Topuz, another locally-employed staff member of the US Consulate General in Istanbul, was arrested for spying and attempting to overthrow the government, i.e. his links with the FETO (Fethullahist Terrorist Organization). Named after Fethullah Gulen, a pro-American Turkish Islamic cleric living in Pennsylvania in a self-imposed exile, who leads an international work of schools, firms and foundations backed by the CIA, the FETO has been accused by the Turkish government of masterminding the failed coup attempt of July 15, 2016.

In a statement issued Thursday, the US Embassy said that it was “deeply disturbed” at the arrest of Topuz, adding, “We believe these allegations to be wholly without merit.” The Turkish foreign ministry replied that Topuz was neither a staff member of the American Consulate nor entitled to diplomatic or consular immunity.

In addition to these two employees, a dozen Americans, including another consulate staff and an American pastor, Andrew Brunson, are behind bars and facing long prison sentences on charges of having played a part in the failed, US-backed coup attempt of last year.

At a meeting with reporters in Istanbul on October 6, the US Ambassador to Turkey John Bass said: “I am deeply disturbed that some people in the Turkish government prefer to try this case through media outlets rather than properly pursuing the case in a court of law before a judge. That does not strike me as pursuing justice, it seems to me more a pursuit of vengeance.”

Ankara intends to use the detainees as bargaining chips with Washington. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the Turkish Police Academy, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that his government would hand over Brunson to the USA in exchange for Fethullah Gulen. “You have another pastor in your hands. Give him to us and… we will give him to you,” he said.

Lying behind the crisis in US-Turkish relations are deepening strategic conflicts between the two countries as Ankara improves ties with Russia and Iran, two of the main targets of US war planning.

Over the weekend, the Turkish army launched its latest military operation in Syria’s Idlib province, reportedly in close cooperation with Russian forces. In Idlib, the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army militia is fighting the jihadist Tahrir al-Sham—a group spearheaded by the former Al Nusra Front, the Syrian wing of Al Qaeda.

The Turkish army is mounting its operation under an agreement reached in Astana, Kazakhstan last month and backed by Russia and Iran, which support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. On September 14, Russia, Turkey and Iran, as well as the Syrian government and opposition groups, came together to implement a cease-fire in so-called de-escalation zones in Syria. According to the agreement, Turkish troops will be stationed in Idlib, while Russia and Iran will hold the surrounding territory to suspend attacks.

In justifying the Turkish invasion in Syria, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Saturday that “bombs would fall on our cities, if we didn’t take measures,” adding, “When we don’t go to Syria, Syria comes to us.”

Turkey’s main concern, however, is the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia, the main proxy force of the US imperialism and its European partners in Syria. Ankara regards the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged a three-decades-long guerrilla war inside Turkey.

“We will never allow a terror corridor that begins in Afrin and goes to the Mediterranean,” Erdoğan said, referring to the Syrian side of Turkey’s southern border controlled by US-backed Kurdish forces.

Turkey was initially one of the major supporters of rebels fighting the Assad regime during the now six-and-a-half-year war. However, its focus has moved from ousting Assad to securing its own border against Kurdish groups, pitting Ankara in a conflict with its NATO imperialist allies.

While declaring its support for Ankara’s current military operation in Idlib to “ensure the de-escalation regime in the region,” the Pentagon is, in fact, deeply concerned about a possible conflict between Turkish troops and YPG fighters located around the city.

Moreover, Turkish military operation come amid media reports of the alleged preparation of a US-backed military offensive on İdlib. Speaking at a panel on July 30, Brett McGurk, the US special envoy for global coalition to counter the Islamic State, said, “Idlib has turned into a safe zone for al-Qaida terrorists on the Turkish border.” This was interpreted by Ankara, Moscow and Tehran as the sign of an imminent US offensive in Syria.

Along with close cooperation in Idlib, Ankara and Tehran also took sides with the Iraqi central government against the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) independence referendum on September 25. They imposed sanctions against the KRG that could be followed by a possible military action to seize external border posts held by the KRG from the Iranian and Turkish side. Ankara is also prepared to send its troops to Kirkuk and other “disputed territories” occupied by the KRG during the fight against the Islamic State.

Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman sharply responded to new US threats, including to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. According to Iran’s Tasnim news agency, Bahram Qasemi described such a move as a “strategic mistake,” adding: “Iran’s reaction would be firm, decisive and crushing.”

Plastic Litter: The Challenge at Sea

Vijay Sakhuja

A number of innovations and initiatives that are shaping the oceans and seas can potentially help ensure that these water bodies remain environmentally and ecologically stable. These range from greener and efficient vessels propelled by solar and wind energy, sustainable use of sea-based living and non-living resources, conservation of marine ecology, and making the oceans free of pollutants, particularly plastic litter.

Plastic litter in the oceans particularly has invited international condemnation. Images of floating islands of trash, also called ‘gyres’, carcasses of marine mammals, turtles entangled in fishing nets, and birds dying due to ingestion of plastic have enraged the general public. Several environment groups have highlighted the growing menace of marine plastic litter, and civic bodies, governments and international organisations have made note of these developments.

A number of initiatives are currently underway to address the problem. These can be placed into at least four categories. First, there is lack of public awareness of the fact that nearly 80 per cent of marine litter has origins on land. Due to poor waste management practices, untreated sewage often drains into the seas. At another level, mariners are accused of littering the oceans with trash from ships, and fishermen are responsible for discarding gear and losing nets. Nearly 70 per cent of heavy marine litter like glass, metal, engineering equipment, electrical devices, containerised waste including radioactive materials sink to the ocean floor - but these have washed ashore. For instance, the ungoverned Somali waters had been used as a dumping ground for radioactive materials such as uranium, lead, mercury and industrial chemical waste. However, lighter weight materials such as straws, cigarette waste (butts), plastic bottles, polystyrene products and such other materials float and remain suspended together to form ‘gyres’.

Second, there are preventive programmes led by the plastic industry. The industry has shown commitment and has been closely associated with several programmes built around best environment practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment. In March 2011, nearly fifty plastics associations across the globe signed the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter. However, they still need to conduct research to enhance product disposal and identify innovative solutions for the litter problems which could even be part of corporate social responsibility including stewardship of cleaning plastic litter in coastal areas.

Third, a variety of innovative technological solutions are being developed to address marine litter. These are low-cost devices and can be developed at the local level. For instance, the V5 Seabin unit is a floating debris interception device capable of receiving 1.5 kg per day of the floating debris and is suitable for recreational water bodies such as marinas, yacht clubs, lakes, or other areas with calm waters. Likewise, a technical team of researchers in the UK is developing algorithms and software to "automatically detect and map plastic and marine litter on coastlines using drone imagery." It also involves using techniques to help distinguish different types of litter such as plastic waste, ropes, fishing gear,  drink bottles, etc. 

Fourth, there is now a proliferation of Beach Action Groups that have voluntarily begun addressing marine litter on waterfronts. Significantly, they enjoy popular public support. For instance, in Mumbai, India, the Versova Residents Volunteers (VRV) supported by the local civic body, residents and fishermen, removed 5.3 million kg of trash from Versova beach over 85 weeks, making this unique voluntary clean-up the largest in the world. The initiative was a catalyst for The Clean Seas global campaign launched in Bali, Indonesia; and a similar group in Bali has begun clearing their beaches of plastic.

Finally, marine litter is a problem created by humans and thus must also be solved by humans. In essence, human beings are part of the problem and the solution. This would involve inspiring people through awareness programmes on marine litter and the critical necessity to keep waterfronts clean. This must be supported by  civic bodies and local governments to adopt stringent laws and regulation on use and disposal of plastic, complete ban on use of single-use plastics, and preventing untreated sewage draining into the sea. The industry, besides taking these issues under corporate social responsibility, must innovate and adopt better technology for plastic disposal. Also, ocean litter has no geographic or political boundaries and the remedy and solutions must be developed through global partnerships and involve international organisations.

amfAR HIV/AIDS Public Policy Internship and Fellowship Program 2018

Application Deadline: 

• For placements beginning in January/February 2018, applications must be submitted by 1st November 2017.
• For placements beginning in June/July 2018, applications must be submitted by 15th April, 2018.

Offered annually? Yes

To be taken at (country): Washington, DC, USA

About the Award: The Allan Rosenfield Internship and Fellowship Program at amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, was established to honor the distinguished public health leader Allan Rosenfield, M.D., dean of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health for 22 years, chair of amfAR’s program board, and a longtime member of the Foundation’s board of trustees. This training program has been established for exceptional college undergraduates and graduate students who aspire to become leaders in public health and in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Rosenfield interns and fellows are based at amfAR’s Public Policy office in Washington, D.C. They dedicate their time to public policy research and writing under the mentorship of the office’s senior leadership. amfAR’s Public Policy office is known for its considered analysis of emerging issues in AIDS policy including biomedical research, domestic and international AIDS funding, harm reduction, equity and human rights.

Successful candidates are expected to conduct original writing and research related to the domestic and global HIV/AIDS epidemic as well as advocate to members of Congress and their staff, organize meetings and conferences, and participate in community briefings.

Type: Internship, Fellowship

Eligibility:  

• Applicants for internships must be enrolled in an undergraduate degree program.
• Applicants for fellowships must have received an undergraduate degree prior to beginning the fellowship. A graduate degree related to public health policy and its associated fields (e.g., M.D., J.D., M.P.P, M.P.H., Ph.D) is preferred but not required.
• Applicants must demonstrate strong writing and research skills and have a demonstrated interest in health policy or advocacy related to HIV/AIDS. Knowledge of the U.S. government and legislative processes is also preferred but not required.

Number of Awardees: 4

Value and Duration of Program: Placements are paid and full time and are up to six months for fellows and up to three months for interns. All fellows and interns are based in Washington, DC.

How to Apply: Applicants must send:

• A resume;
• A cover letter describing your interest in this issue and working at amfAR; and
• A writing sample (no more than 2,000 words);

Applications must be submitted online here

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: amfAR

Important Note: Please note, while applications are accepted on a rolling basis, candidates will only be contacted regarding the most current term. Successful candidates will be contacted after the application deadline.

LDI Africa Emerging Institutions Fellowship Program for Young African Leaders 2018

Application Deadline: 15th November, 2017

Eligible Countries: African countries

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Fellows come to the EIFP with diverse backgrounds and skill sets. However, all fellows are required to have an undergraduate degree, a commitment to excellence, and be fluent in English. Host organizations may also designate other specific skill requirements for their Fellows. Other requirements include:

• Two to ten years of professional experience
• Early to mid-level professional with interest in/familiarity with emerging markets
• Professional background in business, management consulting, strategy, finance, and social enterprise and international development.

Selection Process: Interviews are mainly conducted via Skype video. Shortlisted applicants undergo a preliminary interview with LDI Africa selection board member, and if successful will undergo a second interview round with a host organization(s). Based on these two interview rounds the fellowship decision will be reached by LDI Africa.

Finalists will be notified via email by LDI Africa that they have been selected as a Fellow.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: LDI Africa through its EIFP recruits organizations that are doing excellent work particularly in the financial and investment industries across Africa. Partners range from mid-level to large global institutions; with capital investment of $200,000 and above.

While working with their organization, Fellows enjoy the following benefits and more;

• Experience the growth of Africa’s most innovative businesses
• Direct exposure to emerging markets
• Paid positions, housing and travel
• Training and professional development opportunities
• Potential consulting, employment and seed capital investment after fellowship
• Access to the global LDI Africa network

Duration of Fellowship: 12 months

How to Apply: Interested candidates should go through the Application instructions before applying.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: LDI Africa

African Peacebuilding Network (APN) Research Grants 2018

Application Deadline: 5th January, 2018.

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: A core component of the African Peacebuilding Network, the research grants program is a vehicle for enhancing the quality and visibility of independent African peacebuilding research both regionally and globally, while making peacebuilding knowledge accessible to key policymakers and research centers of excellence in Africa and around the world. Grant recipients will produce research-based knowledge that is relevant to, and has a significant impact on, peacebuilding policy and practice on the continent. For its part, the African Peacebuilding Network will work toward inserting the evidence-based knowledge that this group produces into regional and global debates and policies focusing on peacebuilding.

Support is available for research and analysis on issues such as the following:

• The root causes of conflict, conflict prevention, and transformation;
• State and non-state armed actors, transnational crime, extremism, displacement, and emerging trajectories of conflict;
• Post-conflict elections, democratization, and governance;
• The relationship between peacebuilding and statebuilding, including state-society relations and state reconstruction;
• Transitional justice, reconciliation, and peace;
• The economic and financial dimensions of conflict, peacekeeping, and peace support operations;
• Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and peacebuilding;
• UN-AU-REC cooperation and Peace Support Operations;
• Digital media, technology, and peace;
• Gender and peacebuilding;
• Health, post-conflict development, peace, and security;
• The prevention of mass atrocities; and,
• Cultures of peace.

Type: Research Grants

Eligibility: 

• All applicants must be African citizens currently residing in an African country.
• Academic applicants must hold a faculty or research position at an African university or research organization and have a PhD obtained after January 2007.
• Policy analysts and practitioner applicants must be based in Africa at a regional or subregional institution, a government agency, or a nongovernmental, media, or civil society organization and have at least a Master’s degree obtained before January 2012, with at least five years of proven research and work experience in peacebuilding-related activities on the continent.
• Women are strongly encouraged to apply

Selection Criteria: The APN is interested in innovative field-based projects that demonstrate strong potential for high-quality research and analysis, which in turn can inform practical action on peacebuilding and/or facilitate interregional collaboration and networking among African researchers and practitioners.

Proposals should clearly describe research objectives and significance, with alignment between research design/method and research questions and goals. Proposals should also demonstrate knowledge of the research subject and relevant literature, and address the feasibility of proposed research activities, including a time frame for project completion. Applicants should also discuss the likely relevance of the proposed research to existing knowledge on peacebuilding practice and policy. We strongly encourage the inclusion of a brief, but realistic budget outline (keeping within the allotted amount for the grant), to fit appropriately within a six-month project and the page limit required.

Number of Awardees: Up to fifteen (15) individual grants of a maximum of $15,000 will be awarded.

Value of Research: $15,000

Duration of Research:  Grants are awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis and are intended to support six months of field-based research, from June 2017 to December 2017.

How to Apply: 

• Completed Application Form
• Research Proposal & Bibliography
• Current CV
• Proposed Research Timeline
• Proposed Research Budget
• Two Reference Letters
• Language Evaluation(s) (if required)

All applications must be uploaded through the online portal.

Visit Research Webpage for details

Award Provider: Social Science Research Council (SSRC)

Discover Football Women Conference for Women in Football and Journalism (Funded to Germany) 2018

Application Deadline: 16th October 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): Berlin, Germany

About the Award: DISCOVER FOOTBALL is the largest network of women who use football as a tool for empowerment. Women’s football is still underfunded, marginalized and a lot less visible than the men’s game.

Football is a great tool to open up conversations about gender inequality in all parts of society. Gender-based discrimination against women in sport is also apparent in the unequal representation of women in sport media, and the negative portrayal of women athletes and women sports remains a persistent problem. In addition, women’s sporting events remain marginalized from the mainstream multi-billion-dollar sport-media industry and men’s events invariably dominate media coverage as well as global and local attention. Especially in sports this discrepancy is eminently noticeable. The low quantity and quality in media coverage of women’s sport continues to be influenced by gender stereotypes and harms the image and potential of women’s football. In order to overcome these obstacles, the representation of women in media needs to increase and perception has to change.

Purpose of the conference:

• Exchange with women involved in football from all over the world
• Access to underreported stories
• Opportunity to learn about the intersection of gender and sports
• Opportunity to share and contribute your own skills and experiences
• Increase visibility of women in sports
• Develop and publish stories about women in football
• Become part of a global network of women in football/sports

Type: Training

Eligibility:  

• Coaches, team manager, players, women working in football associations or organizations working with football, who want to gain expertise in media relations are welcome to apply.
• Journalists who are already reporting about women in sport and journalists who are interested in sport and gender are welcome to apply.
• Speaking English is not a requirement, interpretation will be provided.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The organizer, with support from the German Foreign Office, will cover travel costs, accommodation, visa fees and part of meals during the event.

Duration of Program: December 6-10.

How to Apply: Please send your application by Oct 16th to application2017@discoverfootball.de

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: German Foreign Office, Discover Football