14 Mar 2018

The World’s Darkest Hour: The British Empire As Criminal Enterprise

Romi Mahajan


The day before the 90th Academy Awards, a friend from the Academy called me with a suggestion.  He was adamant.  “You know that the Churchill Movie will win some awards and you should have an article ready to publish before the announcement,” he admonished.  I agreed but failed to produce it in time.  Strangely enough, I wrote a lot in the 24 hours between his call and seeing Gary Oldman accept an Oscar for portraying Winston Churchill but I could not get myself to comply with his request.  A cop out no doubt, but I was frankly too exhausted to once again make the case that far-greater thinkers and writers (notably, Madhusree Mukerjee, Shashi Tharoor, and Mike Davis) have been making for years- that Churchill was a mass-murderer.  I’ll add to this that the death toll of Churchillian racism and imperialism exceeds that of Hitlerism and Stalinism and that the British Empire is, second only to Mother Nature, certainly history’s greatest criminal.  Nowhere was that crime more extreme in its death toll than India.
No matter the facts, “Churchillian” is a metonym for Statesmanship, Churchill the cynosure of all eyes seeking freedom’s light.  Bookstores have entire sections devoted to him while the colonies that suffered under the enormous weight of his hatred might merit a book or two.  Quotes from him adorn presentation materials from NGOs and Governments, even Fortune 500 power-points.
A curious transposition indeed for a man whose own close associates were shocked at his hatred, racism, blood-lust.
As Oldman babbled on thanking Churchill, I shrank in my seat.  Luckily, my sloth made little difference thanks to  the indefatigable Shashi Tharoor, who wrote a brilliant piece– far better than anything I could produce—in the Washington Post.  Madhusree Mukerjee added another poignant salvo in Outlook India, in which she discusses, inter alia, the Bengal Famine, and the millions dead at the hands of British/Churchillian connivance.  Mukerjee has also authored one of the most powerful indictments of the “Last Lion” Churchill- Churchill’s Secret War, from which one passage is particularly haunting:  Referring to the rations in Bengal in 1943,
“…. the gruel offered at the relief kitchens got thinner, so that a pound of rice a day was feeding three people.  Something after that the portion was further reduced, to four ounces per person per day.  That came to 400 calories, at the low end of the scale on which, at much the same time, the inmates of Buchenwald were being fed.” 
One needn’t have too vivid an imagination to understand what that parallel implies.
The Churchill industry continues unabated, producing hagiographies, busts, and fodder for brochures. That Hollywood jumped into the fray is hardly surprising.  As with Mukerjee, I cannot get myself to see The Darkest Hour.   Perhaps it’s a way of paying respect to the dead.

Odebrecht-related bribe revelations threaten to wipe out Peruvian political establishment

Armando Cruz & Cesar Uco

A political earthquake was let loose early this month in Peru when the main business representative of the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, Jorge Barata, testified to Brazilian and Peruvian prosecutors that the multinational had paid out bribes in the form of campaign contributions—amounting to several million dollars—to the main political figures who have ruled the country from the beginning of the last decade up to the current president, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK).
Barata’s testimony—part of a guilty plea in the Brazilian Lava Jato investigation into corruption—not only implicates all the presidents who ruled Peru since the collapse of the autocratic, corrupt government of Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000), but also Lima’s former “left” mayor, Susana Villarán (2011-2014), and the main big business federation CONFIEP. The corruption seeped down to all of these figures’ main subordinates in the state apparatus as well as their associated political parties.
These revelations have led many to question the political future of all the figures involved, the most visible faces of the Peruvian political class for over a generation. Many commentators are arguing that all of them should withdraw from political life (if they manage to avoid jail) and that a new political class rise to fill the vacuum.
This follows the previous testimony that the former CEO of the Brazilian multinational that bears his name, Marcelo Odebrecht, gave in another guilty plea last year, detailing the bribes paid to officials of different Peruvian governments to secure giant construction and infrastructure contracts.
Odebrecht’s detailing of the multinational’s bribery machine in Peru had already shaken the establishment: former president Alejandro Toledo (2001-2006) fled to the US last November after an arrest warrant was issued and currently resides in San Francisco, under the apparent protection of US authorities; while former President Ollanta Humala (2011-2016) has been detained since July, along with his wife, Nadine Heredia, in a “preventive prison,” awaiting their day in court.
PPK himself was implicated in the revelations, as he had been prime minister and economy minister under Toledo’s administration and had a main role in awarding the contract for the construction of the “Interoceanic Highway” to Odebrecht in 2005. He denied having received any bribe from the Brazilian company, but eventually Odebrecht himself detailed that they made cash contributions to two companies set up by PPK. The president was then forced to admit that he, in fact, received “some money” from Odebrecht for working as a “consultant” for the company after leaving the Toledo administration.
This set into motion impeachment proceedings by Congress. The fujimorista Fuerza Popular (FP)—which holds an absolute majority in Congress—was the main promoter of the impeachment after the corruption investigation was threatening to extend to the party’s leader, Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the jailed former president. But the motion was supported by all other parties in Congress, which apparently concluded that the immensely unpopular PPK had become a problem for the stability of the country.
The impeachment unexpectedly failed, after Kenji Fujimori—brother of Keiko—led a group of dissident FP congressmen to vote no and the pseudo-left Nuevo Peru (NP) caucus (of former “left” presidential candidate Veronika Mendoza) abstained after claiming that the impeachment was a fujimorista plot to undermine the government and take power.
It was then revealed that the president himself had been negotiating with Kenji to pardon his father in exchange for the votes to defeat impeachment. Alberto Fujimori was released at the end of last year after serving 8 years of a 25-year prison sentence imposed in 2009 after his conviction on human rights and corruption charges.
The pardon politically backfired for the government, leading to dozens of protests—mostly by young activists—and the loss of the support from the “left.” While the NP and Frente Amplio (the pseudo-left coalition of which NP was once a part) had publicly called for a vote for PPK in order to defeat Keiko Fujimori during the last elections, the pardon made it no longer tenable for them to continue promoting him as the “lesser evil.”
Since the pardon, PPK’s government has sunk further in the polls, reaching an abysmal 17 percent.
In his testimony, Barata detailed how much was paid to every candidate, and who was the receiver in each case, prompting virtually everyone involved to deny their guilt.
PPK’s Odebrecht receiver and fundraiser for his failed 2011 campaign was Susana de la Puente (who was handed US$300,000). Like the president himself, she spent most of her professional life as a Wall Street predator banker specializing in exploiting the Latina American people.
During the decade of Fujimori’s rule, de la Puente, a figure of the Peruvian aristocracy, got along very well with the autocratic government, which helped her expand the influence of J.P. Morgan in Peru and the rest of Latin America. PPK recently come out in her defense, dismissing calls for her removal as ambassador to Great Britain.
In recent days, a new drive has begun to secure the impeachment of PKK. This time however, as a result of the Odebrecht scandal ensnaring Keiko Fujimori as well, of the 30 legislators backing a motion to initiate proceedings, only five come from the FP. The leading role has been assumed by the bourgeois “left” parties, with 10 congress members from Nuevo Peru and 10 from Frente Amplio backing the measure.
These parties, whose principal role is to divert the struggles of the Peruvian working class back under the domination of bourgeois politics and the capitalist state, are sensitive to the growing popular anger provoked by the combination of rampant corruption at the top and the decline of living standards and basic rights for the masses of working people. Their sense is that PPK must be removed in order to prevent the eruption of social upheavals.
There are growing calls for the first vice-president, Martin Vizcarra, to assume the presidency. But, for the working class, Vizcarra and PPK are of the same lot.
When PPK took office in July 2016, Martin Vizcarra took the position of minister of transport and communication. In May 2017, he resigned his post after announcing the cancellation of a public-private contract to build a long-awaited new international airport in Chinchero, in the Cusco region. The cancellation was due to the similarities between the Chinchero contract and the corrupt deals signed with Odebrecht.
Meanwhile, the impasse between the executive and legislative branches continues affecting the economic future of the country. According to Claudia Cooper, minister of economy and finance, there are 252 projects, investments worth US$9.23 billion and 53,000 jobs in danger, if Congress does not pass the necessary laws replacing Emergency Decree 003, which was imposed in response to the corruption scandals and will soon expire.

Falling wages point to economic and social reality in Australia

Mike Head

Over the past two months, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has seized upon statistics showing increases in the number of jobs in Australia, claiming that his government’s “jobs and growth” election slogan of 2016 has become the “big outcome” of 2017–18.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) labour market estimates showed that the number of people employed grew by 403,000 in the year to December, increasing the total workforce by about 3.3 percent to about 12.4 million. Turnbull said the result marked the longest run of consecutive monthly job increases since 1978.
Turnbull is desperate to claim some achievements by his increasingly unpopular and unstable Liberal-National Coalition government, while having barely survived the 2016 election. He is seeking to convince the corporate elite that it can still politically deliver an agenda of huge cuts to company taxes and social spending.
In reality, far from “jobs and growth,” the ABS data points to a very different picture—increasing casualisation, a systemic lowering of wage levels and recessionary conditions across entire industries, accompanied by deepening social inequality.
Despite the jobs increase, the ABS unemployment estimate has remained at 5.5 percent. More than 720,000 workers are classified by the ABS as actively seeking jobs. Other surveys put the figure at almost twice that level.
Nearly 70 percent of the employment increase during 2017 was in jobs described by the ABS as “full-time,” seemingly halting a trend of workers being pushed into part-time work. But the “full-time” statistic includes casual workers and contractors, who now make up about 40 percent of the workforce.
Since the 1990s, growing numbers of workers have been forced into insecure jobs. They may be counted as full-time, but they typically have lower pay, inferior working conditions and no basic rights. The rate of casualisation alone has risen from 19 percent in 1992 to 25 percent, or about 3 million workers.
Over the past 15 months, four sectors accounted for nearly 90 percent of the employment growth—construction, health care, education and training, and retail and “other services.” Employment in generally better-paid industries such as finance and mining fell or stagnated.
Jobs in health care, including disability programs, and education grew, but these services are being increasingly privatised or outsourced, with wages usually lower than in the public sector. The biggest jobs growth was still in construction, reflecting the continuation of an unsustainable housing boom, which is largely based on soaring household debt levels and property prices.
The trend estimate of average hours worked decreased slightly to 138.8 hours per month, or around 32.0 hours per week. More people may be employed, but for fewer hours.
The dominant process is the driving down of workers’ wages. Average compensation per employee grew by just 1.3 percent during 2017. With inflation officially at 1.9 percent, that represents an average real pay cut of 0.6 percent.
For working-class households, the cut was greater because the ABS cost of living index understates the impact on those households of essential costs, especially the soaring prices of electricity, gas, health care, child care and, above all, housing.
In real terms, the average compensation per employee of $19,902 was 3.7 percent below the peak of 2012, when the mining boom unravelled, and was still below the $19,358 recorded in December 2010. In other words, there has been a seven-year cut in workers’ wages, beginning under the last Labor government, which was defeated in 2013.
Average real household incomes, another key indicator, also fell in 2017 and they remained 0.1 percent below where they were at the 2013 election.
Last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the weak wages outcomes threatened the government’s vow to the financial markets to produce a budget surplus by mid-2021. The IMF threw doubt over the government’s rosy forecasts of annual wages growth rising to 3.5 percent, which would generate higher income and consumption tax revenues.
The latest ABS gross domestic product (GDP) estimates also put paid to the government’s claims of strong “growth.” During the December quarter of 2017, GDP grew by just 0.36 percent in seasonally adjusted terms, the third worst quarterly result in the past five years.
The trend result was a little better, indicating annual growth of 2.6 percent. But this still marked 21 consecutive quarters where the annualised GDP growth was below 3 percent, the longest such period ever recorded, exceeding the 13 weeks registered after the 2008 global financial crisis.
Over the past five years, GDP per capita—taking into account population growth—has averaged just 0.9 percent. In the past, such levels have indicated recession.
Moreover, during the December quarter, household consumption accounted for 5.6 points of GDP growth, apparently boosted by new iPhone sales. Next was government spending and public investment, which contributed 4.8 points. These increases offset falls in net exports and non-dwelling construction, which both registered minus 4.8 points.
This indicates that the economy is being kept in the positive by household consumption, despite falling average incomes, as well as by federal and state outlays, mainly on business-related infrastructure projects. This debt-fuelled shot in the arm cannot last indefinitely.
Business investment is continuing to lag, despite the Reserve Bank of Australia trying to encourage it by keeping the official interest rate at a record low 1.5 percent since August 2016. That low rate has also enabled households to take out larger mortgages, so any rate rises will produce widespread financial stress.
Soaring house prices have already sent household debt levels to historic highs, among the highest in the world. In January, the ABS said total household liabilities had reached $2.466 trillion, or 200 percent of disposable income, up from 60 percent in 1988.
As with all these statistics, the averages mask widening economic and social inequality. Lower-income households have suffered the worst house price rises. A Grattan Institute report, released last week, calculated that the price of the cheapest detached houses had doubled in 15 years, while higher-priced properties rose by 70 percent.
Average spending on housing increased from about 10 percent of total pre-tax household income in 1980 to about 14 percent by 2016, but for low-income households the burden rose from 22 percent in 1994 to 28 percent.
Any bursting of the housing bubble, or even significant declines in values, could trigger problems for the banks and finance houses. Outlying areas of capital cities, especially Sydney and Melbourne, where working-class people have been forced to move to find lower prices, are likely to be worst affected.
At present the highest level of “mortgage stress”—where mortgage payments consume more than 30 percent of income—is in Wollert, a far-northern Melbourne suburb, where 23 percent of households are under mortgage stress.
This potentially explosive situation underscores the vulnerability of Australian capitalism—which relies heavily on raw material exports and foreign investment inflows—to shock waves from the Trump administration’s trade war measures. It also is generating intense social unrest and political disaffection with all the parties of the capitalist parliamentary establishment.

Great power politics, militarism, increased deportations: The right-wing programme of Germany’s grand coalition

Peter Schwarz 

The new German government will be sworn in today, but the media has already begun to condition the public to its programme. In doing so, they confirm what the WSWS has written about the coalition treaty from the start: the policy of the grand coalition will be characterised by great-power politics, militarism and fierce attacks on social and democratic rights.
On Saturday, Der Spiegel published an essay entitled “Thank You, Donald.” The editor-in-chief of the magazine, Klaus Brinkbäumer, sums up what Sigmar Gabriel, Ursula von der Leyen, Wolfgang Ischinger, Herfried Münkler and other representatives of German foreign policy have proclaimed in recent months and draws definite conclusions.
One must be grateful to the American president, because “the cracks in the transatlantic alliance” offer Germany the “opportunity” to “grow up,” reads the article’s central argument. Germany must once again conduct a dirty foreign policy based on great-power politics. “The times when we could rely on the US and leave all the major, and above all dirty tasks, to the US are over,” Brinkbäumer declares, arguing, “We must once again make Europe a world political force.”
Brinkbäumer casts an envious eye at “non-democratic China,” which advocates “free trade and globalisation,” which is “predictable” and is “in certain respects a better partner” than “an America shattered in its democratic foundations.” For multinational issues, Europe “needs to choose the partners it needs to impose what it considers right. And of course, when necessary, against the US.”
Brinkbäumer then summarises what this means concretely in four points.
“We must say goodbye to the gentle, protected, sometimes hypocritical foreign policy of the past,” reads the first. Germany can no longer “hide” and “take morally pure positions.”
Secondly, he advocates openly propagating militarism rather than disguising it: “When it comes to military operations involving huge expenditures and outright risks, then in a democracy it should first be argued about and then decided.”
He then goes on to demand a foreign policy based on interests and not on values; this must also be debated “fearlessly.” He cites as an example Germany policy for Turkey and asks: “Do we want Turkey to respect human rights and democratic rules, or do we want to prevent it orienting towards Moscow or Beijing?”
Finally, Brinkbäumer demands: “We must unite Europe into a single entity.” In the end, “we must have a joint financial and economic policy, a joint army, a joint strategy and thus a joint foreign policy.” The aim must be “a strong Europe—or we Europeans yield up our importance and lose the fight.”
A decade ago, such an openly imperialist programme would have provoked protests or at least caused a sensation. Today, there is a consensus within the ruling elite and its parties, including the Left Party. The coalition agreement, signed by the CDU, CSU and SPD on Monday, spells this out in detail.
The international framework, which permitted Germany after the Second World War to become an economic great power by relatively peaceful means, no longer exists. Geo-strategic differences have long existed with the US. These are now compounded by a trade war, involving threats of import duties on steel and aluminum and punitive taxes on cars by US President Donald Trump, which would hit at the heart of the German economy.
“There is no other country that would so be hard hit,” Der Spiegel quotes the economist Gabriel Felbermayr. Every fourth German job depends on exports. In particular, five key industries—auto, machinery, electrical engineering, pharmaceuticals, precision instruments—are major exporters to America.
The European Union (EU), by far the most important market for the German economy, is also disintegrating. Following the British Brexit, parties hostile to the EU have now gained a majority in the parliament in Italy, a founding member of the European Economic Community. And despite enthusiasm for the French president, Berlin and France have come no closer to implementing the reform of the monetary union proposed by Macron—even though the next financial crisis is looming.
The ruling class of Germany is reacting to this crisis by returning to the criminal methods it used in the past. In order to regain world power, it seeks to dominate the EU and turn it into a well-equipped military alliance.
This has a direct impact on domestic policy. Militarism and great-power politics are incompatible with democracy. Years of welfare cuts combined with a huge expansion of the low-paid sector have already sharpened class tensions enormously. Now, rising military spending is on the agenda. The target agreed in the coalition pact of 2 percent of GDP as required by NATO amounts to a doubling of the military budget to a total of €70 billion per year. This all has to be paid for by the working class.
That is why the campaign against refugees is now being stepped up again, although the number of applications for asylum is declining significantly. The campaign against refugees serves to direct social discontent against the most vulnerable layer in society. At the same time, it is used to wipe out basic democratic rights and erect a police state to suppress social opposition.
The new interior and homeland minister, Horst Seehofer (CSU), marked the beginning of this renewed assault on Sunday when he announced a “master plan for more resolute deportations,” mass surveillance and other police state measures. On the same evening, in the course of a German television talk show, he received the backing of the new CDU general secretary, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer; the SPD politician Manuela Schwesig; the parliamentary faction leader of the Left Party, Sahra Wagenknecht; and FDP leader Christian Lindner.
On Monday, deputy CSU leader and group leader of the European People’s Party in the European Parliament, Manfred Weber, followed suit with a long interview in the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
Weber declared he was “horrified” by the Italian election result. A breakdown of the EU “would mean the end of our global assertiveness,” he warned. He then identified the “miserable failure” of EU states “in migration policy” as the chief problem.
His solution: “We need tough security for our borders. ... If the Bulgarians try to prevent illegal migration with fences on the border with Turkey, then they deserve support.” Europe needs “active officers” for joint border security. Instead of the current 1,500, “at least 10,000” are required.
As a role model for the deportation of refugees, Weber cited the 2016 agreement with Turkey. “We need to organise direct but structured repatriations from the camps, as, for example, from [the Greek island] Lesbos back to Turkey. ... In Libya, we must at least build enclaves to which we can return and provide for illegal migrants.”
“Dirty, interest-oriented foreign policy,” “huge spending on military operations,” “resolute deportations”—these are the keystone policies for the new government that takes office today. It will be the most right-wing German government since the overthrow of the Nazi regime.

China’s NPC formally approves Xi’s indefinite rule

Peter Symonds

The National People’s Congress (NPC) voted on Sunday to formally approve constitutional changes to remove the two-term limit on the China’s president and vice-president. The change, which was foreshadowed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), cements President Xi Jinping as a Bonapartist figure presiding over a regime confronting mounting internal and external crises.
The 3,000 or so heavily-vetted delegates rubberstamped the constitutional amendments, with a token two votes against and three abstentions. Xi, who was installed in 2013, has already served one five-year term. He now will be able to stay as president past 2023. He also will hold the powerful posts of CCP chairman and head of the Central Military Commission, which have no term limits.
Over the past five years, Xi has steadily accumulated power in his hands, exploiting a so-called anti-corruption campaign to purge potential rivals and factional opponents. He has effectively sidelined Premier Li Keqiang by establishing small leading groups under his control, including on economic matters that have been the preserve of the premier. Xi’s changes to the military have concentrated more power in the hands of the Central Military Commission at the expense of regional military commands.
Xi’s dominant position was evident at last October’s CCP Congress, where “Xi Xinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” along with his key policies, were enshrined in the constitution. In a break with the convention of the past three decades, no potential successor to Xi was appointed to the top party body—the Politburo Standing Committee—which is now dominated by Xi loyalists.
The NPC also voted to include so-called Xi Jinping Thought in the constitution. Other constitutional amendments sought to strengthen the CCP’s power over the state apparatus—a move that was further consolidated on Tuesday with the announcement of major changes to the ministries. State television described the measures, which axe 15 ministries and vice-ministries, as a “drastic reform.”
A new anti-corruption body—the National Supervision Commission—will expand the powers and scope of the party’s present Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Whereas the old agency could detain and investigate CCP members, the new commission will have the power to investigate others who hold public posts, including administrators and managers, who are not party members. Xi will ensure that the head of the new commission is one of his supporters.
A new financial regulatory body will include the existing banking and insurance regulators. The decision reflects growing fears of financial instability in China as a result of a massive build-up of debt and the activities of the shadow banking system that operates outside the major state-owned banks.
A third regulatory body will establish an expanded environmental ministry to reduce overlap and deal with issues of pollution and climate change that Xi has given a high priority—at least cosmetically.
In justifying the changes, particularly the concentration of power in Xi’s hands, the emphasis has been on stability. Shen Chunyao, director of the Legal Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee, told the media: “If you look at the past two decades, having the three posts served by one person is not only effective, but also crucial, for the country’s long-term stability, and an orderly power transition.”
Externally, China faces the prospect of trade war and war as the Trump administration seeks to block any challenge to US global hegemony from Beijing. The latest Chinese budget outlined by Li at the NPC increases military spending, especially in the area of hi-tech arms, in a bid to counter US imperialism’s overwhelming military outlays.
Speaking on Monday, Xi stressed the need for greater cooperation between military and civilian sectors, particularly in scientific and technological areas. “Implementing the strategy of military-civilian integration is a prerequisite for building integrated national strategies and strategic capabilities and for realising the Party’s goal of building a strong military in the new era,” he said.
At the same time, the CCP regime confronts growing social tensions at home. Three decades of capitalist restoration have led to a widening gulf between rich and poor. Far from being socialist in any sense, the CCP represents a tiny layer of ultra-rich billionaires—some of whom were NPC delegates.
Under Xi, Beijing has continued to expand its police-state apparatus, cracking down on any form of dissent or opposition. According to a report to the NPC last week, nationwide security spending reached 1.24 trillion yuan ($US196 billion) last year, up by 11.4 percent from 2016. The internal security budget first surpassed military spending in 2010. It is now almost 20 percent higher than the military budget.
The fact that China is spending more on its police apparatus than the military reflects deep fears in the Chinese bureaucracy of social unrest—especially by the huge Chinese working class, estimated to number 400 million. With the economic growth rate slowing to 6.5 percent and further mass layoffs in the steel and coal industries planned, the regime is desperate to prevent protests or strikes becoming the focus of a broad oppositional movement.
The CCP still brands the upheavals of the working class associated with the Tiananmen Square movement in 1989, which was begun by students, as “counter-revolutionary,” in order to justify the brutal military suppression that followed. Unlike the students, who primarily called for democratic reforms, the workers were driven into action by the sharp deterioration of their living conditions that followed the regime’s pro-market restructuring. Nearly three decades later, capitalist restoration has made many more inroads into the social position of the working class, which has expanded massively.
Amid acute class tensions, the CCP and the NPC have ensured that Xi can stay in power as a political strongman. His task is to suppress internal factional disputes and strengthen the state apparatus to confront the danger of war with the US, and a new upsurge of the class struggle at home.

Russia threatens counter-strikes on US forces in Syria

Halil Celik & James Cogan

Amid rapidly escalating provocations against Russia by the US, Britain and other allies, General Valery Gerasimov, the chief of general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, vowed on Tuesday to attack any forces that directly or indirectly target Russian troops operating in Syria.
Gerasimov told a gathering of his top commanders: “If the lives of Russian officers are threatened, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will retaliate against missile and launch systems.”
The general’s statements are a direct warning that Russia will attack American warships or airbases that are responsible for any strikes. They were made in response to a series of unsubstantiated accusations by American officials that the Russian-backed Syrian government has used chemical weapons in its operations against US-backed rebel militias.
On April 6, 2017, such allegations were used as the pretext by the Trump administration to fire dozens of cruise missiles against one of the Syrian military’s main airbases. According to reports at the time, Russia was informed shortly before the attack, so it could evacuate any personnel it had in the vicinity.
On Sunday, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis cited unconfirmed reports of chlorine attacks on the rebel-held Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta and threatened the Syrian government with retaliation if they were confirmed. He said that President Donald Trump had “full political maneuver room” to take whatever decision he believed was appropriate.
“It would be very unwise for them to use weaponized gas. And I think President Trump made that very clear early in his administration,” Mattis told reporters before landing in Oman. “Either Russia is incompetent or in cahoots with Assad. There’s an awful lot of reports about chlorine gas use or about symptoms that could be resulting from chlorine gas,” he added.
French President Emmanuel Macron joined in chorus, declaring on Monday that France was also prepared to launch targeted strikes against any site in Syria used to deploy chemical attacks that result in the deaths of civilians. He accused Russia of not doing enough to permit relief efforts into eastern Ghouta.
According to Reuters, Macron said: “The day we have, in particular in tandem with our American partners, irrefutable proof that the red line was crossed—namely that chemical weapons were used to lethal effect—we will do what the Americans themselves did moreover a few months ago; we would put ourselves in position to proceed with targeted strikes.”
The same day, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, declared that “when the international community consistently fails to act, there are times when states are compelled to take their own action.” Threatening US attacks, she stated: “It is not the path we prefer, but it is a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again.”
While the US and other imperialist powers denounce the Syrian offensive against armed groups in Ghouta as a violation of the cease fire ordered by the UN Security Council, Damascus and Moscow argue that they are fighting terrorist groups not protected by the ceasefire.
Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia countered Haley’s accusations with claims that Russia has evidence that the Islamist extremist rebel grouping al-Nusra used chlorine gas in Ghouta, to provide the US and its allies with a pretext to launch air strikes against government forces. Advising against any such attacks, he stated: “Steps are being weighed which could hit regional stability very, very hard.”
Gerasimov’s blunt warning the next day that American forces will be directly attacked if they threaten Russian personnel follows the US air strikes in February that killed dozens, and possibly more than 100 Russian military contractors working with the Syrian government.
The proxy war in Syria has brought the militaries of the world’s two largest nuclear armed powers to the point of open conflict. In a measure of the dangers, General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly held discussions Tuesday with his Russian counterpart Gerasimov. A spokesman for Dunford would only tell media that they had discussed “issues of mutual concern” and had both agreed to “keep the details of their conversation private.”
Further adding to the tension, the Turkish government is stepping up its operations in northern Syria against Kurdish nationalist People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia, which Ankara considers to be a terrorist group and an extension of Turkey’s outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
Turkey's military and its proxy force in Syria, the so-called Free Syrian Armee (FSA), have encircled the northern town of Afrin, where some 700,000 people are now under siege. Reports suggest they are preparing a full-scale assault.
In a written statement, the Turkish General Staff said yesterday that the centre of Afrin has been surrounded since Monday following the seizure of “critically important areas.”
Since the beginning of the operation on January 20, “a total of 3,393 terrorists have been neutralized,” the statement claimed. The Turkish authorities use the word “neutralized” for those who are killed or captured or have surrendered during the fighting. It reported that 43 Turkish troops have been killed and 156 were injured in the Afrin offensive.
Ankara insists that it is carrying out the operation within the framework of international law and its self-defense rights under the UN charter. Turkey’s Western allies, however, have repeatedly indicated that Turkey should stop the attack on Afrin, referring to the UN Security Council’s decision on February 24, which demanded a 30-day ceasefire across Syria without delay.
In a phone conversation on February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron told his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan that the UN call for a ceasefire also applied to Afrin. The conversation came a day after phone calls between Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Syrian crisis.
Yesterday, Reuters reported that a top Syrian Kurdish official has accused Turkey of settling Turkmen and Arab families in villages seized in the Turkish army’s campaign in the Kurdish-dominated Afrin region. He denounced it as a policy of “demographic change”—a claim rejected by Turkish officials as “absolutely false.”
As it intensifies its offensive on Afrin, Ankara is seeking to get the Trump administration to order the withdrawal of YPG militants and their US military trainers and advisors from the northern Syrian town of Manbij.
Speaking to reporters on a flight to Moscow yesterday, Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Cavusoglu said that Turkey and the US would decide on a plan to “safeguard” Manbij during talks between himself and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on March 19. Tillerson has since been sacked by Trump, placing a question mark over whether any talks will go ahead.
Directly raising the prospect of Turkish forces clashing with American troops, Cavusoglu reiterated that Turkey will “carry out a military operation” if talks with the US failed to bring about a YPG withdrawal from Manbij.

The Skripal poisoning: What lies behind UK-US ultimatums against Russia?

Alex Lantier

In little over a week since the mysterious poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent and British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, Britain, on March 4, a campaign has emerged in ruling circles of the NATO alliance to pin blame for the poisoning on Moscow. Backed by top officials in Washington and in Europe, the British government is using this poisoning to concoct accusations against Russia with the most far-reaching implications.
On Monday, Prime Minister Theresa May issued an ultimatum, which expired at midnight today, declaring that absent a “credible response” from Moscow, her government will conclude there has been “an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.” During the parliamentary debate May was urged to invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, forcing the alliance to confer if the “territorial integrity, political independence or security of any [NATO member state] is threatened.”
These are issues over which states go to war, and top NATO officials are clearly putting together a case for war with Russia, a major nuclear-armed power. Yesterday, as May prepared to return to Parliament today with proposals for action, reports emerged in international media that ruling circles in London are discussing also invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This article compels all NATO countries to “assist” any NATO member state that says it has been attacked to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
Faced with such drastic threats raising the danger of nuclear war, one must ask: what is the basis of the allegations that it was Moscow that poisoned Skripal and his daughter, who are now very ill?
The World Socialist Web Site holds no brief for the kleptocratic business oligarchy that emerged in Russia from the Stalinist bureaucracy’s restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union in 1991. It cannot be ruled out that a faction of Russian intelligence, acting with or without the knowledge of President Vladimir Putin, may have poisoned Skripal.
But London and NATO have neither produced physical evidence of Kremlin involvement, nor established a motive for a hypothetical Russian attack. Nor has London explained why, if the Kremlin wanted Skripal dead because he spied for Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s, it did not execute him after convicting him of spying in 2006, and instead sent him to Britain four years later in exchange for Russian spies jailed by London.
Instead, a simplistic narrative accusing Moscow has emerged: If a crime appears to target countries or individuals hostile to the Russian government, NATO governments and media conclude within hours that it is self-evident that the Kremlin is responsible.
In fact, in international politics, the simple and obvious answer all but inevitably fails to reveal the complex web of political and economic interests that produce a given event or policy. Were the Skripal attack to be a Le Carré spy novel, the accusations so far would likely take up the first 10 pages of the book, after which the real story would unfold over the next 400 pages. The questions that must be posed in such cases are: what is the credibility of the accuser, and, above all, cui bono (who benefits from the crime)?
To those who say it is obvious that Russia poisoned Skripal, it is worth recalling the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, in which a deadly strain of anthrax was mailed to many US officials in Washington, killing 5 people and infecting 17 more, shortly after the September 11 attacks. There again, media immediately blamed the attacks on obvious targets of US-UK war threats—the Iraqi regime’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and its alleged ties to Al Qaeda. These all proved to be lies, serving Washington’s foreign policy interests as it sought to go to war in Iraq.
And, after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, as it became clear that Iraq had no WMDs and was not responsible for the attacks, it emerged that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks had in fact been created by Washington’s own WMD program at Fort Detrick, Maryland. A US scientist, Steven Hatfill, was rumored to be responsible, investigated, and ultimately cleared.
It still remains unclear to this day which US officials were involved in carrying out the anthrax attacks. The FBI closed the investigation in 2010 after pinning the blame on another scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had committed suicide in 2008. However, the US National Academy of Sciences found in 2011 that the US government did not have sufficient scientific evidence to definitively assert that the anthrax used in the attacks came from Ivins.
In the Skripal attack, it is unclear how Moscow would benefit. The attack took place shortly before this weekend’s elections in Russia, and as the NATO powers ramp up a confrontation with Russia over their failed war for regime change in Syria that has seen US forces attack and kill Russian military contractors in Syria in recent weeks. The Skripal attack hands Putin’s enemies inside NATO an ideal diplomatic and political weapon to use against him.
The benefits flow to sections of the British and European ruling class who are stoking war hysteria against Russia, and sections of the American ruling elite, particularly around the CIA and the Democratic Party, working with them to discredit Trump as a supposed agent of Russia. The Skripal attack allows these factions to place enormous pressure on rival sections of the European ruling class, notably in the French and German governments, who are calling for a European military policy independent from the United States and closer ties to Russia.
Thus, on Monday, former French President François Hollande issued a sharp if barely veiled attack in Le Monde on his successor, Emmanuel Macron, who is working closely with Berlin. Asserting that current NATO policy allows Moscow and the Syrian government to “liquidate its opposition and massacre its own people,” Hollande called for a confrontation with Moscow: “Russia has been rearming for several years, and if Russia is threatening, it must be threatened.”
Yesterday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the United States has “full confidence” in the British assessment of the attack—a statement he implicitly contradicted by then declaring that Russia was only “likely responsible.” Despite firing Tillerson shortly after he made those statements, Trump echoed Tillerson’s accusation of Russian complicity, declaring, “It sounds to me like it would be Russia, based on all the evidence they have.”
Under these conditions, and after the experience of the anthrax attacks, it must be said that factions of the British and American states themselves are prime suspects in the Skripal attack.
London has based its allegations against Russia entirely on the shifting analyses of its Porton Down biochemical warfare facility, located coincidentally only 10 miles from Salisbury. Initially, London alleged that Skripal had been exposed to fentanyl, a synthetic opioid more powerful than heroin. On March 7, however, British officials alleged that the poison was a nerve gas like sarin or VX, without explaining why Porton Down, a facility that has for decades specialized in producing nerve gases, failed to correctly identify one after it was used.
On Monday, May alleged that the nerve gas in question is in fact “novichok,” a special chemical weapon initially produced by the Soviet government. However, London has refused Moscow’s requests to actually provide it with samples of the substance used in the Salisbury attack for analysis, as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). As of now, at least, the case against Russia is based on the say-so of the Porton Down facility.
Porton Down is not a reliable source, however. It has a long record of illegal or covert testing of biological and chemical weapons on British citizens. These include the 1942 contamination with anthrax spores of Gruinard Island, which the British government was compelled to decontaminate in 1986; the unlawful death of Ronald Maddison in 1953 during trials of sarin gas on British servicemen; and the 1963-1975 spraying of biological weapons in Lyme Bay. The British government paid out 3 millions pounds to victims of such tests in 2008, without admitting liability.
None of the allegations directed by such sources against Russia on the still-murky Skripal poisoning case have a shred of credibility. Only a full, objective international public inquiry, whose findings are published in real time as the inquiry progresses, can establish the truth of what took place. In the meantime, it is a critical measure of self-preservation for workers in America, Europe and around the world to oppose the ruling elite’s stoking of war hysteria against Russia and the danger of an all-out confrontation between the world’s main nuclear-armed powers.

13 Mar 2018

CREATES Masters and PhD Scholarship for African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 18th March 2018

Eligible Countries: Eastern and Southern African countries (Except Tanzania)

To Be Taken At (University): School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST)

About the Award: The newly established African Centre of Excellence aims to support young African Scientists who are committed, passionate and innovative enough to address societal real life issues by developing simple low cost novel technologies.
The graduates are expected to be job creators and not job seekers thus innovative students are highly preferred. NM-AIST provides experiential teaching, a buzzing atmosphere of international and interdisciplinary research and education activities as well as novel curricula approaches, cutting-edge research facilities and highly skilled national, regional and international supervisors in various fields of Life Sciences.
CREATES support students understating MSc degree in Life Science with specialization on: Sustainable Agriculture; Food and Nutritional Sciences; Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management; Clinical Human Nutrition and Dietetics; and Global Health and Biomedical Sciences.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility:
Masters: Applicants for these Masters positions should have the following qualifications, knowledge and essential attributes:
  • Come from an Eastern or Southern African country except for Tanzania
  • A minimum of Upper Second Class BSc degree in Life Sciences or equivalent related fields such as Nutrition, Medicine (human and veterinary), Pharmacy, Agriculture, Agronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Ecology, etc. The BSc. Degree should have been acquired from any accredited university within Africa or other International Institutions recognized by the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU).
  • Candidates that hold unclassified degrees (e.g. MD, BVM and DDS) shall have at least an overall of “C”grade and an average of “B” grade in the relevant subject or field of his/her specialization.
  • Be able to publish scientifically in high impact peer reviewed international journals during the course of their studies.
  • Have published at least one peer-reviewed scientific paper in an internationally renowned journal
  • Have interest in the above teaching and research approach and be able to work independently and in a team.
  • Must be below 35 years of age
  • Have proficient in both English writing and speaking
  • Be willing to specialize in one of the four CREATES pillars.
  • Have published at least one peer-reviewed scientific paper in an internationally renowned journal
  • Have a high degree of computer competence and familiarity with modern statistical software
  • Have the ability to work in multi-disciplinary and international teams.
  • Be self-motivated and be able to work under pressure to meet deadlines when required.
  • Must be able to apply for additional external research funding
  • Females and regional candidates are strongly and highly encouraged to apply
PhD: Applicants for these PhD positions should have the following qualifications, knowledge and essential attributes:
  • Have MSc degree in Life Sciences or relevant discipline
  • Have at least one scientific publication in an international peer-reviewed renowned Journal
  • The MSc degree should be recognized by NM-AIST senate and Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU)
  • Be able to draft and submit a research proposal concept note with the application documents Including tittle, brief introduction, methodology and expected results), showing that they are capable of Carrying out original research in the relevant field.
  • Be below the age of 40 at application date
  • Be able to publish scientifically in high impact peer reviewed international Journals (and preferably already have such publication)
  • Have interest in the above teaching and research approach and be able to work independently and in the team
  • Have excellent English oral and writing skills
  • Be willing to specialize in one of the CREATES Pillars
  • Have a high degree of computer competence and Familiarity with modern statistical software.
  • Have the ability to work in multi-disciplinary and international teams
  • Be self-motivated and be able to work under pressure to meet the deadline when required.
  • Female candidates are strongly and highly encouraged to appl
Number of Awards:
  • Masters :10
  • PhD: 5
Value and Duration of Awards: 
Masters:
  • The Master´s scholarship programme has already started and will run for two years.
    All admitted students will receive a partial scholarship over this time frame.
  • The partial scholarship will cover university fees and direct student costs (i.e., a monthly stipend at the rate of US$ 200 per month to cover living expenses (meals and upkeep allowance) while in Tanzania.
  • Accommodation fees are being paid directly to NMAIST which provides student hostels.
  • Support to attend prescribed courses and/or undertake research in partner institutions will be covered as will be determined by CREATES Management Team and the respective students and supervisors.
  • All students are required to apply for additional funding to cover their research activities.
PhD
  • The PhD scholarship programme has already started and will run for three years. All students will receive a partial scholarship over this time frame.
  • The partial scholarship will cover University fees and direct student costs (i.e., a monthly stipend at the rate of US$200 per month to cover living expenses (meals and upkeep allowance) while in Tanzania.
  • Accommodation fees are being paid directly to NM-AIST which provides student hostels.
  • Support to attend pre- scribed courses and/or undertake research in partner institutions will be covered as will be determined by CREATES Management Team and the respective students and supervisors.
  • All students are required to apply for additional funding to cover their research activities.
How to Apply: Visit your preferred Program webpage (see Links below) for full detail on how to apply
All application documents should be sent electronically to: createspostgrad@nm-aist.ac.tz

Visit the Masters Program Webpage for Details

Visit the PhD Program Webpage for Details

LSHTM/Commonwealth Shared Scholarships for Students from Developing Commonwealth Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 17th April 2018.

Eligible Countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuata, Zambia

To Be Taken At (Country): UK

About the Award: Commonwealth Shared Scholarships are intended to enable talented and motivated individuals to gain the knowledge and skills required for sustainable development. The purpose of the scholarship scheme is to contribute to development needs of lower income Commonwealth countries by providing training for skilled and qualified professionals and academics who would not otherwise be able to study in the UK.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Applicants must
  • be a citizen of or be granted refugee status from an eligible Commonwealth country above, or be a British Protected Person, and
  • be permanently and continually resident in an eligible Commonwealth country*, and
  • hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) standard, or a lower second class level plus a Master’s degree **, and
  • be sufficiently fluent in English to pursue their proposed course of study and meet the School’s English language proficiency requirements at the time of application, and
  • not have studied for one academic year or more in a high income (developed) country, and
  • not have worked for one year or more in a high income (developed) country, and
  • confirm in writing (via EAS application) that neither they nor their families would otherwise be able to pay for study in the UK, and
  • confirm in writing (via EAS application) that they will return to their home country within one month of the end of the end of their award.
Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: Each scholarship award will provide:
  • MSc Public Health for Eye Care tuition fees (at the overseas fee rate)
  • GBP 1,306.00 monthly maintenance stipend
  • GBP 414.00 warm clothing allowance
  • CSCUK-approved airfare from the student’s home country to the United Kingdom, and return home at the end of the award
  • Tuberculosis test fees (when required by UK Visas & Immigration)
  • Study-related costs grant
  • Excess baggage allowance for return home
How to Apply: To apply for this funding, applicants must
  1. submit a complete application for study for 2018-19 MSc Public Health for Eye Careand
  2. submit a complete CSSS application for funding via the CSCUK’s Electronic Application System (EAS) (The EAS will be open for CSSS application between 23 Feb 2018 and 17 April 2018.)
before the funding deadline of 17 April 2018.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: These scholarships are jointly funded by Commonwealth Scholarship Commission UK (CSCUK), funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and the School.

Right Livelihood College (RLC) International Workshop for PhD Students from Asia, Africa and Latin America (Fully-funded to ZEF, University of Bonn) 2018

Application Deadline: 2nd April 2018

Eligible Countries: Countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

To Be Taken At (Country): ZEF and World Conference Center (WCCB) in Bonn, Germany

About the Award: Here is an exciting call for scholarships for a workshop hosted by The RLC Campus at ZEF, University of Bonn, Germany! The workshop is aimed at PhD students in the political sciences, law, development studies, sociology, geography, or ethnology fields.
The workshop will target the following objectives:
  • to strengthen knowledge and understanding of concepts and methods of policy and law making as well their practical implementation,
  • to critically assess the impact on the rights and livelihoods of most marginalized citizens in countries of the Global South,
  • to present own case studies concerned, and
  • to promote transmission of expertise and experience between PhD students, law and development experts, and “Alternative Nobel Prize” Laureates.
Type: PhD, Workshop

Eligibility:
  • PhD students from Asia, Africa and Latin America who conduct topic-related research from disciplines such as political sciences, law, development studies, sociology, geography, or ethnology.
  • Preferred are PhD students in the middle or end of their studies.
  • Fluent English is mandatory. Applications from women are particularly welcome.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The scholarships will cover all costs for international and national travel, hotel accommodation, catering, and working materials. The workshop will be embedded in a variety of social and cultural side-events.

Duration of Program: June 9-14, 2018

How to Apply: Your application should consist of:
  • Completed online application form here
  • 300 word abstract (in English) of your PhD project and a CV
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn

Chatham House Academy Africa Fellowship (Fully-funded) 2018

Application Deadline: 29th April 2018

Eligible Countries: Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, or South Africa.

To be taken at (country): The fellow will be based full-time at Chatham House, London. UK

About the Award: Fellows are hosted by and based in research teams at Chatham House. During the fellowship, the fellow will conduct a research project of their own design which falls within the research topics below.
The parameters for the research topics have been designed in broad terms to allow applicants to devise a project that appeals to their own research interests.
The Research Topics are stated on the Program Webpage (Link below)

Type: Fellowship (Academic, Career)

Eligibility: 
  • The fellowship is open to citizens of Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, or South Africa.
  • Applications will be accepted from applicants holding dual nationality which includes one of these countries.
  • It is required that the applicant holds a completed BA degree or equivalent, Masters degree with an international focus is preferred.
  • The fellowship is aimed at candidates at the mid-stage of their career and who come from academia, NGOs, business, government departments, civil society or the media. They should possess knowledge of, and an interest in, one of the policy-related challenges laid out in the research topics in ‘Research Topics.’
Selection Criteria: Our best candidates typically possess many or all of the following characteristics:
  • Clear evidence of their leadership experience and background (personal or professional).
  • Ability to explore problems with a holistic and inclusive perspective, with a natural curiosity towards issues and areas in the broader environment around their more specific research area of expertise.
  • An original, relevant and clear research project proposal – feasible in the given timeline of the fellowship.
  • Relevant background experience, demonstrated through their curriculum vitae.
  • Strong track record in their area of expertise, including delivering research
  • Good writing and presentation skills and a publishing record.
  • Awareness of the international context of their research.
  • A post-fellowship plan indicating how the candidate will apply their skills, knowledge and experience to impact and influence in their home country or region.
  • A clear vision of their contribution to the Academy programme and fellowship cohort.
Applicants must adhere to stated word limits and are advised to read through the information on the Academy’s webpages before applying. Late or incomplete applications will not be considered, nor will any additional or supplementary materials.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: The fellow will receive a monthly stipend of £2,228.  Modest provision is made for the costs of relocation, fieldwork, and possible publication costs.

Duration of Fellowship: The fellowship is for a 10-month term from mid-September 2018 to mid-July 2019.
A fellow’s time will be split between three key areas:
  • Completing a personal research project of the fellow’s own design undertaken with the guidance of a Chatham House expert, (approximately 50%).
  • Contributing to the ongoing research activities of their host research team and other Chatham House teams as appropriate (approximately 20%).
  • Participation in the Academy’s Leadership Programme (approximately 30%). The Leadership Programme is a key part of the Academy fellowships. It provides fellows with the opportunity to develop their knowledge, skills, network and self-awareness, which they can then draw upon in their future careers as effective leaders in their field.
How to Apply: 
  • The recruitment round is between 12th March and 29th April 2018. Applications made outside of this period will not be considered.
  • Apply using the application form.
  • For more information on the application process please follow this link.
Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: The Africa Fellowship is a joint initiative between Chatham House and the Mo Ibrahim Foundation