10 Apr 2018

On the brink of war: US and NATO prepare military strike on Syria

Keith Jones

The United States and NATO are on the brink of a major escalation of the war in Syria, which could lead to a direct clash with nuclear-armed Russia.
Amid a wave of labor unrest throughout the United States and Europe, coupled with acute domestic political crises, the ruling elites see in war a means not only of reversing a series of geopolitical setbacks in the Middle East, but also of cracking down on political opposition.
The United States, Britain, France and Germany are all being shaken by a growing strike movement amid crisis and turmoil within the political establishment and the state. On the very day that US President Trump met with his National Security Council to decide on military action against Syria, the FBI raided the office and residences of Trump’s personal lawyer, escalating the conflict raging within the American ruling class.
The potential consequences of a war against Syria are massive. Last month, Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov vowed to retaliate against any attack on Russian troops in Syria, declaring, “In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia’s armed forces will take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used.”
On Monday, Gerasimov again warned, “We have to say once again that military interference in Syria…is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.”
Such statements underscore just how close the world is to war between nuclear-armed powers, threatening the lives of millions of people and human civilization itself.
The pretext for this escalation is the chemical weapons attack alleged by the US, without any substantiation, to have been carried out by the Syrian government. This casus belli is the crudest of fabrications. What possible reason could there be for the Assad regime to stage such an attack under conditions where it has routed the US-backed Islamist rebels on the outskirts of Damascus and is in its strongest position since the early stages of the US-fomented civil war?
The media hysteria over the alleged gas attack is in line with the relentless campaign of provocations and threats against Russia—a campaign that has reached a new crescendo in recent weeks. The latest allegations take place within days of the discrediting of the claims that Russia was responsible for the supposed chemical poisoning in Salisbury, England of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.
Trump has issued a series of tweets that proclaim the Syrian government guilty of “horrendous” crimes, charging Russia and Iran with complicity and promising that those responsible will pay a “big price.”
The US media, military-intelligence apparatus and political establishment are baying for blood. Republican Senator John McCain blamed Trump’s “inaction” in Syria for “emboldening” Washington’s enemies. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party leader in the House of Representatives, signaled her support for military action against Syria while demanding that the Trump administration “finally provide a smart, strong and consistent strategy” to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
France and Britain have said they will join the US attack in Syria, if invited, or even mount their own strikes. The New York Times cited a Trump administration official as saying that Washington is feeling pressure to hasten an American attack on Syria “lest French President Emanuel Macron do so first.”
Last week saw a furious dispute within the American ruling elite, including the senior-most levels of the Trump administration, as the Pentagon, the CIA, the Democrats and much of the Republican Party leadership successfully pushed back against Trump’s suggestion that US troops would soon be “coming home” from Syria. Trump was bluntly told that such a pullout would not only be to the benefit of Russia, but would also cut across Trump’s plans to intensify economic and military pressure on Iran by torpedoing the Iran nuclear accord.
Vladimir Putin and the regime of capitalist oligarchs he heads have long sought an accommodation with Washington. But US imperialism, under successive administrations, has made clear that it would be satisfied only with Russia’s semi-colonial subjugation.
That Moscow, in the face of NATO’s expansion to its borders, US-sponsored “color revolutions” in neighboring states, and a quarter-century of US wars across North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia, has intervened to disrupt Washington’s plans in Ukraine and Syria is deemed by Washington and Wall Street to be intolerable.
The real causes of the United States’ reckless provocations against Russia have nothing to do with “meddling” in US politics or an alleged poison gas attack.
In the quarter-century since the dissolution of the USSR, US imperialism sought to reverse the erosion of its global economic position through aggression and war. In its quest for world hegemony, the United States has razed entire countries such as Libya and Iraq. But Washington’s never-ending wars have failed to reverse its decline. Instead, they have metastasized into military-strategic offensives against Russia and China and official declarations from Washington that the US is involved in a new age of great-power conflict.
The eruption of US militarism is accelerated by deepening economic crisis. In an article titled “Cracks Form in Global Growth Story, Rattling Investors,” published Monday, the Wall Street Journal warned, “Investor confidence has flagged amid fears that a long-expected global synchronized surge may be turning into a synchronized stall.”
Most importantly, the ruling elite sees war as the most expedient means of attacking democratic rights at home in order to crush the growing upsurge of the working class. On Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify before Congress amid demands that major technology firms implement even more aggressive measures to crack down on “foreign propaganda” and “fake news.” Against the backdrop of a major new military conflict, calls will be redoubled for the banning of political opposition.

9 Apr 2018

Africa-India Mobility Fund for African and Indian Researchers 2018

Application Deadline: 
  • Applications are being accepted on a rolling basis from 3rd April, 2018 and reviewed as received.
  • The Award period will be April 2018 to March 2019 with 5 funding cycles per year. The funding committee will meet on the 5th week of each funding cycle and funding decision communicated in 6 weeks.
Eligible Countries: African countries and India

To Be Taken At (Country): African countries and India (In an exchange format ie Africans

About the Award: The AIMF initiative by the African Academy of Sciences and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (India Alliance) intends to encourage South-South collaborations and learning between the two ecosystems. This is in recognition of the fact that Africa and India face similar challenges, both in the diseases that affect their populations and socio-political issues as well as the leadership required to address these. The exchanges are expected to enhance their skills and contribute to the growth of knowledge and leadership towards common health challenges.

Objectives
  • To strengthen research & innovation capacity and knowledge exchange
  • To strengthen scientific collaboration between Indian and African teams
Type: Short courses, Grants

Eligibility: 
  • Applications broadly focused on infectious and non-communicable diseases of relevance to local, national, or global health will be accepted every month. The scope of the collaborative opportunity may include but is not limited to HIV/AIDS, TB, dengue, malaria, vector-borne diseases, parasitic infections, emerging infections, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, health systems research, antimicrobial resistance, drug development, microbiome and general biomedical sciences.
  • While applications that involve existing collaborations will be considered, applications that target new collaborations and encourage diversity especially female and young applicants are particularly encouraged.
Selection Criteria: 
  • The candidate – evidence of scientific track record or achievements (if young researcher) in the specified project area and demonstrated interest in collaborating with India/Africa.
  • The proposal – scientific quality and feasibility of the proposal.
  • Evidence that the grant will facilitate scientific exchange that would otherwise not be possible from distance. Evidence of added value for addressing the disease area/challenge and for fostering Africa-India collaboration.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 
  • The award will cover directly incurred costs upto $5,000 / INR 325,000 for travel lasting up to 3 months. This is to cover the applicant’s airfare (at Economy class) and subsistence whilst on the visit.
  • Salaries and fees to attend meetings will not be eligible.
  • An additional $2,500 may be requested for laboratory reagents, however, the decision to award the extra funds will be on case by case basis upon justification of the needs.
  • The amount of each individual award will vary according to location and timescale. For example, if staying for a 3-month placement, the applicant may be expected to source university accommodation, or a short term let. However, if visiting for a week, a hotel or equivalent may be more suitable.
  • Applicants may not seek funding for conference attendance, salary, equipment, per diem and indirect costs.
Reporting
  • Recipients will be expected to submit a 3-4 page scientific report on the outcomes of the collaboration one month after the end of the visit. This should include scientific outcomes, experience and value gained from the visit, and proposed future steps (a standard narrative form will be provided).
  • Financial reports will be submitted by the home institutions as per the prescribed template.  Proof of expenditure may be requested.
Awardees will also be expected to write at least one blog or a publication including photos about their experiences.

Duration of Program: 3 months.

How to Apply: All application forms should be submitted through the AAS Grants Management System (Ishango). Register and apply here.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The AIMF initiative by the African Academy of Sciences and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (India Alliance)

Important Notes: Please note that the grant can only be used to deliver the objectives stated in the grant application. Ensure that the best estimates for the full cost of undertaking the project described in the application are requested.

Climate Change Media Partnership Reporting Fellowships for Journalists in Developing Countries (Fully-funded to US and Poland) 2018

Application Deadline: 4th May 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): San Francisco, United States; Katowice, Poland.

About the Award: The Climate Change Media Partnership (CCMP), led by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Foundation this year, is pleased to announce an expanded Fellowship program for journalists. Successful applicants will have the opportunity to attend two major climate change summits taking place in 2018: the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, United States, and the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP 24) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Katowice, Poland.
This year, a group of 15-20  journalists will be selected to attend both the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS), to be held this September in San Francisco, United States and the second week of the UN climate negotiations (COP 24) in Katowice, Poland in December 2018. The GCAS will be a key gathering of non-state actors and sub-national governments working towards the Paris Agreement goal to keep global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. The Summit will take place just eleven weeks ahead of COP 24, when the world’s leaders will gather in Poland to participate in the “stock-taking” of progress since the Paris Agreement was signed.
At the GCAS and COP 24, Fellows will engage with other participants and Fellowship program organizers in a series of specially designed activities, including an orientation session, daily breakfast briefings, and interviews and briefings with high-level officials.

Type: Conference, Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Fellowship, applicants must:
  • Be a professional journalist from or representing an established media house, and reporting from a developing country;
  • Fill out the application form using the link below, including answering essay questions that illustrate his/her experience reporting on climate change issues and the kinds of stories you might pursue at the conferences;
  • Be available to travel so that you can attend both events: arriving in San Francisco, California on September 10th and departing on Sept 15th, and arriving in Katowice, Poland on December 7th and departing on Dec 15th.
  • Commit to participate in all Fellowship activities;
  • Provide a letter of support from an editor, producer or supervisor who can confirm your ability to publish or broadcast your material in an established media organization. Freelancers are welcome to apply, but must provide a letter of support.
Selection Criteria: Criteria for evaluating applicants will include the prospective Fellow’s demonstrated experience covering climate change and other environmental topics, their interest in continued coverage of these issues, and their audience and outlet reach.

Number of Awards: 15-20

Value of Award: As part of this expanded program, the 2018 CCMP partners will cover:
  • Nonrefundable economy-class airfare, hotel, meals, and transportation in both locations.
  • CCMP will also reimburse for meal and other transport expenses in transit, help with the press accreditation process, and provide other support services relating to the trips.
  • Please note that the process of obtaining any necessary visas is a Fellow’s responsibility; however, visa costs can be reimbursed.
Duration of Program: 
  • San Francisco, California USA: September 10th – Sept 15th 2018
  • Katowice, Poland: December 7th – Dec 15th 2018.
How to Apply: As part of the application process, journalists will be asked to submit examples of their work. These can be uploaded as pasted text or links; stories can be sent in a native language as long as they are accompanied by a short English synopsis. A good command of English, however, will be needed to answer the essay questions and will also be important to participate in Fellowship activities.

 Apply Now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Climate Change Media Partnership

Important Notes: The CCMP fully respects the editorial independence of all journalists. Throughout the conference, Fellows are free to report as they see fit. As well as the requirements above, we ask that journalists agree to cross-post all stories they file during the Global Climate Action Summit and COP 24 on the Earth Journalism Network website and local and regional partner sites (it is okay if the story is first published or broadcast by a Fellow’s home media outlet).

LSHTM Professional Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Scholarships for Medical Doctors in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 7th May 2018.

Eligible Countries: Low and Middle Income Countries

About the Award: The aim of the intensive professional development programme is to build capacity for postgraduate training and clinical research in Africa, including for doctors from outside the Region who intend to work locally. It is designed to introduce physicians to the knowledge and skills needed to practise medicine and promote health effectively, and to inspire them to develop their own careers in the field.

Type: Short courses

Eligibility: Open for applicants from Low-and Middle-Income countries only.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Full scholarships are competitively awarded to postgraduate doctors from low- and middle-income countries. There is an administrative fee.

Duration of Program: 27 August – 23 November 2018

How to Apply: Apply now

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

SA-GER-CDR Masters & PhD Scholarships + Internships for African Students (Fully-funded to study in South Africa and Germany) 2018/2019

Application Deadlines:
  • the MA in Development Studies (next deadline 31 July 2018, online application is available in the “How to apply” section of the Programme!)
  • the Master in Public Administration (next deadline 31 July 2018, online application is available in the “How to apply” section of the Programme!)
  • the MA in Development Management (Bochum Programme, next deadline 30 November 2017)
    (separate online application platform, access and guidelines via “How to apply” section of the Bochum programme or via the course homepage)
  • the different PhD options at the centre (PhD UWC) (next deadline 31 July 2018, online application is available in the “How to apply” section of the Programme!)
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa

To be taken at (country): School of Government, University of the Western Cape, South Africa and Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany

Eligible Field of Study: Scholarships are available for full-time students of
  • MA in Development Studies
  • Master in Public Administration
  • PhD options at the CDR
About Scholarship: In order to adequately prepare the next generation of leaders through research-oriented training it is not sufficient to have the possibility to award scholarships to promising candidates from all over Sub-Saharan Africa, but it is also necessary to maintain a strong research focus on the work of the centre and to cooperate closely with other leading universities in the region.

Type: Masters, PhD

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: Scholarship applicants are adviced to carefully read about the specific entry requirements and course application procedure of the programme of their choice. The information is available from the respective programmes sections.

In addition to programme requirements, all applicants have to meet the following requirements:
  • Applicants should be from Sub-Sahara Africa
  • Applicants should have an outstanding academic record – at least 70% for your last degree
  • Applicants should apply within 6 years of having completed their previous degree
  • The study must have been completed at an internationally recognised university
  • The previous degree (Baccalaureus or Master) should have been an academic discipline which is related to Development Studies or Public Administration
  • South African students are required to have an honours degree in order to be admitted to a Masters degree course. Other students need the equivalent of a 4 year undergraduate degree
  • Applicants must provide evidence of proficiency in English, both written and spoken. This can be TOEFL test or a similar standard test or a letter from an academic institution
  • Work and/or voluntary experience in your field of interest would be a recommendation
  • Women are encouraged to apply
  • South African students are encouraged to apply
  • Applicants must be able to study fulltime at the UWC for the required period.
Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship:
  • Scholarships include monthly allowances of 650 Euro plus travel allowances for Master candidates and 900 Euro plus travel allowances for PhD candidates.
  • Tuition and registration fees are covered by the Scholarship Programme.
Duration of Scholarship: for period of the programme

How to Apply: 
  • You will have to fill in an electronic application form (ONLY AVAILABLE FROM mid APRIL to 31st July)!
  • As the e-form can only be submitted once, please make sure that your application is complete before submitting it!
It is important to go through the Application requirements Scholarship Webpage before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Sponsors: DAAD

Rockefeller Foundation Art Residency Programme for International Writers 2018 – Italy

Application Deadline: 
  • The application deadline  for an Academic Writing residency is 1st May 2018, for residencies in 2018.
  • The application period for Arts & Literary Arts residency will soon open. Application Dates will be updated on this site when it opens
  • Applications for practitioner residencies are not open.
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the United States

To be taken at (country): Bellagio, Italy. The Center consists of several buildings in 55 acres grounds on Lake Como in Northern Italy: the Villa Serbelloni and Villa Maranese house the resident fellows (scholars, practitioners and artists); the Sfondrata and Frati buildings are reserved for meetings. The town of Bellagio, immediately adjacent to the Bellagio Center, is located in northern Italy at the point where Lake Como divides to form its Lecco and Como arms. It is approximately 75 km. (47 miles) north of Milan.

Eligible Fields: The Rockefeller Foundation seeks applicants with projects that contribute to discourse and progress related to its dual goals: i) advancing inclusive economies that expand opportunities for more broadly shared prosperity, and ii) building resilience by helping people, communities and institutions prepare for, withstand, and emerge stronger from acute shocks and chronic stresses. To achieve these goals, The Rockefeller Foundation works at the intersection of four related focus areas: Advance Health, Revalue Ecosystems, Secure Livelihoods, and Transform Cities.
Applicants with projects that may help shape thinking or catalyze action in these areas are also strongly encouraged to apply.

About the Award:  The Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency Programme is split into 3 areas:
  • Academic Writing residency
  • Arts & Literary Arts residency
  • Practitioner residencies
The Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency Programme has a track record for supporting the generation of important new knowledge addressing some of the most complex issues facing our world, and innovative new works of art that inspire reflection and understanding of global and social issues.

The Bellagio Center Residency Program is committed to creating an environment that fosters rich cross-cultural and interdisciplinary exchanges, which arise from bringing highly diverse and international cohorts of artists, academics, practitioners, and policymakers together. The Bellagio Center typically offers residencies of two to four weeks for no more than 15 residents at a time. Collegial interaction within the community of residents is an integral dimension of the Bellagio experience. Meals and informal presentations of residents’ work afford an opportunity for dynamic discussions and engagement within and across disciplines. To help build connections across one another’s work, residents are also offered opportunities to interact with participants from international conferences that are hosted in other buildings on the Bellagio Center’s grounds.

Type: Short courses

Eligibility: 
  • Residencies are open to university or think-thank based academics in all disciplines, literary artists, visual artists, and practitioners from a variety of fields, particularly those working on socially impactful endeavors. The Foundation seeks to promote a broad, stimulating mix of disciplines and fields within the Bellagio Community.
  • The Academic Writing residency is for university and think tank-based academics, researchers, professors, and scientists working in any discipline. Successful applicants can either demonstrate decades of significant professional contributions to their field or show evidence of being on a strong upward trajectory in their careers.
  • The Bellagio Arts & Literary Arts residency is for artists working in any discipline including composers, fiction and non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, video/filmmakers, and visual artists who share in the Foundation’s mission of promoting the well-being of humankind and whose work is inspired by or relates to global or social issues.
  • The Center also welcomes applications from practitioners, defined as senior-level policymakers, nonprofit leaders, journalists, private sector leaders and public advocates with ten or more years of leadership experience in a variety of fields and sectors.
Selection Criteria: Bellagio Center arts & literary arts residencies are for composers, fiction and non-fiction writers, playwrights, poets, video/filmmakers, interdisciplinary and visual artists seeking time for disciplined work, reflection, and collegial engagement, uninterrupted by the usual professional and personal demands.

Number of Awardees: Not more than 15 residents

Value of Residency: 
  • During the course of the residency, room, meals and board are provided without charge.
  • Opportunity for dynamic discussions and engagement within and across disciplines.
  • Accessibility: housing/grounds/studios are accessible
  • Studios/special equipment: Painting, Photography (digital)
  • Additional studio information: The Maranese Art Studio (for painters) is located directly one flight downstairs from the bedroom (access through an outside stairway).
  • To help build connections across one another’s work, residents are also offered opportunities to interact with participants from international conferences that are hosted in other buildings on the Bellagio Center’s grounds.
  • Space for Spouses/Life Partners of residents are welcomed at the Center and can utilize this time to work on their own projects
  • Travel grants and modest stipends to offset incidental travel costs are available on a needs basis, with awards granted to approximately half of all resident fellows.
Duration of Residency: 2 to 4 weeks

Go to Application
It is important to go through individual application requirements of each residency on the Rockefeller Foundation Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Rockefeller Foundation

The Perils of Predicting Events in the Middle East

Robert Fisk

Prediction is a precise, elusive and dangerous science. We journalists are usually asked to practise this dodgy skill on political anniversaries, elections, before invasions or – even more perilously – during invasions.
Take the city of Afrin. The Turks invaded the Syrian and largely Kurdish province just under two months ago. They took their time. They had few tanks. Their “Free Syrian Army” allies appeared to be nonexistent. Alas, their new found Islamist allies were not.
But when I visited Afrin less than two weeks after the start of Turkey’s “Operation Olive Branch” – as sinister a name as any in recent decades for armed aggression – its citizens were shopping in crowded streets, their homes unbombed, the restaurants open; I reported that if the Turks really used all their firepower, they could have entered the city in half an hour.
They appeared to be “sheep in sheep’s clothing,” I suggested, quoting Churchill’s description of Clement Attlee. I should have known better. Attlee won the 1945 election. And the Turks entered Afrin city on 18 March.
Well, at least I hadn’t said they wouldn’t capture the place. But back in Damascus this month, an old Syrian friend cheerfully reminded me that when I returned from Afrin in January, I did tell him that I thought the Turks had no intention of entering the provincial capital.
“You said the Turks would not go there,” he admonished me. “What you said about Turkey was right from the start of the war – but this time, you got it wrong.” I fear he was right.
The problem, of course, was that the Kurds, especially the People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia and its associates, were already famous in song and legend for crushing Isis. How could they destroy so much of this vicious cult, I had asked myself, but then lose to the Turks?
My mistake. I forgot – a real error in the false art of prediction – that the Kurds had not stood their ground against Iraqi forces in Kirkuk. They had largely abandoned their front lines. Which is exactly what they did again in Afrin. But why did the Russians leave the Kurds to their fate?
Well, here are a few reasons. Firstly, the Russians were tired of the Kurds’ decision to act as America’s footsoldiers in Syria as well as Iraq. They had, in the words of my Syrian friend, “put all their eggs in the American basket”.
Secondly, the Russians suspected that the mortar shell which killed one of their most senior officers in Syria – Lieutenant General Valery Asapov, commander of the Russian Fifth Army in the Far East city of Ussuriysk (not far from Vladivostok) – was fired into the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor by Isis, while the Americans were arranging free passage through Isis lines for Kurdish forces en route to Raqqa. Did the Kurds help Isis – they were talking to each other a few weeks earlier – strike a blow at Russia’s military operations in Syria?
More important, however, was an incident in which the Kurds deliberately destroyed a military bridge constructed by the Russians over the Euphrates River for pro-Syrian militias. The Kurds opened the sluice gates on a neighbouring dam and flooded the river – and the bridge collapsed.
Without Russian air cover – and the Turks must also have had Vladimir Putin’s permission to hoist their flag over Afrin’s city hall – the Kurds were doomed. The civilians fled in their tens of thousands, and so did their YPG defenders. No doubt Putin and Erdogan are enjoying their talks in Ankara this week as they confirm the construction of a Turkish-Russian nuclear reactor and a new missile defence shield.
I doubt if they had much time to discuss Afrin – and why should President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, who joined them, care about the Kurds? So much for my prediction to my Syrian friend.
But there are some crystal balls which will always reflect the truth. Take Arab elections. Or, more to the point, Egyptian elections. It’s a fair bet that almost any Arab potentate – Saddam in his day, Assad, Sadat or Mubarak – will win a presidential poll by more than 90 per cent.
But, having covered parliamentary and presidential elections in Cairo for more than four decades, I thought I’d have a crack at Field Marshal/President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s victorious results a week before the election was actually held.
Since he picked up more than 96 per cent in previous polls, I reportedin The Independent: “I have a hunch it will be somewhere between 93.73 per cent and 97.37 per cent for the President… But my second gamble is a shoo-in. Will President Trump call Mr Sisi after his election victory to congratulate him? Of course he will. And he will call him ‘a great guy’ who’s doing ‘a great job’.”
Well, what do you know? The Egyptian people, with an admittedly miserable turnout and an even more pathetic electoral opponent to Sisi, gave their beloved leader 97 per cent of their votes. The nearest percentage point appeared to be 97.08.
That means I got the result to well within my prediction a week earlier and, without any Egyptian opinion polls to help me, just 0.29 from my own top percentage point. Psephologists must surely stand in awe.
But they must also forget that Mubarak won 96.3 per cent for his third six-year term in office in 1993, that Sadat won a thumping 99.95 victory for political reform in a 1974 referendum and Saddam scored 99.96 for his presidency in 1993. Hafez al-Assad, however, picked up 99.987 per cent of the Syrian vote for a new seven-year term in office in 1999. Only 219 erring citizens voted against him.
So if you spend your time reporting this stuff, you can predict the future with considerable accuracy. And after Trump’s congratulatory call to Tsar Putin after his election, it was also inevitable that the wretched man would telephone Sisi to congratulate him on his superb – nay, miraculous – triumph in Egypt, just as I said he would.
But did he call Sisi “a great guy” and tell him he was doing “a great job”? According to the White House, the two leaders “affirmed the strategic partnership between the United States and Egypt” and spoke of “Russia and Iran’s irresponsible support of the Assad regime’s brutal attacks against innocent civilians”.
Which means that Sisi, for Trump, is indeed a great guy doing a great job.
Funny, though, how Trump is becoming as predictable as an Arab election. Do they perhaps have something in common?

Plastic Waste Kills Six-Ton Whale

Robert Hunziker

In the annals of human history, modern day society is already setting records never before dreamed possible, as human-trashed plastic officially kills a six-ton six-year-old sperm whale. Yes, and it only took a total of 64 pounds of plastic to do the nasty deed.
An autopsy of the dead whale found on a beach in southern Spain brought to light the cause of death, which according to experts at El Valle Wildlife Rescue Centre concluded the whale was unable to digest or excrete plastic it ingested. The official cause of death is termed peritonitis, which is an infection of the inner lining of the stomach.
Additionally, according to Consuelo Rosauro, director-general for natural environment of the region, this is not a “one-off” situation. He informed The Telegraph (April 6, 2018) that many animals die from the horrid “Plastic Sudden-Death Epidemic.”
Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, the sperm whale has the biggest brain of any creature on Earth and a life expectancy of 70 years, similar to humans, except for brain size, which is much bigger than human brains… hmm! Still, it’s human thinking (“processing”) with resultant behavior, carelessly, and maybe even sadistically instinctively, tossing plastic waste somewhere on the planet, ending up in the young sperm whale’s stomach.
It would be absolutely fascinating to connect each discarded piece of plastic to the original human hand(s) that tossed it aside. Then, maybe bring together all of those human animals to commemorate the whale’s untimely death at the spot in southern Spain where it washed ashore. And, since the authorities retrieved all of the plastic from the young whale’s stomach, insist that each of the perpetrators select their own piece of plastic, sorting it out from within the batch of 64 pounds of plastic, and take it, hold it, maybe for a couple of hours, and carry it to a proper plastic recycling facility. This entire commemoration could be filmed for posterity to honor the short lifespan of the young sperm whale. And, this will make the perpetrators feel better about themselves, maybe.
But, it is impossible to trace the pieces of plastic back to each person that originally tossed it aside. The plastic may have come from “who knows from where?” Here’s the problem: Male sperm whales have no predetermined migration patterns. They are wanderers and travel the entire world’s oceans, which makes it all the harder to determine where the plastic originated. On second thought, plastic is found throughout the world’s oceans, making it even more difficult to understand the origin.
The problem of understanding the origin of the plastic is further complicated by the fact that, according to National Geographic, at current rates of haphazard plastic waste disposal, by mid-century the oceans will contain more plastic waste ton-for-ton than fish. Then, imagine the problem identifying the origin of the plastic that kills another sperm whale, or by then, many sperm whales, assuming they have not already been completely wiped-out by the nasty unrelenting Plastic Sudden-Death Epidemic.
The amount of plastic that will displace all of the ocean’s fish amounts to 5-to-14 million tons per year, the current amount of plastic waste haphazardly thrown out per year, or enough plastic end-to-end to travel halfway to Mars. That calculation comes from engineering professor Jenna Jambeck/University of Georgia.
A human trip to Mars will likely take 6-to-8 months. So, the annual ocean plastic calculation is roughly equivalent to 3-4 months travel time in outer space. The correlation is not perfect, as the concept is awkward in the first instance, but trying to understand “plastic whale death” is so insanely screwball wacky that nothing makes sense anyways.
Nowadays, insanity may be the only reprieve from reality.
Especially when absorbing the thought processes behind the realization that, in January 2016, 29 sperm whales stranded on the shores around the North Sea. Necropsies (animal equivalent of autopsies) showed several stomachs filled with plastic, full up!
These horrifying Plastic Sudden-Death Epidemic stories seem endless but sorrowfully, sea animal abundance is not.
What to do?
Do something!
A good starting point for human animals that really, truly care can be found at Mission Blue, headed by the National Geographic Society Explorer in Residence Dr. Sylvia A. Earle, aka: “Her Deepness.”
Or, a really good alternative, don’t toss plastic into the ocean or into the street where storm sewers ultimately take it to a body of water somewhere in the world, or also a good idea, be sure to recycle.
According to National Geographic, 90% of plastic is not recycled.
Where does it go?
Sperm whales!
Really?
Yes, really… honestly… we’ve got hard evidence!

Despite Gaza Massacre, Israel Remains Immune From Criticism

Patrick Cockburn

Thousands of protesters returned to the border last Friday, burning great heaps of tyres to produce a black smokescreen which they hoped would hide them from Israeli snipers. Gaza’s health ministry has said that five people were killed and 1,070 people were wounded on Friday, including 293 by live fire.
The demonstrators know what to expect. A video from the first day of the march shows a protester being shot in the back by an Israeli sniper as he walks away from the fence separating Gaza from Israel. In other footage, Palestinians are killed or wounded as they pray, walk empty-handed towards the border fence, or simply hold up a Palestinian flag. All who get within 300 yards are labelled “instigators” by the Israeli army, whose soldiers have orders to shoot them.
“Nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed,” claimed a tweet from the Israeli military the day after the mass shooting on 30 March at the start of 45 days of what Palestinians call the “Great March of Return” to the homes they had in Israel 70 years ago. The tweet was deleted soon after, possibly because film had emerged of a protester being shot from behind.
The sheer scale of the casualties on the first day of the protest a week ago is striking, with as many as 16 killed and 1,415 injured, of whom 758 were hit by live fire according to Gaza health officials. These figures are contested by Israel, which says that the injured numbered only a few dozen. But Human Rights Watch spoke to doctors at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City who said that they had treated 294 injured demonstrators, mostly “with injuries to the lower limbs from live ammunition”.
Imagine for a moment that it was not the two million Palestinian in Gaza, who are mostly refugees from 1948, but the six million Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan who had staged a march to return to the homes that they have lost in Syria since 2011. Suppose that, as they approach the Syrian border, they were fired on by the Syrian army and hundreds of them were killed or injured. Syria would certainly claim that the demonstrators were armed and dangerous, though this would be contradicted by the absence of casualties among the Syrian military.
The international outcry against the murderous Syrian regime in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin would have echoed around the world. Boris Johnson would have denounced Assad as a butcher and Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, would have held up pictures of the dead and dying before the Security Council.
Of course, Israel would furiously deny that there was any parallel between the two situations. Its government spokesman, David Keyes, rebuked CNN for even using the word “protest” when “what actually happened is that Hamas engineered an event where they wanted thousands of people to swarm into Israel, to crush Israel, to commit acts of terror. Indeed, we have captured on camera pictures of people shooting guns, people placing bombs, people shooting rockets.”
In the event, no pictures of these supposedly well-armed protesters ever emerged. But four days later, Human Rights Watch published a report entitled Israel: Gaza Killings Unlawful, Calculated. Officials Green-Light Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators, which said that it “could find no evidence of any protester using firearms”. It added that footage published by the Israeli army showing two men shooting at Israeli troops turned out not to have been filmed at the protest.
Israeli ministers are unabashed by the discrediting of claims that the demonstrators pose a military threat to Israel. Defence minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Israeli soldiers had “warded off Hamas military branch operatives capably and resolutely … They have my full backing.” The free-fire policy is continuing as before and, as a result, the Israeli human rights organisation, B’Tselem, has launched a campaign called “Sorry Commander I Cannot Shoot”, which encourages soldiers to refuse to shoot unarmed civilians on the grounds that this is illegal.
Why is the surge in Palestinian protests coming now and why is Israel responding so violently? There is nothing new in Palestinian demonstrations about the loss of their land and Israel’s aggressive military response. But there may be particular reasons that a confrontation is happening now, such as Palestinian anger at President Trump’s decision in December to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the move of the US embassy to there from Tel Aviv. This trumpeted Washington’s unconditional support for the Israeli position and the US disregard for the Palestinians and any remaining hopes they might have to win at least some concessions with US support.
Strong support from the Trump administration is reported by the Israeli press to be further reason why the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, feels that bad publicity over the shootings in Gaza will not damage Israel’s position in the US. In the past, controversy over the mass killings of Palestinian or Lebanese by Israel has sometimes provoked a negative US response that has curbed Israel’s use of force.
So far, Israel has faced little criticism from an international media uninterested in the Gaza story, or else is happy to go along with Israel’s interpretation of events. The vocabulary used by news outlets is often revealing: for instance, the BBC website on 31 March had a headline reading “Gaza-Israel border: Clashes ‘leave 16 Palestinians dead and hundreds injured”. The word “clashes” implies combat between two groups capable of fighting each other, though, as Human Rights Watch says, the demonstrators pose no threat to an all-powerful Israeli military machine – a point reinforced by the fact that all the dead and wounded are Palestinian.
Possibly, the Israelis are miscalculating the impact of excessive use of force on public opinion: in the age of wifi and the internet, graphic images of the victims of violence are immediately broadcast to the world, often with devastating effect. As in Syria and Iraq, the political price of besieging or blockading urban areas like Gaza or Eastern Ghouta is rising because it is impossible to prevent information about the sufferings of those trapped inside such an enclaves becoming public, though this may have no impact on the course of events.
Contrary to Keyes’ claims, the idea of a mass march against the fence seems to have first emerged in social media in Gaza and was only later adopted by Hamas. It is the only strategy likely to show results for the Palestinians because they have no military option, no powerful allies and their leadership is moribund and corrupt. But they do have numbers: a recent report to the Israeli Knesset saying that there are roughly 6.5 million Palestinian Arabs and an equal number of Jewish Israeli citizens in Israel and the West Bank, not counting those in East Jerusalem and Gaza. Israel has usually had more difficulty in dealing with non-violent civil rights type mass movements among Palestinians than it has had fighting armed insurgencies.
Keyes claims that the demonstrations are orchestrated by Hamas, but here again he is mistaken on an important point because witnesses on the spot say that the impetus for the protests is coming from non-party groups and individuals. They voice frustration with the failed, divided and self-seeking Palestinian leaders of both Hamas and Fatah. The most dangerous aspect of the situation in terms of its potential for violence may be that nobody is really in charge.

Era of Corporate Surveillance

Sridhar Yenamandra

George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty Four visualized a situation, where a citizen is under the constant surveillance by the State. It keeps a constant watch on the anti-state activities by its citizens. Any perceived or real situation seen to be going against the perceived interest of the state is immediately acted upon. Such conditions continue to prevail in the country with the State continually trying to find out ‘anti-national’ persons and ‘anti-national’ activities.
A situation that was perhaps not visualized was the surveillance by the corporate agencies. With the growth of the ‘market forces’ and continual ‘corporate’ search for potential consumers, a constant track of the citizens is being kept. The linkage of Aadhaar, Bank Account, and Mobile while is being shown as a means to improve efficiency in delivery of welfare services, it on the other hand is creating a means whereby every data related to the private activities of an individual is being made use of by corporate agencies to identify potential consumers and thereby develop marketing strategies.
The contemporary technological process undertaken in the name of digital connectivity is also a means of enhancing market connectivity. Subscribers to Apps, Social media platforms, Email users, online shopping sites also become forums where vital information on their personal interests such as choices for holidaying, spending patterns on clothing and purchase of consumer durables, recreational activities undertaken such as towards food films etc become data points for corporate agencies. Each information related to what we do, who we meet, where we go, when we spend, how we make choices are tracked. Data Science is emerging as a major discipline. The big data also happens to be the Data on the potential consumers, which is sought to be made use of by the corporate agencies.
Social media which emerged as a forum for social networking and sharing of personal information also happens to throw up data for usage by the commercial firms. A number of firms have emerged in the world which mine data available from internet and other sources, analyze the psychological patterns of the consumer and develop advertisements based on the same. Recently there was news that data of NaMo app of the Prime Minister was sold to a company in US. The data was related to email Ids, photos, gender and names of the users. Similarly the news of facebook data being used for commercial purposes is known.
In this data driven forms of strengthening the market, personal lives of humans become data points. The data on individual lives available with apps and social media sites becomes a commercial commodity for sale to Data analysis firms. For the Data analysis firms, this becomes a raw material, which is to be further processed, converted into commodities and handed over to industrial and commercial firms for ready usage. In the whole process, our own personal lives and information related to the same become commodities. On the other hand, this information is further used to push us towards purchase of more commodities and become loyal consumers to corporate companies.
While Orwell was able to rightly predict the dangers of state surveillance, what was missed out was the corporate surveillance. While state surveillance pushes us to become obedient citizens without questioning the ‘state hegemony’, on the other hand ‘corporate surveillance’ pushes us to become a mere ‘consumer’ ever ready to accept the unnecessary products that gets dumped on.
The digital revolution is not a problem by itself but the commercial and market connection attached to it. However, this could also be a means for social transformation. The same data can be used by forces of social change to bring about radical transformation.

Pakistan: 11 Coal Miners Killed In Deadly Accidents

Ali Mohsin

A series of deadly accidents has claimed the lives of 11 coal miners in Pakistan since late March. The tragic deaths of the miners once again demonstrates the dismal state of worker safety in the country. The accidents also highlight the deeply exploitative character of the mining industry, which after years of privatization is now dominated by private corporations.
The most recent accident occurred on the night of April 4, when 6 workers were suffocated by poisonous gas at a coal mine in the Sikandarabad area of Kalat in Balochistan, Pakistan’s poorest province. According to reports, the miners were digging deep inside the mine where a lethal amount of methane gas had accumulated, causing them to lose consciousness. Workers outside the mine tried desperately to rescue their friends and colleagues, but to no avail. They had all perished by the time rescue teams arrived. The mine was operating illegally, without the requisite government license, according to the Mines and Minerals Development Department of Balochistan’s provincial government.
A few days earlier, on April 1, 4 coal miners were killed at Ali Mines in the Jhelum district of Punjab. They were among 6 workers trapped under debris when an explosion caused a roof to collapse. Those killed included, Rehmatullah, Sabir Rehman and pair of brothers, Naseebzadah and Naseebullah, all of whom hailed from the Shangla district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
According to the Pakistan Central Mines Labour Federation, another coal miner, Faiz Ullah, was killed in an accident at the Sharigh Coal Mine in Balochistan on March 27.
Poverty-stricken Pakistan has a long history of industrial accidents, which have claimed the lives of countless workers across various industries. According to sources familiar with Pakistan’s coal industry, at least 275 coal miners have been killed in accidents since January 2010. While mining is a dangerous job anywhere, it is especially perilous in Pakistan, where working conditions are deplorable and miners are made to follow outdated procedures. In addition to the threat of lethal accidents, miners are also exposed to toxic chemicals and dust that take a toll on their health. They are forced to endure these conditions while earning a pittance.
The country’s coal mining industry is unregulated. It is also plagued by the illegal ownership and operation of mines, lack of implementation of existing safety and health laws and a severely overburdened mining inspectorate. Mine owners routinely flout the existing regulations, fully cognizant of the fact they won’t suffer any consequences.
Pakistan’s coal miners are also insufficiently organized, with many lacking union representation. The existing unions, meanwhile, tend to limit their activities to appeals directed at the country’s crooked politicians and various domestic and international NGOs.
Last month, IndustriALL Global Union, an international federation of unions, launched a campaign to improve worker safety in Pakistan’s mines. The campaign was launched in partnership with its 10 Pakistani affiliates. IndustriALL has called on the government of Pakistan to immediately ratify the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 176 on safety and health in mines. First adopted in 1995, ILO Convention 176 establishes a framework for countries to create safer mining conditions and provides miners with increased rights. Most significantly, it recognizes the right of workers to participate in workplace safety through independent representation and acknowledges the right of workers to refuse to perform dangerous tasks. While the ratification and implementation of ILO Convention 176 would significantly improve worker safety in mines, only 32 countries have ratified it over the past 23 years.
If history is any guide, the call by IndustriALL to ratify ILO Convention 176 will fall on deaf ears. Successive governments in Pakistan have proven that the country’s elite is utterly impervious to the plight of the working class. Indeed, the response of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the opposition parties to the recent accidents has been one and the same—silence.
The exploitative mine and factory owners will continue to take advantage of this state of affairs until workers unite across industries to fight for safe and humane working conditions.

Saudi Arabia And Israel: The New ‘Friends With Benefits’

Priyale Chandra

International politics often seems like a subplot straight out of Game of Thrones, with its numerous alliances, strategic agreements and rhetoric of (and sometimes, actual) war. The latest development in this ever-changing game of alliances is the Saudi crown prince’s recent remarks on Israel.
In a recent interview on his tour of the United States, Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that he recognised the right of Israelis to’ their own land’. The statement is significant because it marks a public announcement of Saudi Arabia’s growing closeness with Israel- a nation it still does not officially recognise.
“I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations”- Prince Salman
Reasons for the new-found closeness
Backchannel talks have existed between Saudi Arabia and Israel for a long time. However, the two countries have found a reason to become firm allies- Iran. Both countries regard Iran as a threat and had earlier criticised the Obama administration nuclear deal with Iran.
Iran’s new found emergence and bid for hegemony in the Middle East has raised concerns in both Saudi Arabia and Israel. This has brought the two countries closer. This new found closeness is reflected in the countries’ united stance on Qatar’s diplomatic and economic blockade last year.
The complicated game for supremacy in the Middle East has pitted Saudi Arabia and Iran against each other for years. Israel has been their common foe. But Iran’s growing dominance in Syria, Lebanon as well as Iraq, has resulted in a rapprochement between Saudi and Israel. The recent statements can serve as a veiled threat to Iran about the possibility of both nations uniting against it.
There is also a demand for Israeli technology, both in defence as well as water desalination, that have influenced relations with its neighbours. Israel has few allies in the region, but its dominance in technology ensures that backdoor relations are always there.
A possibility exists that both Israel and Saudi Arabia might try to collectively influence the Trump administration to adopt a more hardliner approach to Iran. Trump, who has already been extremely critical of the Iran nuclear deal, may be seen by both countries as an easy person to influence in their favour on the issue of Iran.
Foreign investment- another factor?
The place and timing of Prince Salman’s remarks is also important. To revitalize his country’s economy by reducing its dependence on oil exports, Prince Salman has actively been courting foreign investors. It is believed that the decision to allow women to drive was also based, to an extent, on rehabilitating Saudi Arabia’s image to attract more economic investment.
Now in the US for a visit, Prince Salman’s statements could have multiple audiences. Apart from aiming to dominate Iran, the statement acknowledging an Israeli state seeks to attract investors. By conceding the implicit existence of Israel, Prince Salman also wants to gain more economic investment from USA, which has been a firm ally of both countries.
A divided policy?
However, it does not seem likely that the ties between Saudi and Israel will have more overt displays. King Salman reiterated Saudi Arabia’s support for a Palestinian state in a phone call to President Trump. No mention was made of his son’s statements on Israel.
This could point to a divide concerning Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy. Prince Salman has adapted a newer, more aggressive role for his country ever since he entered political life. His actions are aimed at his support base, which consists mostly of youngsters. But they have put him at odds with the old guard still in power. Acknowledging Israel could be the latest move that puts a barrier between the new and older generation of the Saudi political elite.
In any case, the statements supporting a Jewish state are unlikely to result in any actual political move endorsing the same. The only thing that will be worth watching out for is whether the newfound ‘friendship’ between Saudi Arabia and Israel will solidify into a permanent alliance against Iran.