Russian government blocks messaging app Telegram

Clara Weiss

A Russian court issued a ruling Friday, April 12, to block the messaging app Telegram. In a months-long standoff with the Kremlin, the company’s CEO had refused to grant the secret service FSB access to users’ encrypted messages. The ban took legal effect on Monday, April 16.

The court hearing took just 18 minutes. Judge Yulia Smolina from the Tagansky court in Moscow ruled in favour of Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media), a national agency that is subordinated to the Ministry of Telecommunication and in charge of the massive censorship efforts of the Russian government. Pavel Durov, the head of Telegram, announced that the company would be using built-in methods to bypass the block for its 9.5 million users in Russia.

The ruling is based on the “anti-terror laws” signed by President Vladimir Putin in 2016, which have provided the legal basis for a massive crackdown on Internet and communication freedoms in the past two years. This is part of an international drive by capitalist governments to censor the Internet and block encrypted communication, in anticipation of mass struggles by the working class.

According to the Russian laws, telecommunications operators have to store their customers’ phone calls and text messages for six months. Messaging services like Facebook and Telegram have to provide decryption keys to the FSB. Moreover, Russians are legally required to inform authorities about potential terrorist acts, and postal employees are required to inspect packages.

The standoff between Roskomnadzor and Telegram started in June 2017, when the Russian agency asked the company to register in Russia and hand over the encryption keys to the FSB. Telegram did register but refused to provide the encryption keys to the FSB. Last month, Telegram lost the case before the Supreme Court and then failed to comply with the 15-day deadline to hand over the keys. The company can now appeal the recent court decision within 30 days.

There has been an outcry against the ban of Telegram on social media, with many users denouncing the step as a crackdown on freedom of speech and communication. One critic, “Artem,” sarcastically wrote: “Well that’s it! There will be no more terrorism, Telegram is blocked. Now we only have to ban reproductive organs in order to finally do away with rape!”

Many posts expressed anger over the measure as well as fears of impending blocks of other websites and platforms. Others announced that they would defy the ban. One Twitter user from Yekaterinburg, a major industrial city in the Urals, wrote: “Now that Telegram has been blocked I will use it more than ever. Out of principle.”

Telegram has about 200 million users worldwide and is especially popular in the Middle East and Russia, because it allows for encrypted communication and works much better under conditions of poor Internet connection than other messaging apps. In Russia, many young people and even government employees make use of the messaging app.

The company was founded by Pavel Durov, dubbed the Russian Mark Zuckerberg, who also created the hugely popular Russian social media network vkontakte. In 2014, Durov was forced to resign from the board of vkontakte, by then a $3 billion company, because he refused to shut down pages of politicians from the liberal opposition and hand over data from opposition and pro-Maidan pages to the FSB. He has since lived in emigration.

The crackdown on Telegram is in many respects symbolic. Telegram was the app most widely used in the organization of the mass working class protests in Iran last winter. The Kremlin no doubt fears a similar development in Russia where tensions are running high amid an escalating war drive by the imperialist powers and growing poverty in the working class. The recent fire in a shopping mall in Kemerovo provoked mass outrage on social media, including anger over the initial blackout of the fire by the state media and the reaction of the authorities to the disaster.

The blocking of Telegram, whether or not the company can circumvent it, signals that the Russian government will take whatever means are necessary to prevent encrypted communication and the organization of protests via social media and chat apps. This is part of a broader effort by the Kremlin and governments internationally to censor the Internet and spy on communications.

In Russia, these efforts are well-advanced. Especially since the protest movement of 2011-2012, which was spearheaded by the pro-Western liberal opposition, the Kremlin has undertaken a systematic crackdown on freedom of communication on the Internet. The central agency overseeing these censorship and surveillance efforts on the internet is Roskomnadzor.

Internet access in Russia has grown massively over the past 15 years. Between 2004 and 2015, the percentage of the population with Internet access grew from a mere 8 percent to 70 percent (92.8 million people). An estimated 97 percent of all young people between 16 and 29 and 82 percent of those aged 30 to 54 use the Internet. Internet usage was more widespread in urban areas, with a coverage of 83 percent in Moscow and St. Petersburg and 71 percent in cities with a population of 100,000 compared to 66 percent in small towns and the countryside.

Under conditions where most media outlets are controlled by the state, or by the liberal opposition, which is widely despised in the working class, the Internet has become a central source for alternative information about politics. Moreover, given the extraordinary destruction of social and cultural infrastructure during the restoration of capitalism, the Internet today is the main source of culture (be it books, films or other media) for the vast majority of Russians.

While direct Internet censorship by the state has, so far, focused on pages associated with the right-wing liberal opposition, all laws, and especially the mass surveillance, are designed to prevent and target above all movements by the working class which would threaten not only the current Putin regime but the capitalist system as a whole.

The most important restrictions and surveillance measures now in place on the Russian Internet include:

• An Internet blacklist (since November 2012); the criteria for inclusion on this blacklist included initially “child pornography” and the advocating of suicide and illegal drugs. Since 2013, the blacklist law also applies to content that is “suspected of extremism”, “calling for illegal meetings,” “inciting hatred,” and “violating the established order.” Websites deemed guilty of any of these are blocked at the initiative of Roskomnadzor.
  
• Providers of free public wi-fi are legally required to collect and store the personal information of all users, including addresses and passport numbers.
  
• The System of Operational-Investigatory Measures requires telecommunications operators, social media platforms, chats and forums to install hardware by the FSB which allows the agency to monitor users’ communications metadata and content, including phone calls, email traffic and web browsing.

Since 2014, social media platforms and telecommunications operators are also required to install equipment with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) capabilities, which include direct eavesdropping. Access to data obtained through these means is available not only to the FSB, but also the Interior Ministry, the Russian police and the tax police, border patrol, as well as the Presidential Security Service, the Kremlin Regiment, and Parliamentary Security Services.

• The virtual elimination of legal encryption in messaging apps. As of January 2018, operators of messaging apps are also not permitted to allow unidentified users.
  
• Virtual Private Networks (VPN) and other devices to surf anonymously on the internet have been banned since the summer of 2017.

Washington seeks permanent deployment of special forces brigade to Africa

Eddie Haywood

Republican Senator James Inhofe of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week sent a letter to Secretary of the Army Mark Esper outlining a proposal that would constitute an increase in troop levels deployed under AFRICOM, as well as broadening the American military’s footprint across Africa.

In his letter, Inhofe requested the Army secretary give his views regarding the assignment to AFRICOM of one of the six new Security Forces Assistant Brigades (SFAB). The special brigade, if deployed, would provide an additional 500 troops on a permanent basis for AFRICOM.

Inhofe wrote, “As you know, AFRICOM does not have any assigned forces, but must compete for allocated forces within the Department of Defense’s global force management process. The Army has allocated a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) to AFRICOM in the recent past as part of the Regionally Aligned Forces (RAF) program. These operations were a success for our African nation partners and built strategic partnerships for the United States. However, they also negatively affected the allocated BCT’s readiness, especially for core missions such as full spectrum combat operations.”

The SFAB were officially introduced last year with the first of six brigades activated. According to the Pentagon, the new units were “created in order to train, advise, assist, enable and accompany host nation conventional forces in infantry, armor, cavalry, engineer, artillery and combined arms warfare.”

According to the US Army website, the Pentagon envisions the SFAB as “specifically built to achieve the Army’s vision of enabling combatant commanders to carry out theater security objectives through partnered and allied indigenous security forces for decades to come.”

The drive to increase the American military’s presence in Africa comes after last year’s ambush killing of four Green Berets in Niger while conducting a combat mission with their Nigerien counterparts. Highlighting the predatory aim of AFRICOM’s presence in the region is the Niger defense minister’s admission that the US forces “wage war when necessary.”

The plan to expand AFRICOM follows an already amplified presence across the continent, with an estimated 6,000 US special forces and other military personnel on the ground in nearly every country in Africa.

AFRICOM was established in 2007 by the Bush administration to oversee and develop military operations on the resource rich continent. In the beginning, the command was little more than an appendage run under Central Command (CENTCOM) from its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Its exponential expansion today into every corner of Africa is a significant manifestation of Washington’s far-reaching drive to secure US economic dominance over Africa’s vast resources and block the advance of its economic rivals, foremost China.

The Trump administration has overseen a significant rise in drone strikes in Somalia, conducting 35 drone strikes in 2017. In comparison, there were 13 strikes conducted in 2016, and five in 2015. As the WSWS has reported, 2018 is on pace to surpass all previous years combined for drone strikes in the country.

Additionally, the Trump administration issued new rules of engagement for US military forces, essentially granting free rein for commanders to carry out open-ended warfare. The Pentagon has deployed another 500 troops to Somalia.

Notably, the US military has opened a new drone base in Agadez, Niger, which the Pentagon projects will give it the ability to carry out drone strikes and surveillance throughout Western and Northern Africa.

Major General Marcus Hicks, the Chief of Staff for US Special Operations Command, spoke to the Washington Post amid the annual Flintlock military exercise currently being held in Niger. Hicks reiterated the broad scope of the American military’s aim in Africa, saying, “We’re not reducing our footprint or tempo [in Africa].”

Flintlock is a counterterrorism exercise organized by AFRICOM, with the participation of several African nations, since 2005. Participating countries (both past and present) include, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Canada, Tunisia, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States.

Naming the “rise of Islamic extremism” as the pretext for AFRICOM’s broadening mission, Hicks told the Post, “I believe al-Qaida has a more disciplined approach to developing infrastructure across Africa, north Africa, the Sahel. They are taking a patient approach to gaining ground in influence over organizations that are already there and co-opting local and regional grievances and turning it to their own devices.”

In fact, the cause for the rise of Islamic militants spilling into the Sahel and West Africa are largely the consequence of Washington’s intervention into Libya.

From the beginning of the campaign for regime change in Libya, Washington enlisted Islamic militants affiliated or linked to Al-Qaeda to carry out its dirty work in removing Gaddafi.

Now, in the aftermath of the bombardment of Libya by NATO air strikes in 2011 that led to the complete upending of Libyan society, from which it has yet to recover, the former US-backed fighters spilled forth out of Libya and down into West Africa.

The militarization of the continent comes amid a rise in strikes and demonstrations across Africa. Doctors and teachers in Algeria, Kenya, Togo and Nigeria have been carrying out protests and strikes, in many cases completely shutting down schools, universities, and hospitals.

In the final analysis, AFRICOM’s escalation and expansion complements Washington’s utilization of its massive military power to counter waning US economic and political influence in Africa to neutralize China’s rising economic influence on the continent. Beijing’s recent opening of a naval base in Djibouti, five miles from the joint US-France Camp Lemonnier base, is of particular concern to Washington’s strategists.

GM to slash 1,500 jobs at Lordstown, Ohio plant

Tim Rivers

In spite of a continuous chorus in the media of a booming economy creating robust job numbers, General Motors is unleashing a new round of attacks on autoworkers in North America as part of a global cost-cutting offensive against the working class.

The corporation announced on Friday it will cut one of two operating shifts at its massive Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant, cutting as many as 1,500 jobs effective June 15. As recently as 2016, the plant was operating three shifts around the clock with nearly 4,000 workers. By the end of June only 1,500 will remain.

As sales for the compact Chevy Cruze, the only vehicle produced at the facility, began to slip, GM shuttered the third shift in January 2017, axing 800 jobs. Over the course of 2017, the plant was idled for weeks at a time and rumors began to circulate about the impending layoffs.

As an indication of the severity of the cuts, this is the first time since the recession of the 1980s that the plant will operate with only one shift.

In September, anticipating the cuts, the United Auto Workers (UAW) international union merged the two local unions at the plant into one. Local 1714 joined UAW 1112. At the time, international president Dennis Williams said the move would increase efficiency and preserve union operations in the plant. The move was clearly intended to tighten the grip of the international, suppress any struggle against the job cuts and, on the contrary, boost the company’s cost cutting and profitability.

GM pretax profits for 2017 topped $12.8 billion. The company sold 450,000 fewer vehicles to dealers last year than they did in 2016, but because of aggressive cost-cutting attacks on the workers, imposed by the union, which include everything from an expansion of Temporary Part Time employees at less than half pay, widespread layoffs and shutdowns.

US passenger car sales are on track to decline for the fifth straight year while sales of light trucks are setting records. US sales of compact cars dropped 10 percent in the first quarter and 5.8 percent through 2017.

Lordstown is not the only plant affected by this shift. GM’s Detroit-Hamtramck factory, for example, relies heavily on production of small and midsize sedans, including the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Chevrolet Impala and the Chevrolet Volt. In October, the automaker announced plans to cut about 200 jobs there and halt production beginning November 20 through the Christmas break, affecting 1,500 jobs over the holidays. The second shift was eliminated in March 2017, eliminating 1,300 jobs.

Massive attacks imposed during the Obama administration’s 2009 restructuring of GM and Chrysler, which cut pay in half for new hires and sharply expanded the temporary workforce, allowed the automotive industry to lead the way in what was—for corporate America—a sterling economic recovery. The UAW was paid off handsomely with union officials receiving millions of dollars in corporate bribes to sign “company friendly” agreements.

Mary, a legacy worker from Lordstown who is about to retire, told the World Socialist Web Site, “A lot of people are going to be hurt. There are a lot of young families out there that need their jobs.”

When asked about a struggle against the layoffs, she replied with disgust, “We don’t have the union we had umpteen years ago. All of that has changed.”

Another legacy worker who will lose her job in June is outraged that the union is refusing to cover her health insurance when she retires. “The union doesn’t want to pay for my health care,” she said. “I am very upset. The union does nothing for me. A lot of people are angry about it. They rewrite the seniority clause in the contract when they want to, to protect their people.”

The same conditions are developing in factories everywhere as GM pursues its cost-cutting strategy with a vengeance. Last year, GM said it would withdraw from India, one of the few major automakers to walk away from a country many are counting on for cheap labor and growth. It also has withdrawn production from Europe and Australia and substantially downsized in Russia, Thailand and Indonesia.

GM has announced it will close a Korean factory in the coastal city of Gunsan cutting 2,000 jobs in May as a bludgeon to force workers at the three remaining plants to take cuts. The company is approaching a major restructuring of its operations in South Korea where it employs 16,000 factory workers. Its plants there produce cars mostly for export to dozens of countries—including Buick sport-utility vehicles sent to the US.

GM President Dan Ammann, who is in charge of global operations, said in an interview that the automaker has laid out its position to the union and government officials but declined to discuss specifics. In a threat that will ring all too familiar to American autoworkers, he said GM Korea’s factories are too costly to operate profitably.

“We’ve made clear we need to have a business that’s sustainably profitable in order for that business to attract further investment,” Mr. Ammann stated. He said retaining a presence in the country is the “preferred scenario.”

British government admits links to Manchester and London terror attack groups

Jean Shaoul

The British government has admitted that it “likely” had contacts with two Islamist groups, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, for which the 2017 Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, and his father reportedly fought during the 2011 war in Libya.

Abedi killed 23 people in a suicide bomb attack as they were leaving the Manchester Arena concert last May.

A member of the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, an LIFG offshoot, Rachid Redouane was part of the terror group that killed eight people in the London Bridge/Borough market attack last year. He fought in the Libya war of 2011 for the Liwa al-Ummah unit.

The admission came as the British government, without a shred of evidence, continued to denounce the Russian government of Vladimir Putin for the supposed nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

But there is now real evidence of Britain’s deep ties with terrorist groups that have killed many British citizens on British soil.

The US, UK and French governments provided air support in the NATO-led war to topple the Libyan regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, while using Islamist groups as proxy forces on the ground.

Foreign Minister Alistair Burt, who was an under-secretary of state at the Foreign Office between 2010 and 2013—with responsibility for “Counter Terrorism, Counter Proliferation, Counter Piracy, North America, Middle East and North Africa, the Maldives and Sri Lanka”—told Parliament that “During the Libyan conflict in 2011 the British government was in communication with a wide range of Libyans involved in the conflict against the Gaddafi regime forces.”

He added, “It is likely that this included former members of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and 17 February Martyrs Brigade, as part of our broad engagement during this time.”

His admission was contained in a written response to a parliamentary question submitted by Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle. It was published after the start of the parliamentary Easter recess in a move that would ensure it got minimal attention.

Russell-Moyle said Burt’s response meant that the government had “serious questions” to answer over whether it facilitated Abedi’s travel to fight in Libya, backed Islamists linked to Al Qaeda in pursuit of its war aims in Libya, supported the Islamist militia that had radicalised a Briton who went on to kill 23 and injured many hundreds in Manchester, and whether the Arena bombing was “blowback.”

Conservative Security Minister Ben Wallace refused to say which groups the Abedi family fought for in Libya, stating, “The Home Office does not comment on intelligence matters nor on matters which form part of ongoing investigations.” This ambiguous answer to another of Russell-Moyle’s questions provides a further indication of the nature of the links between the Abedis and the security services.

Within days of the Manchester and London attacks, the authorities were forced to admit that the perpetrators were known to the police, and that the UK’s MI5 intelligence agency had prior warning from the FBI that the Manchester suicide bomber planned a terrorist atrocity. In effect, MI5 gave him a free hand to launch a terrorist attack.

While Britain’s links with Libyan Islamist groups were widely suspected, this is the first time the government has admitted to having had contacts with them. It adds to the mounting evidence of the role of British intelligence and successive governments in cultivating terror networks and protecting these “assets” as part of their regime-change operations in Libya and Syria.

In the 1990s, the British government allowed numerous Islamist groups to operate in London, to such an extent it became known as “Londonistan.” Libyan dissidents and the LIFG, formed out of a group whose members had fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, were able to develop a base of logistical support and raise funds.

MI6 even used an LIFG agent in London to plot Gaddafi’s assassination in an attack that killed or injured several civilians, while leaving Gaddafi unhurt, according to a report by former British spy David Shayler subsequently confirmed by US intelligence.

All that changed in 2004, when the Labour government of Tony Blair brought Gaddafi in from the cold to secure lucrative contracts for British oil companies.

As part of the deal, the authorities designated the LIFG as a “terrorist” group, which sought to establish a “hard-line” Islamist state and “part of the wider Islamist extremist movement inspired by Al Qaeda.” They rounded up opponents of the Libyan regime, in Britain and overseas, including one of LIFG’s leaders, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and his wife. Britain sent them back to Libya, as confirmed by documents belonging to Libya’s intelligence chief Moussa Koussa discovered after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Following a deal between Gaddafi and the LIFG in 2009, many of these Islamists were released from Libyan jails. LIFG was apparently disbanded and many of its members joined the 17 February Martyrs Brigade.

In another switch of foreign policy, Britain—as part of the NATO-led invasion of Libya in 2011—used LIFG’s successor organisations and similar forces linked to Al Qaeda as proxies to topple Gaddafi. But by this time, former Prime Minister David Cameron was telling Parliament that LIFG was no longer linked to Al Qaeda.

According to reports published by the Middle East Eye website, which cited interviews with former rebel fighters, Cameron’s Conservative-led government effectively operated an “open door” policy. Prime Minister Theresa May was home secretary at the time when the security services allowed LIFG members to travel to Libya, providing them with passports and giving them security clearance, as part of the military operations to overthrow Gaddafi. The Manchester bomber’s parents were both LIFG members.

These individuals, including Abedi, were able to travel freely back and forth “with no questions asked,” even though many had previously been under counterterrorism control orders, with tight restrictions on their movement and Internet activity.

May lifted the control orders when Britain joined US and French efforts to topple Gaddafi. This was because the UN resolution sanctioning the war on the Gaddafi regime specifically excluded ground troops, a restriction Britain later admitted it had covertly overridden.

The 17 February Martyrs Brigade and similar rebel groups were provided with $400 million of weaponry by Qatar. Britain reportedly approved Qatar’s arms supplies, working closely alongside it as its principal partner in the war and helping covertly with their training. Such training was covert precisely because providing such “assistance to opposition forces” is illegal.

The same Islamist militias, along with large quantities of Libyan arms, were later shipped off to take part in the next US-sponsored regime-change operation in Syria, alongside offshoots of Al Qaeda.

The British government and security forces worked closely with these terrorist organisations in both Libya and Syria, and then allowed them to return “without hesitation,” thereby helping to spawn a layer of British-born jihadis such as Abedi.

Despite the publication of several articles about this relationship on Middle East Eye, none of the mainstream media have seen fit to comment on the government’s admission. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has likewise remained silent on the issue.

Trump’s Tariffs and a Looming Trade War: India's Stakes

Ayan Tewari


As US President Donald Trump imposes steel and aluminium tariffs on most countries, India is in a unique position to capitalise on the situation. Trump’s tariffs could direct foreign steel and aluminium towards India, benefitting consumers, distributors, and middlemen alike. Additionally, further retaliation against the US could open a space for Indian producers to sell in markets abroad. However, India must avoid getting caught in the crossfire in the trade war, while still ensuring that domestic producers can deal with foreign competition. 

After two years of speeches and threats accusing the rest of the world of taking advantage of the US, Trump finally levied tariffs on steel (25 per cent) and aluminium (10 per cent) on every country barring Canada, Mexico, the EU, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina. However, the White House has made it clear that these exemptions are merely temporary (until 1 May 2018). The EU has threatened tariffs on various US products (Harley-Davidson, Levi’s, Kentucky Bourbon), and China has already retaliated, imposing duties of up to 25 per cent on US$ 5 billion worth of US imports, including US$ 1.2 billion worth of pork. In response, Washington drew up a list of 1,333 Chinese exports worth US$ 50 billion annually that it plans to impose tariffs up to 25 per cent on. China responded swiftly, presenting a list of 106 products worth US$ 50 billion, which it plans to also tax 25 per cent.

As opposed to European and Chinese companies, India barely relies on the US to satisfy its steel and aluminium surplus, with only 5 per cent of Indian steel going to the US, and most of India’s aluminium going to Southeast Asia. This limited reliance on the US provides India with a window of opportunity to take advantage of a trade war when juxtaposed with China's recent pledge to fix the bilateral trade imbalance. The question is, how should India place itself in this situation while avoiding a trade war? 

The direct short-term effect of the steel and aluminium tariffs will involve a surge of foreign steel and aluminium entering the Indian market. After 1 May, countries such as Russia, Turkey, and Japan, and others such as South Korea which have large stakes in US and Indian steel and aluminium markets, may seek to expand into India's large consumer market. The government's INR 5.97 trillion spending plan on infrastructure in the 2018-19 budget, combined with low transportation and labour costs, is likely to create a desirable market for foreign steel and aluminium. These imports will not only lower prices for Indian buyers, but may also disrupt the oligopoly plaguing the Indian steel market comprising TATA Steel Group, JSW Steel Limited and the Steel Authority of India Ltd. Additionally, the government and middlemen will obtain increased revenue, ultimately resulting in higher employment and more disposable funds. 

Foreign companies in India may also resort to dumping, resulting in domestic producers being edged out of the market through unfair means. To avoid such negative effects, appropriate inspections, enforcement, and intelligent and targeted application of rules must be conducted, and smaller domestic firms and start-ups should be considered for subsidies to deal with competition from China and the EU. These steps can also help thwart the oligopoly.

While it is difficult for Indian companies to compete in China, the tariffs on Chinese products - such as low-end colour TVs (worth US$ 3.9 billion) - will leave a vacuum in the US market, one that Indian companies could possibly fill. Moreover, as the trade war intensifies, the US may impose duties on more Chinese products. While products that the US relies on - such as Chinese mobile phones and computing equipment - are not likely to be taxed, the multi-billion dollar industries of Chinese furniture (US$ 29 billion), toys (US$ 24 billion), and footwear (US$ 15 billion) might be under scrutiny, and prime opportunities for Indian companies to capitalise on. 

The argument here is not for the imposition of duties. Rather, it is one where dumping and unfair trade practices are thwarted, while market rationalisation allows the export sector to function without subsidies. India has already come under immense scrutiny from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for its export promotion schemes (Merchandise Exports from India Scheme, Export Oriented Units Scheme, Electronics Hardware Technology Parks Scheme, the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme), with both the US and Japan publicly accusing India of wrongdoing. The continuation of these programmes may antagonise more countries, and in today’s tense climate, trade sanctions must be avoided. 

If carefully calibrated, these steps could, in the short-run, benefit Indian companies, giving them the advantage of lower prices and greater choice, and in the long-run, lead to the dismantling of oligopolies. However, if the government overplays its hands and engages in ham-handed protectionism such as subsidies on exporting firms, Indian jobs and revenue will be in peril due to retaliation.

New Technologies Demand New Laws and Ethics

Vijay Sakhuja


The Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) met in Geneva earlier this month and emphasised the critical necessity to ban "fully autonomous weapon systems." They urged states to move towards negotiating a legally binding instrument on this issue. The International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) has positioned issues of ethics and public conscience in the forefront and reiterated the "Principle of Non-Delegation of the Authority to Kill" by non-human mechanisms. 

Fully autonomous weapon systems are a product of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) centered on disruptive technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), deep machine learning, robots, and drones. These have opened the flood gates to new opportunities in nearly all facets of human activity including warfare. Autonomous and intelligent machines such as robots have brought enormous advantages, freeing human operators from routine and mechanical tasks. These are highly exciting technological advancements; however, there is also the potential for frightening outcomes amid fears that humans are being pushed to the secondary level or even sidelined in the decision-making process. Further, delegating complex tasks including decision-making to devices, sensors and algorithms could potentially engender severe complications. 

Warfare is not immune to usage of unmanned systems and devices, and these have found relevance in tasks such as search and rescue, bomb disposal, firefighting, and so on, making warfare and emergency response more efficient and accurate with less collateral damage. Some militaries may be exploring weaponisation of autonomous technologies and it is their belief that soldiers and civilians will be at less risk as also liberating them from any moral consequences of killing or for self-defence.

A number of NGOs have been agitating against the use of LAWS and have called for an international ban on ‘killer robots’ including “a treaty for emerging weapons.” A campaign - ‘Coalition to Stop Killer Robots’ - led by Professor Noel Sharkey of the University of Sheffield claims support from about 64 NGOs. Sharkey has expressed concerns over the growing competition among companies and militaries to build and acquire autonomous and smarter weapons, and labelled this trend as “a new arms race.” Further, it has also been noted that “inanimate machines cannot understand or respect the value of life” and “machines should never be permitted to take human life on the battlefield or in policing, border control, or any circumstances.”

Similar sentiments have been expressed elsewhere: some Google staffers have written a letter in an attempt to impress upon the company the need to “suspend work on a US military project that involved drones and artificial intelligence capability.” Likewise, scientists and academics at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in Seoul have threatened to boycott projects developing AI for military use. Elon Musk, a leader in pioneering robotics and AI, is heading a group of 116 specialists from across 26 countries urging the UN to ban the development and use of ‘killer robots’.

Although no country has openly declared that they are pursuing LAWS, states have made public their views on the issue. For instance, China's submission to the GGE notes that although LAWS has not been clearly defined, the issue merits the attention of the international community, and it supports the use of LAWS in operations involving nuclear, biological and chemical weapons environments. However, LAWS lack capability of distinction in use against combatants and innocents; do not possess the capability of determining proportionality of use of force; and it is difficult to establish accountability, which can potentially lead to the killing or maiming of non-combatants. It is therefore necessary to formulate general legal norms for LAWS. 

The UK has endorsed and made public its policy to not “develop and use fully autonomous weapons, or weapons that can make decisions independent from human oversight.” British MP Mark Lancaster, minister of state for the armed forces, has observed the issue from a doctrinal perspective and stated that it is “absolutely right that our weapons are operated by real people capable of making incredibly important decisions, and we are guaranteeing that vital oversight.” 

Unlike China and the UK, the Russian submission to the GGE notes that the "preventive, prohibitive or restrictive measures against LAWS" are complex, and given the limited human understanding of these technologies, such a ban may not serve the purpose. Although it is difficult to distinguish between civilian and military developments in autonomous systems, a ban on LAWS can preclude peaceful uses of these technologies. 

While that may be so, legal and ethical issues are beginning to gain greater salience particularly in the context of warfare where surrendering unbridled control to machines to take decisions to kill, injure, or destroy could challenge international law, ethics of warfighting, and human values.

IDRC Research Awards for Students from Canada and Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th May, 2018 by 4:00 PM (EDT)

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Canada and citizens of Developing countries (except the following listed below)

To be taken at (country): Positions are available at IDRC’s head office in Ottawa, Canada; at their Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean in Montevideo, Uruguay; and at IDRC’s Regional Office for Sub-Saharan Africa, in Nairobi, Kenya. Eligibility criteria differ for each location.

Fields of Study: 20 awards will be offered during this call. There is one call per program listed below. You may only choose ONE of the following:
Advisory Committee on Research Ethics, Agriculture and Food Security, Climate Change (in Uruguay), Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia, Employment and Growth, Food, Environment, and Health, Foundations for Innovation, Governance and Justice, Livestock Vaccine Innovation Fund (in Kenya), Maternal and Child Health, Networked Economies, Policy and Evaluation, Think Tank Initiative

About the Award: Research award recipients will undertake a one-year paid program of research on the topic they have submitted, and will receive hands-on experience in research management, grant administration, and the creation, dissemination, and use of knowledge from an international perspective.
For payroll purposes, awardees are considered full-time employees of IDRC. Benefits include employer contributions to Employment Insurance, Employer Health Tax, Canada Pension Plan, and paid vacation leave. Some travel and research expenses are also supported, up to a maximum of CA$15,000.

Type: Research, PhD

Eligibility: To be eligible, you must meet the following requirements:

• You must be a citizen or permanent resident of Canada, or a citizen of a developing country.
• You must be enrolled at a Canadian university at the doctoral level (when you submit your application, you must have completed several courses of the doctoral program, but not necessarily all of the courses).
• Your research proposal must be approved by your thesis supervisor. Please provide proof.
• Your proposed field research must take place in one or more developing countries and be conducted for a doctoral dissertation.
• Your field research must correspond to IDRC thematic priorities. Applications proposing field research outside these thematic areas will not be considered.
• You must provide evidence of affiliation with an institution or organization in the developing region(s) in which the research will take place.
• You must have completed coursework and passed comprehensive exams before taking up the award.
• You may not be in receipt of two or more active IDRC awards at the same time. No time overlaps will be permitted.

If you are selected for an award, you have up to 12 months to start your field research from the date of the final selection.
It will be your responsibility to ensure that you follow all Government of Canada travel advisories while applying, when planning your trip, and while in the field. IDRC will not approve travel to a region for which there is an advisory that all travel should be avoided. If you are selected and the advisory changes, you will still be required to follow it even after a contract is signed.

Research country exceptions
In principle, IDRC supports research in all developing countries. At this time, however, we do not offer awards for research that involves the following countries:
Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Micronesia, North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of), Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Southern and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and South Caucasus, and some small island states, including Comoros, São Tomé and Principe, Saint Helena, Timor-Leste, and Oceania (Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis & Futuna).

Countries subject to approval
You may apply for research in the following countries and territories, but if you are recommended for an award, your application may be subject to a further stage of approval within IDRC:
Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Democratic Republic of), Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Gaza, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Monserrat, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Suriname, Tunisia, Venezuela, West Bank, and Zimbabwe.

Selection Criteria: The following criteria will be used to evaluate applications:

• Fit with IDRC mission and thematic priorities;
• Overall appropriateness, completeness, quality, and clarity of the research proposal;
• Overall methodology and considerations of cultural, logistical, and scientific constraints;
• Overall feasibility, duration, and timing of the research;
• Originality and creativity of the research;
• Potential contribution to existing knowledge on the issue;
• Gender dimensions of the research;
• Ethical considerations of the research;
• Benefit to the communities where the research is taking place;
• Suitability of the affiliated institution;
• Potential for research results to be disseminated and used;
• Budget;
• Applicant’s capacity to conduct the proposed research, including academic training, local language capacity, professional skills, research experience, and knowledge of country/region of research.

Number of Awards: 20

Value of Program: A maximum of CA$20,000 each

Duration of Program: 3-12 months

How to Apply: Before applying, please read the checklist of documents required for this call via Program Webpage (Link below).

Then Apply online

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: International  Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Chinese Government Scholarship-Bilateral Program for International Students (Undergraduate, Masters, PhD) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): China

About the Award: The Bilateral Program supports undergraduate students, graduate students, general scholars and senior scholars. Undergraduate scholarship recipients must register for Chinese-taught credit courses. Graduate and non-degree scholarship students can register for either the Chinese-taught program or the English-taught program if applicable.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD

Eligibility:  

1. Applicants must be a citizen of a country other than the People’s Republic of China, and be in good health.
2. The requirements for applicants’ degree and age are that applicants must:
   • be a high school graduate under the age of 25 when applying for the undergraduate programs;
   • be a bachelor’s degree holder under the age of 35 when applying for the master’s programs;
   • be a master’s degree holder under the age of 40 when applying for the doctoral programs;
   • be under the age of 45 and have a high school diploma (or higher) when applying for the general scholar programs;

       be a master’s degree holder or an associate professor (or above) under the age of 50 when applying for the senior scholar programs.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Bilateral Program provides both full scholarships and partial scholarships.

Duration of Program:

• Undergraduate students: 4-7years
• Master’s students: 2-5 years
• Doctoral students: 3-6 years
• General scholars: up to 2 years
• Senior scholars: up to 2 years

How to Apply:

1. Step 1 – Apply to the dispatching authorities for overseas study of your home country for CGS opportunity;
2. Step 2 – Apply to your target university for the Pre-admission Letter once recommended by the dispatching authorities as an eligible candidate (you will receive an Award Letter for CGS Candidate);
3. Step 3 – Complete the online application procedure at CGS Information Management System for International Students (Visit http://www.csc.edu.cn/studyinchina or http://www.campuschina.org and click “Application Online” to log in), submit online the completed Application Form for Chinese Government Scholarship, and print a hard copy. You should consult the dispatching authorities for overseas study of your home country for Instructions of CGS Information Management System for International Students and Agency Number;
4. Step 4 – Submit all of your application documents to the dispatching authorities of your home country before the deadline.

It is important to find out the Application documents required on the Program Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Chinese Government

Important Notes: Only applications of recommended candidates from dispatching authorities will be considered. Candidates holding a Pre-admission Letter will be placed in the host university; those without the Pre-admission Letter should accept CSC’s placement of university.

Berlin School of Creative Leadership Executive MBA Scholarship Program for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st May 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Berlin, Germany.

About the Award: Acquiring a top-quality degree is the best possible investment you can make in your future. At the Berlin School of Creative Leadership, we do our best to make sure that a lack of funds doesn’t prevent people with outstanding track records from taking part in our program.

Type: MBA

Eligibility: Accomplished senior executives in digital, technology, media, advertising, and entertainment or a similar field with a strong professional background, creative mindset, and track record of creative and/or business excellence.

Selection Criteria: Entries are judged on an applicant’s overall profile, as well as the information provided in the EMBA application. Candidates additionally answer a DLD scholarship essay question, and that response also plays a role in selection.

Number of Awards: 4

Value of Award:

• The scholarship winner will receive €23,000 which will be applied towards the tuition costs of the program.
• Up to three additional finalists may be eligible to receive up to €10,000 in tuition support.

Duration of Program: 18-24 months. Program begins September 9th 2018

How to Apply: You can apply for a scholarship at the Berlin School‘s online application portal. There is no fee to apply. You will need to submit:

1. Completed application
2. Response to the following DLD scholarship essay question:
“Reconquer” is DLD’s call to action and theme for 2018 – Businesses and consumers today find themselves at the edge of a new era of machine-learning. As has happened in the past, the most effective leaders and businesses will be those who reconquer these far-reaching changes. How do you think creative business leadership can both harness these new technological forces and liberate human-driven innovation for the benefit of future markets and societies? Please provide examples to support your thoughts.

APPLY NOW

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Berlin School of Creative Leadership

Barclays Africa L’Atelier Arts Competition for Young African Artists (Fully-funded to Paris, France) 2018

Application Deadline: 27th April 2018 at 16:00 (CAT).

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Namibia, Mozambique, Mauritius or Seychelles.

About the Award: Building on the platform created over the past two years, the competition is continuing to expand across Africa, opening in a number of countries, where Barclays Africa has a presence.
The L’Atelier competition sets the stage for approximately 100 young artists each year to promote their work by exhibiting at the Absa Gallery, in Johannesburg, South Africa, and having their work documented in a sought-after catalogue.

Type: Contest

Eligibility:

• Artists who are permanent residents of and residing in South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Namibia, Mozambique, Mauritius or Seychelles are invited to enter.
• Interested candidates are required to read the Terms and Conditions for further details on their eligibility.

Selection Criteria: The criteria for the adjudication both at the regional and national levels revolves around matters of technical execution, conceptual and thematic engagement, freshness of artistic vision within the context of African contemporary art and finally – and probably the most difficult element – aesthetic appeal.

Selection: Initial adjudication is done on electronic submission where you may upload up to seven (7) images of your artwork. Those artists whose entries make it in through to the next round will be contact directly to arrange for the collection of their artwork. It is essential when registering online and uploading your artwork that all fields are completed. Failure not to complete all fields will result in your entry been disqualified. Please note that all previous entrants will be required to re-register.

Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award:

1. There are five prizes for 2018 competition: the first prize, three merit award prizes and Gerard Sekoto Award for the most promising artist.
2. The top 10 finalists will all be placed on a two-day art professionalism course to assist them in managing their careers.

First Prize: 
6 Months in Paris:

• R330 000 and a return ticket to Paris
• The prize money must be used for a study term of between three and six months in the studio apartment at the Cité Internationale des Arts, purchased specifically for this purpose. The prize money will be made available when the winner leaves for Paris. The date of the residency is January to June 2019.

Merit Award Prizes:

• 3 Months in Johannesburg
  • At the Bag Factory Artists’ Studio
  • One merit award winner will win a prize consisting of a three-month residency in Johannesburg, at the Bag Factory Artists’ Studio, a return flight to Johannesburg and a monthly stipend. The date of the residency is June to August 2019.
• 2 Months in Sylt
  • The Sylt Foundation Residency
  • This prize includes a return flight to Germany and a monthly stipend. The date of the residency is September to October 2019.
• 1 Month in New York
  • The Ampersand Foundation Residency
  • The prize includes a one month residency at the Ampersand Foundation in New York. You’ll be a Fellow of the Ampersand Foundation and have access to the American Association of Museums (AAM) card that allows free access to most museums in New York City. The prize includes return flights to New York City and a monthly stipend. The date of the residency is January 2019.

Gerard Sekoto Award
3 Months in Paris:

• The Alliance Française, the Institut Français Afrique du Sud and the French Embassy are sponsoring the Gerard Sekoto Award for a South African artist who has demonstrated continual improvement in the quality of their entry year-on-year in the L’Atelier competition.
• This prize consists of a return flight ticket to Paris, three months’ stay in the Cité Internationale des Arts, nationwide touring exhibitions Institut Français Afrique du Sud language lessons. The Cité Internationale des Arts in Paris residencies are made available by SANAVA. The date of the residency is May to July 2019.

How to Apply: Interested applicants must go through the Program Webpage (see Link below) for application information BEFORE APPLYING.
ENTER NOW

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: 

• Barclays Africa Group Limited
• South African National Association for the Visual Arts

SPONSORS OF THE GERARD SEKOTO AWARD

• Alliance Française in South Africa
• French Embassy in South Africa
• Institut Français Afrique du Sud

MERIT AWARD PARTNERS

• Sylt Foundation
• Ampersand Foundation
• Bag Factory Johannesburg

Yousef Jameel Doctoral Scholarship for Natural Scientists from Developing Countries at Humboldt-Universität 2018/2019 – Germany

Application Deadline: 15th July 2018

Eligible Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia.

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

About the Award: Promoting the development of young scientists and scholars is a declared goal of Humboldt-Universität. Humboldt-Universität places a high priority on preparing leading young researchers and scientists for
careers in research and teaching.

Field of Study: Informatics/ Computer Science, Mathematics, Biology/ Biomedicine, Chemistry, Physics, Geography and Agricultural Science.

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must possess an academic degree and fulfil the requirements necessary for admission to a doctoral programme at the appropriate Humboldt-Universität faculty. The applicant must obtain admission to a doctoral programme (Promotionszulassung) before the scholarship’s starting date.
• Very good written and spoken English as well as good German communications skills are required.
• Applications will only be considered from students of Arab countries and Turkey who credibly demonstrate their intent to return.
• To increase the proportion of women at the university, applications from qualified women are particularly encouraged.
• Disabled persons will receive preference, assuming equal qualifications.

Number of Awards: 5

Value of Award: The stipend awarded is in the amount of 1340 Euros per month, plus materials expenses.

Duration of Program: The scholarships are awarded for a period of three years and commence on October 1.

How to Apply: 

• A cover letter detailing the intended field of study of the doctoral program, as well as the motivation of the applicant;
• A CV and list of publications, if applicable;
• An Exposé including a detailed work plan for the three-year scholarship period (maximum ten pages);
• Copies of academic records and references from previous employers, with certified German translations if necessary;
• An evaluation from the applicant’s Ph.D. supervisor of the Humboldt-Universität.

Send Applications and Questions to:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Forschungsabteilung
Yousef Jameel Scholarship
Unter den Linden 6
10099 Berlin
jameel-academic@hu-berlin.de

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Yousef Jameel Scholarship Fund.

Estonian National Scholarships for International Students, Researchers and Academic Staff 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st May 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Estonia

Type: Masters, Research

Eligibility: 

• A scholarship is paid on condition that the scholarship recipient is studying full time and completes cumulatively at least 75% of the coursework required by the curriculum by the end of each academic year. The scholarship of degree study is not paid during the stay at academic leave or in exceeding the nominal duration of the studies.
• The commission will favour applicants who have not been granted or given any other scholarships for the same period or for the same aim.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 350 EUR per month. Additional costs such as tuition fee, health insurance and other costs will not be compensated.

Duration of Scholarship: The scholarship for degree study is paid for twelve calendar months each academic year during the nominal period of study, except the last academic year of the nominal period of study when the scholarship is paid for ten months.

How to Apply: The entrance to the institution of higher education is separate from the application for the scholarship. The decision to award scholarship for the applicant does not guarantee his/her admittance to the HEI. The applicant should submit the required documents to the HEI according to the entrance requirements of the institution of higher education. The decision on admittance to the institution of higher education should be adopted before the payment of scholarship.
The following documents shall be submitted for the scholarship for students (application period is from 1.04.2018 to 1.05.2018):

• application form and motivation letter through online application system
• confirmation of admission from the higher education institution in Estonia or confirmation of submission of required admission documents;
• copy of passport or ID-card.

All documents should be in English or Estonian. Documents must be translated to any of these languages if the language of issuance is different. The foundation has the right to require the additional documents. Submitted documents will be not returned to the applicant. The applications which are not full complicated, drawn up as required, include false information or are submitted with a delay are not assessed.
The application system link: https://taotlused.archimedes.ee/EN/pub_login.php. Please register in order to start the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Estonian Government