Myanmar's Military and the Rohingya Crisis

Roshni Kapur


The Rohingya have fled from their homeland in Rakhine, Myanmar, whenever there has been an eruption in violence. Approximately 700,000 Rohingyas are currently living in Bangladesh’s Cox Bazar district ever since fleeing the latest outbreak of violence in August 2017. The latest scale of violence is the result of a four-month long military operation against Rohingya militants that has been marred by widespread allegations of extra judicial killings, rapes, arson, and other serious human rights violations. There is now a strong call by some countries to start criminal proceedings against Myanmar’s top military personnel who may be implicated for war crimes. 

The Rohingya crisis is a product of deep-seated hatred and resentment perpetuated by the military that has manifested into discriminatory policies that have disenfranchised and stripped the Rohingya of their basic civil liberties including citizenship, employment and education. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing said in March 2018 that the Rohingyas have nothing in common with the rest of the country and the recent violence was exacerbated by their quest for citizenship. Both the outgoing and current governments have asserted that the Rohingya are ‘Bengali’ trespassers from Bangladesh whereas the community has in fact lived in Myanmar for generations. 

Punitive Action
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad a-Hussein has been advocating for strong punitive action against Myanmar, urging the UN General Assembly to pass on information pertaining to the atrocities to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Similar statements have been made by Yanghee Lee, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, on the prosecution of military personnel for war crimes. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has also joined the for-prosecution lobby, announcing its interest in forming a committee to investigate and provide evidence of those guilty of crimes. This initiative shows collective solidarity on the issue, but has its own limitations. 

Despite sufficient evidence to suggest state-sponsored violence against civilians by the Tatmadaw, domestic prosecution is off the table since the military controls three key ministries: defence, home affairs and border Furthermore, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is unlikely to intervene or take a proactive stance due to its non-intervention principle. The final call lies with the ICC; however, the international court only has jurisdiction over the signatories to the Rome Statute, thus keeping Myanmar, which is not a signatory, off the hook of direct prosecution.

Only the UN Security Council (UNSC), through a resolution, can refer Myanmar to the ICC for criminal proceedings. But such a resolution is likely to be blocked by China and Russia given their strong relations with Myanmar. In 2017, China was quick to block a UNSC statement on Myanmar pertaining to the crisis.

Nonetheless, there have been past exceptions where China placed the international community’s agenda over its national interest. Despite China’s close relations with Sudan, the UNSC was able to refer Sudan to the ICC, which led to the eventual conviction of former president Omar Al Bashir in 2009. The UNSC has also referred Libya to the ICC despite not being a signatory to the Rome Statute. So, while remaining UNSC members could attempt to pressurise China to prioritise humanitarian issues over its national interest, it will undoubtedly be an uphill task. 

Alternative Options
First,different groupssuch as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) should form a joint committee to collate, gather and document information on the alleged atrocities. The OIC and fact-finding mission ofthe Human Rights Council (HRC) can be a part of this joint body to which each group brings its own expertise and pool of resources. 

This is important for a number of reasons. The details on human rights violations are still murky since no names for conviction have yet been submitted. The lack of precision on whom to prosecute under what crimes may be a reason behind the stunted progress on punitive action. Identifying the alleged perpetrators will help build a concrete case that could eventually lead to prosecution. 

Second, creation of an ad-hoc tribunal to try Myanmar's generals remains a possibility. Such tribunals were common instruments in the 1990s to respond to atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) saw a number of politicians convicted for genocide and other crimes against humanity. However, the UNSC will need to pass a resolution in order to set up such a tribunal on Myanmar.

Third, the UN Secretariat may explore the possibility of sendingmilitary observers to supervise the situation in Rakhine. These observers can be stationed there to oversee developments and investigate allegations of atrocities.However, their access within the state may be heavily restricted, thus hindering their capability to make in-depth and comprehensive assessments. There is also likely to be opposition from Russia and China who may not want to jeopardise their relations with the Tatmadaw, which remains antagonistic to external presence in the country.

Fourth, the ICC is probing whether it has extended jurisdiction over the crisis’ spill over to Bangladesh. Since Bangladesh is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC has requested Dhaka to weigh in for prosecution. Unsurprisingly, Myanmar has objected to this, arguingthat such a move would have no legitimacy. 

Conclusion
Over the past few months, the US, EU, and others have imposed asset freezes and visa bans on military officials. However these measures have not deterred the alleged wrongdoers from committing further atrocities. As a result, prosecution remains the last resort. However, the ICC’s jurisdictional limitations and Chinese and Russian reluctance to allow UNSC to refer Myanmar to the court compels the international community to take action through alternative ways to prosecute.

China and the Trump-Kim Summit: Beijing's Looming Influence

Sandip Kumar Mishra


A flurry of developments in the past few months in and around the Korean peninsula has led to expectations that North Korea might give up its nuclear programme in lieu of some kind of security guarantee and economic benefits. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has apparently taken a calculated risk to hold summit meets first with South Korea and then with the US leaders. South Korea under the President Moon Jae-in has utilised this opportunity judiciously to pursue peace on the Korean peninsula which has been marred by high decibel name callings and provocative actions and reactions between North Korea and the US. In 2018, North Korea has had two summit meets with South Korea - on 27 April and 26 May - and both the Koreas have announced their intent to formally end the Korean War along with making the peninsula nuclear free. In the same vein, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and the US President Donald Trump are scheduled to meet in Singapore on 12 June 2018.

It is interesting to note that China has not been an active player in these turns of events and it might be expected that China would not be very pleased with the situation that several strategic shifts have been taking place in its neighbourhood without Beijing being the primary player. For the same reasons, it has been said that China is sidelined or left out from the process. However, the reality seems to be quite the opposite.

In fact, North Korea and China drifted away from each other during the reigns of Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and both leaders had no direct meeting after they came to power in 2013 and 2011 respectively. Furthermore, there are reliable reports that China cooperated with the international community in an unprecedented way to impose economic sanctions on North Korea in 2017. When North Korea decided to participate in the Winter Olympics held in South Korea and met South Korea’s special envoys and conveyed its willingness to denuclearise, reportedly, until then, Pyongyang and Beijing had not had sufficient consultations with each other.

However, when Kim Jong-un realised that he has been facing an engaging Moon Jae-in in South Korea and a tough Donald Trump in the US, he made a significant course correction. Before making his historic visit to the southern part of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and the summit meet with Moon Jae-in on 27 April 2018, he hurriedly held an unofficial meeting with Xi Jinping in Beijing during his visit to China (25-28 March 2018). Furthermore, after his first summit meet with the South Korean leader, he visited China again, to meet Xi Jinping in Dalian (7-8 May 2018). Within a very brief period, China and North Korea have been trying to catch up with each other through several high-level visits between the countries, including the visit of China’s top envoy Wang Yi to Pyongyang. 

Essentially, North Korea is aware that if it tries to deal with South Korea and the US independently, it would not have enough strategic depth to manoeuvre the course and thus, it was considered important to bring China back into the process.

China-North Korea rapprochement could be seen on the ground as well. China has announced that it would restore Beijing-Pyongyang Air China flights that had been suspended in November 2017 in the context of UN Security Council Resolutions. Moreover, China has also blocked most of the online search results insulting Kim Jong-un, and Chinese expressions such as jin-san-pang (Kim Fatty the Third) have completely disappeared from Chinese websites such as Baidu and Weibo in the recent weeks. There have been more positive news and stories about North Korea in China’s official media such as People’s Daily. 

Thus, although China's role does not appear significant in the recent summits on the surface, it will be of utmost importance in the process. North Korea through its clever move has been able to restore its contacts with China, which is important in an event of both success or failure of North Korea’s upcoming summit meet with the US. More importantly, if the US does not provide enough takeaways to Pyongyang in the Kim-Trump summit, Kim Jong-un may walk out of the process and could have China to bank on. 

South Korea and the US too are aware that any plan to engage or pressure North Korea would not succeed without China’s cooperation and thus both countries have approved the North Korea-China rapprochement. However, Washington and Seoul would like China to be on their side in dealing with North Korea. South Korea and the US may agree to provide security guarantees to the North Korean regime or conclude a peace treaty to end the Korean War but they would like to have more credible progress in North Korea’s denuclearisation process in the complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament (CVID) framework.

From China’s perspective, if North Korea is able to achieve a downscaling of the US-South Korea alliance or the withdrawal of US troops from the Korean peninsula in exchange for its denuclearisation pledge, it would be a significant gain for Beijing as well. This is also why China's influence will loom large in the future course of North Korea’s denuclearisation even though Beijing appears to be in the background.

Brexit constitutional stand-off reaches UK Supreme Court

Steve James

A case provisionally due to reach the UK Supreme Court on July 24 marks an unprecedented escalation of tensions between the Conservative central government and the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Edinburgh. It is the first time a disagreement between Westminster and Holyrood has reached the Supreme Court.

At issue are powers due to be handed back to Britain from the European Union (EU), when the UK quits the bloc, over matters such as food labelling, agriculture, fishery management and public procurement. Authority over these lucrative sectors of the economy, although currently in the hands of the EU, legally resides with the Scottish parliament and the Cardiff-based Welsh Assembly, under the terms of the UK’s devolution settlement of 1999.

The British government of Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May wants the powers to be repatriated to London, leading to complaints of a “power grab.” In March this year, Edinburgh and Cardiff passed emergency continuity legislation to ensure that, post Brexit, control over the contested sectors lapsed to the devolved administrations rather than Westminster. The legislation gave Scottish and Welsh ministers authority to maintain regulatory regimes in line with the EU.

In the event of a “hard” Brexit, followed by a growing customs and trade divergence between Britain and the EU, the result of Scotland or Wales using these powers would be to create differing regulatory environments within the UK. This would effectively break up the UK internal market.

The British government referred both the Scottish and Welsh bills to the Supreme Court, in the hope that the legislation would be struck down as outside the competence of the devolved administrations. For the moment, all three governments agree that regulatory alignment within the UK should be retained.

At issue is the question of where the powers reside.

The Welsh government led by Labour’s Carwyn Jones accepted an offer from London that the repatriated powers could be transferred to London for a period of seven years. Any subsequent changes, however, would need the agreement of the Welsh Assembly. The Supreme Court action on the Welsh dispute was dropped.

Brexit tensions coming to a head

However, the Scottish government, led by the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, rejected the same terms, tweeting “Scottish Parliamentary powers on vital matters could be restricted for up to seven years without our consent.”

The stand-off is only the latest expression of the escalating tensions in the aftermath of the UK vote to leave the EU. It risks becoming a conflict not only between England, Scotland and Wales, but between London and Brussels as Edinburgh and Cardiff seek to maintain their own trading relations with the EU.

If Scotland’s Continuity Bill is upheld by the Supreme Court, the powers transferred from Brussels will go to Edinburgh, thereby handing Scotland powers over the British internal market. If not, Westminster will be able to legislate for the whole of the UK without Scottish agreement, which will call the entire “consensus” basis of devolution into question.

The row coincides with the launch of a series of campaigns seeking a second referendum in Britain, either on the terms of any final Brexit deal, or on the decision to leave.

The Tory government is in the grip of a faction of the British ruling class intent on leaving the EU to pursue a low-tax, low-regulation, cut-throat investment-oriented economy at the expense of the working class. Other factions, including those around former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair and sections of all the major parties, no less committed to low taxes and attracting investment and likely numerically-dominant, see British interests as best met through membership of the EU.

In Scotland, all parties besides the Tories support the EU. In addition, 40 “civil society figures,” including academics, business figures and politicians recently signed a declaration “to work with and support people and organisations of all political views and of none to maintain our European Union membership.”

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, former British diplomat, former director of Rio Tinto and currently a director of the £581 million [$US 778 million] Scottish American Investment Trust warned, “I think we are very close to a constitutional crisis, I have no idea how it is going to play out, it just feels to me very serious.”

Nationalist divisions

While most of the Scottish ruling elite and its government back continued British EU membership, the SNP and its allies are deeply divided over how best to exploit the Brexit crisis to push for greater independence from Britain.

Tensions have been building since the 2016 Brexit vote. Scotland voted by 62 to 38 percent to remain in the EU, while across Britain 52 percent voted to leave.

The SNP pointed to the claim made by the victorious “No” camp during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, that opposing independence would mean that Scotland remained in the EU. The Brexit vote, the nationalists claimed, turned this inside out, with Scotland facing being forced out of the EU despite having voted, in 2014, to maintain the union with England.

Brexit, therefore, gave a boost to nationalist aspirations for a second independence poll. Immediately after the Brexit result, Sturgeon announced that another such vote was indeed “on the table.” In 2017, just before May triggered Article 50, Sturgeon announced plans for a new referendum sometime in 2018 or 2019. This followed the British government’s rejection of the SNP’s proposals to ensure, on behalf of Scottish-based business, continued access to the European Single Market.

Ever since, the SNP have been rowing back on the timing of another independence vote, and the party and its allies are increasingly divided.

The SNP and the broader nationalist milieu have long based their perspective for Scottish independence on EU membership, but the EU has never reciprocated by encouraging Scottish separatism. After the Brexit vote, Sturgeon’s journeys around European capitals seeking sympathy met with little interest as EU states sought to avoid encouraging separatist movements across the continent. Last year, the EU looked the other way while the Spanish government brutally suppressed the Catalan government’s declaration of independence. Catalan ministers remain international exiles.

As a result, the SNP leadership aims to postpone another independence vote at least until after the terms of a Brexit deal are revealed. Essentially, the party leadership views the threat of a new poll as a bargaining chip with Westminster.

In addition, the economic case for independence is weaker even than in 2014. A recent report from the SNP’s Sustainable Growth Commission by Andrew Wilson outlined a perspective for post-independence Scotland based on deep spending cuts and a squeeze in public finance. The report noted that some £13.5 billion more was spent on public spending in Scotland than was raised in tax. Public spending, the report admits, is £1,437 higher per person in Scotland than across the UK thanks to subventions from Westminster under the Barnett formula.

To offset this, the Wilson report focused on “productivity, population and participation”—all of which should be increased to allow Scotland to emulate Denmark, Finland or New Zealand in the struggle for global investment and international sales.

The SNP is now acknowledging that, to be viable in today’s global market conditions, independence must be based on a sharp increase in the exploitation of the working class through lower wages and further social cuts. The report also noted that an independent Scottish government would have to be prepared to bail out its own banks at government expense, requiring yet more transfers from workers and public spending to a newly formed central bank.

John Kay, one of Sturgeon’s advisers, told the Financial Times that “the report belies the leftist image of Scottish politics...”

The SNP is a right-wing, tax-cutting party of austerity, which has only been able to masquerade as a left formation because of the political cover provided by the various pseudo-left groups that orbit around it.

The same report has therefore caused a crisis within those groups who have for years marketed Scottish separatism as the basis for a left-reformist agenda. The Scottish Socialist Party recently complained in an “Open Letter to the Yes Movement” that the report “has been written to reassure bankers and businessmen that little will change with independence; that we will keep the pound, keep the neo-liberal economic dogma that has failed our people, keep the austerity imposed upon us by corrupt and reckless banking practices, continue with the privatisation of our public services and industries.”

The SNP’s support is being challenged, particularly among young people and in the local authority areas it controls. Seeking to cash in on the left credentials of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s new leader in Scotland, Richard Leonard, has worked to rhetorically position the party somewhat to the left of the SNP.

Labour is seeking to take advantage of a broad, international, leftward shift in the working class, which it can in no sense satisfy. As in England, there have recently been a series of strikes and strike votes against low wages and poor pension provision.

Sensing that their window of opportunity is closing, a section of the nationalists, backed by the pseudo-left, are seeking to pressure the SNP into calling a new independence referendum as soon as possible.

The largest demonstration yet seen supporting Scottish independence took place May 5 in Glasgow, with estimates of 35,000 attending—around double that of a similar march last year.

Speaking at Glasgow Green, nationalist demagogue Tommy Sheridan insisted that its previous electoral successes meant the SNP had “a mandate” for a new referendum. He demanded the SNP’s conference later this month “announce that we don’t need a 12-month campaign, all we need is a short three-month campaign.” “Let’s go,” Sheridan continued, “for September 2018.”

Sheridan and the SSP speak for all the former lefts who view the prospect of independence as an opportunity for self-enrichment and advancement. Seeking a position for themselves in an expanded state apparatus directed—as the Wilson report makes clear—toward ensuring intensified exploitation, they speak for a wealthy middle class layer seeking a share of the spoils from the destruction of workers’ living standards.

Record of the Socialist Equality Party

These developments vindicate the position taken by the Socialist Equality Party during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence.

Calling for a “No” vote in 2014, we wrote “All claims that ‘independence’ is a democratic demand, offering an alternative to cuts and austerity, are lies.

“The move for separation from the UK is being led by right-wing forces espousing nationalism, whether or not they attempt to dress this up in fake left language. The aim is to transform Scotland into a low tax, cheap labour platform for the benefit of the banks and transnational corporations.

“The victims of this will be workers on both sides of the border, who will see a deepening of the ongoing offensive against jobs, wages and conditions that has been waged by all the major parties in both Westminster and Holyrood.

“The unity and independence of the working class is the criterion against which every political party and every political initiative must be judged. This is essential under conditions in which the planet is being befouled with nationalist poison.”

Mexico responds to Trump’s trade war measures with tariffs on US goods

Rafael Azul

In what it described as a “measured and proportionate response” to steel and aluminum import tariffs announced a week ago by the US against Mexico, Canada and the European Union, the government of President Enrique Peña Nieto imposed tariffs on some 71 products that Mexico currently imports from the United States.

They include agricultural products, steel, manufactured products, and some consumer products, such as bourbon whiskey [previously exempt under the NAFTA free trade agreement], with a value of US$3 billion. Depending on the product, the tariffs will range from 7 to 25 percent. Mexico’s economy ministry said that it was suspending “preferential treatment” that those 71 commodities have had since 2003. The ministry indicated that the tariffs would remain in effect until the US government cancels tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum.

The US has imposed a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. For Mexico, the effect will be felt in steel mills in Lázaro Cárdenas, in the state of Michoacán, and Monclova, in the state of Coahuila.

Mexico is a net importer of US steel, and most of the Mexican tariffs (56 out of 71) are directed against manufactured steel from the United States, including sheets, rolled steel, steel pipes, laminated steel and steel bars.

In addition to those 71 products from the US, Mexico also imposed tariffs on about 280 steel products that come from nations with which Mexico has no trade agreement, the ministry declared, supposedly to prevent the movement into Mexico of US products through third countries.

In addition to steel imports, Mexico imposed new tariffs on a range of manufactured products, ranging from ships with inboard motors to electric fans. In addition to the tariff on bourbon, agricultural tariffs will be imposed on apples, some cheeses and a variety of pork products.

According to the Spanish daily El País, one of the criterions in selecting which products to impose tariffs on was to single out products that come from states like Texas and Iowa (pork) Tennessee (bourbon), Wisconsin (cheese) etc., considered to be Republican Party strongholds or crucial to Trump’s 2016 election. However, also included are products from California (grapes) and Washington state (apples).

NAFTA members Mexico and Canada are major trading partners with the US and the tariffs have raised concern, particularly in the US agricultural sector.

The quick response of the Mexican government to the US tariffs was in part driven by pressure from the powerful Mexican steel lobby. Mexico’s National Steel and Iron Industrial Chamber (CANACERO) warned ominously that “due to the breakdown in market rules and the distortions that it generates, the Mexican government must be prepared to respond adequately and immediately, to prevent the closure of plants and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.” The announcement of the retaliatory tariffs had an immediate effect on the value of the peso, which on Tuesday dropped 1.62 percent to 20.78 pesos to the dollar.

Coming on the back of the depreciation of the Mexican peso relative to the US dollar in April and May, due to a general flight of capital from Latin America to Wall Street, for Mexican workers, peasants, and the lower middle class, the retaliatory tariffs are another harsh blow, particularly since many foods are imported from the US. They are expected to fuel an inflationary trend, and lead to austerity measures and lower GDP growth.

A threat by the Trump administration to also impose tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts is a major concern for the Mexican government. Mexico will be one of the three most affected nations if automobile tariffs are imposed; the other two are Germany and Japan. Given Mexico’s lower Gross Domestic Product, the impact of auto tariffs, if they are imposed, will be comparatively greater for Mexico. The Mexican auto parts industry is linked to US assembly plants north of the border, as part of “cluster” system, in which goods produced more cheaply from across the world flow into assembly plants throughout the world.

Canada and the European Union followed Mexico on Wednesday and Thursday, with their own retaliatory tariffs.

In addition to the trade war measures, Mexico plans to bring the case up before the court at the World Trade Organization. Canada also indicated that it would go to the WTO.

The US and Mexican trade war measures are coming into effect in the context of stalled negotiations over NAFTA and of the brutal attacks on Mexican and Central American families crossing the border into the Unites States, including the separation of children from their parents, who are accused of “smuggling” their own children across the border.

On Tuesday, June 5, Larry Kudlow, the White House economic advisor, signaled that the Trump administration is proposing to move away from NAFTA and negotiate separate trade treaties with Canada and Mexico. Both Mexico and Canada reject such a proposal. The prospect of separate negotiations are further weakening the peso, and increasing its volatility. After recovering some of its value on Wednesday, the peso sank on Thursday almost to Tuesday’s level. Purchased at banks, the dollar sold for 20.75 pesos, while on the street the price of the dollar rose to 20.90 pesos. The dollars thus purchased fled to less risky financial assets; a splurge in demand for 10-year US treasury bonds forced a drop in the yield on that benchmark asset.

Mixed in with other demands, the US government is pressing for a treaty that is renewed every five years and that places limits on foreign components in Mexican manufactured products, affecting the auto industry, and that erases whatever trade surplus Mexico has with the US.

President Trump has repeatedly linked NAFTA with immigration and the Dreamer act (DACA), demanding that Mexico take measures against border crossers and insisting on expanding the border wall, while pursuing cruel, inhumane and illegal measures that violate the human rights of immigrant families and their children.

US suicides increased by 25 percent from 1999 to 2016

Kate Randall 

Suicide rates increased by 25 percent across the United States over the two decades ending in 2016. According to research published Thursday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 25 states experienced a rise in suicides of more than 30 percent.

The report follows the release the previous week by the CDC of a study showing a rise in deaths between 2013 and 2016 among US children and teens aged 10-19. While deaths in this age group declined between 1999 and 2013, from 2013 to 2016 the death rate, as well as the total number of deaths, increased by a shocking 12 percent.

Taken together, these two reports paint a picture of an immense social crisis confronting the American population. Increasing numbers of people, both young and old, are choosing to take their own lives in the face of personal crises, mental health issues, substance abuse and economic despair.

Using data from the National Vital Statistics System for 50 states and the District of Columbia, the CDC researchers analyzed suicide rates for people 10 years and older from 1999 through 2016. The circumstances surrounding suicides were also compared for 2015 in the 27 states with complete data participating in the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS).

The CDC studied six consecutive three-year periods from 1999 to 2016 to calculate the number of suicides per 100,000 persons per year. While overall the US experienced a 25 percent rise in the suicide rate, individual state increases ranged from a 6 percent increase in Delaware to a nearly 58 percent increase in North Dakota. An estimated 45,000 American lives were lost to suicide in 2016 alone.

This dramatic increase over almost two decades shows that, despite government claims of the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009, increasing numbers of people are facing personal and financial hardships that are driving them to take their own lives.

More than half of those who died by suicide had not been diagnosed with a mental health condition. Of the top 10 causes of death in the US, suicide is one of three that have increased recently, the other two being Alzheimer’s disease and drug overdoses.

According to NVDRS data for 2015, the top three methods of suicide were firearms (48.5 percent), hanging/strangulation/suffocation (28.9 percent), and poisoning—drugs, alcohol and other substances (14.7 percent). Of substances causing death, opioids accounted for 31.4 percent; antidepressants, 26.6 percent; benzodiazepines, 20.8 percent; and antipsychotics, 7.3 percent. Of the 53.6 percent of people who were tested for alcohol after their suicides, 40.6 percent tested positive.

The age group showing the largest number of suicides in 2015 were those aged 45 to 64. Men accounted for more than three-quarters of suicide deaths, and whites accounted for 83.6 percent. These figures reinforce the findings of research by Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton in 2017 that found that the rising death rate for white, middle-aged, working-class Americans, predominantly males, was being driven by “deaths of despair,” those due to drug overdoses, complications from alcohol use, and suicide.

Of those who committed suicide in 2015 and had a current diagnosed mental health condition, 75.2 percent suffered from depression. This was following by anxiety disorder, 16.8 percent; bipolar disorder, 15.2 percent; schizophrenia, 5.4 percent; and post-traumatic stress disorder, 4.5 percent.

The CDC studied relationship problems and losses leading to suicide. While such problems are considered “personal,” the causes are invariably social and economic. Two-fifths of those committing suicide in 2015 had suffered from some type of relationship problem or loss. These included problems with an intimate partner, being the perpetrator or victim of interpersonal violence, arguments, family problems, and death or suicide of a family member or friend.

Other precursors of suicide include life stresses faced by millions of working-class Americans on a daily basis. This included legal problems, physical health problems, job-related stress, financial problems, eviction or loss of home, school problems, incarceration, or recent release from a hospital, mental health or substance abuse treatment facility.

Those succumbing to desperation and committing suicide are the victims of a society that devalues life and sees workers and youth as a source of profit, no matter the personal suffering and loss. Their tragic stories appear frequently in the news.

* Since the beginning of the year, five taxi or livery drivers in New York City have committed suicide due to income losses caused by competition from ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft. The latest apparent suicide was Mein Chow, 56, a Yellow Cab driver whose body was found floating the East River near the Brooklyn bridge May 30.

* In late March, Carlos Borroto, 26, became the fourth prisoner at Hudson Country Corrections and Rehabilitation Center in Kearny, New Jersey, to commit suicide since June 2017. He had been housed at the jail for less than 48 hours and told police who arrested him on open warrants that he wanted to “jump off a bridge” and reported having mental health issues.

* On July 28, 2017, Glenn Scarapelli, 53, and his wife, Patricia Colant, 50, jumped to their deaths from a building in mid-town Manhattan. The couple explained in their suicide notes that they “cannot live with” their “financial reality.” The night before they were seen removing their belongings from their home and putting them on the curb, a sign they may have been evicted.

* In May 2017, there were two reported suicides of people in the custody of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Jean Jiménez-Joseph, 27, a Panamanian national, held in detention center in Stewart County, Georgia, was found unresponsive with a bedsheet around his neck. He had been isolated in solitary confinement for 19 days.

* Osmar Epifanio Gonzalez-Gadba, 32, from Nicaragua, was rushed to the hospital from Adelanto Detention Facility in California last May after being found hanging from a bedsheet around his neck in his cell. He died from heart failure caused by asphyxiation six days later. He had been detained for over five months.

* In November 2015, a distraught Amazon worker leaped off the rooftop of Amazon’s Seattle headquarters in a suicide attempt. The unidentified worker was hospitalized in critical condition after amazingly surviving the 12-story fall. Before trying to take his own life, the worker reportedly sent an email to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos criticizing the way the company handled his request to transfer to a different department.

The CDC’s proposed solutions for what can only be described as a suicide crisis are predictable and limited. They point to the necessity of identifying those who are suicidal and urging them to seek treatment. They also advocate the need for broader access to treatment for mental health services. And they call for reducing access to lethal means, especially firearms, among persons at risk for suicide.

While it is clear that access to affordable mental health care is woefully inadequate in the US, mental health and rehabilitation beds are being cut in state after state. At the same time, despite the opioid catastrophe, pharmaceutical companies continue to pump addictive drugs into neighborhoods, particularly those in the poorest regions ravaged by poverty and unemployment.

Growing social inequality and poverty are reflected in working-class households across America, creating conditions where household budgets are strained, inevitably fueling family crises and straining relationships, leading to arguments, violence and despair, leading potentially to suicide.

As with the report on teenage suicide, there has been no outcry from the Democratic Party over the recent CDC report. The Democrats are complicit with the Trump administration in its war on Medicaid, food stamps, and other social programs, as well as the attacks on immigrants. They put up no serious opposition to Trump’s multitrillion-dollar tax cut for corporations and the rich.

As they have recommended with school shootings, they will issue the inevitable calls for gun control and limiting access to firearms for those who are suicidal. But the Democrats have provided the key votes to fund the Pentagon’s record $700 billion budget and secured the confirmation of black-site torture administrator Gina Haspel to head the CIA. It is the ruling elite and its political representatives that serve as the ultimate role models for violence, whether through war or self-inflicted.

DAAD Postgraduate Scholarships for Development-Related Courses 2019/2020 – Germany

Application Deadline: Each chosen course has its deadline (Sept-Dec).  Please consult scholarship brochure for more information (See link below).
Only exception is Cameroon. Students are to apply before 31st July 2018 through the German embassy.

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

To be taken at (country): Germany

Fields of Study: Individual scholarships exclusively for Postgraduate courses in Germany that are listed on the “List of all Postgraduate courses with application deadlines”.

About the Award: With its development-oriented postgraduate study programmes, the DAAD promotes the training of specialists from development and newly industrialised countries. Well-trained local experts, who are networked with international partners, play an important part in the sustainable development of their countries. They are the best guarantee for a better future with less poverty, more education and health for all.

Type: Master’s, PhD

Eligibility: 

• Candidates fulfil the necessary academic requirements and can be expected to successfully complete a study programme in Germany (above-average result for first academic exam – top performance third, language skills)
• Candidates have a Bachelor degree (usually a four-year course) in an appropriate subject
• Candidates have at least two years’ professional experience
• Candidates can prove their motivation is development-related and be expected to take on social responsibility and initiate and support processes of change in their personal and professional environment after their training/scholarship

Selection Criteria: 

• The last academic degree (usually a Bachelor’s degree) should have been completed no longer than six years previously
• At least two years’ relevant professional experience
• Language skills: Depending on chosen study programme; please check scholarship brochure or the website of your chosen study programme.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• Depending on academic level, monthly payments of 750 euros for graduates or 1,000 euros for doctoral candidates
• Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
• Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding

Duration of Program: 12 to 36 months (dependent on study programme)

How to Apply: It is important to go through the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: German Exchange Education Services (DAAD)

AAHPM Scholarships for Doctors and Palliative Care Physicians from Developing Countries (Fully-funded to Florida, USA) 2018

Application Deadline: 6th August, 2018 11:59am CST (US Central Standard Time).
Notification of awards: October 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Low and middle income countries (as defined by World Bank)

To be Taken At (Country): Orlando, FL, USA.

About the Award: This scholarship program provides financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to help them access the latest clinical information and research updates in hospice and palliative care from leading experts in the field. This scholarship program is intended to facilitate Annual Assembly participation and cover ordinary costs associated with meeting registration, travel-related expenses (airfare, cab fare, meals), and lodging.

Type: Short Courses/Training, Conference

Eligibility: Scholarships are available to physicians who work in hospice and palliative medicine and who care for seriously ill patients. Eligible physicians must permanently reside in low and middle income countries as defined by World Bank. It is our hope that the scholarship recipients will share the knowledge attained from the Annual Assembly to improve the palliative care offerings in their home country. Preference will be given to applicants who are 

• members of the AAHPM – physicians who reside in a low or middle income country as defined by the World Bank & the HINARI list of eligible countries are eligible for a complimentary international membership.
• have not previously attended the Annual Assembly
• are junior in their career with 2-10 years of experience primarily in palliative care, including a resident or fellow, focused on studying palliative care, and
• whose organizations are considered least able to afford this opportunity.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: This scholarship program will provide financial support (up to $5,000) to physicians to cover ordinary costs associated with meeting registration, travel-related expenses (air fare, cab fare, meals), and lodging.

Duration of Programme: March 13-16, 2019

How to Apply: View the application requirements and consider applying.

1. Prepare your Cirriculum Vitae (CV) – 2 page limit
2. Prepare a one-page letter of recommendation and support from your supervisor or person of authority in your organization on your organization’s letterhead
3. Complete the application in one of two ways:
   • Complete the online application OR
   • Download the application and submit to alundberg@aahpm.org.

All documents for 2018 are to be received by August 6 at 11:59am CST (US Central Standard Time).

Visit Scholarship Webpage for more details

Important Note: Scholarship recipients will be asked to participate in a presentation during the Annual Assembly to share the practice of hospice and palliative medicine in their country. In addition, recipients will also be required to submit a written report describing how their attendance at the Annual Assembly benefited their organization.
In addition, scholarship recipients will be required to secure their own US visa.

Putin Asserts: World Imperialism Faces Difficult Times

Farooque Chowdhury

Putin’s latest assertion signals that the world imperialism is going to face tough days in future.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, said: “Either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia.”

The world imperialism is not habituated to listen to such assertions. It’s also a tough message to hirelings of the world imperialism. The masters and their lackeys have to review self-positions, both strategic and tactical, in light of Putin’s latest assertion: Not at the cost of sovereignty.

Putin was speaking to Chinese TV prior to his China visit. His statements, observations and claims are worth-reading.

The Russian president said: “And, of course, the Russian people will always opt for [a sovereign Russia]. I think the Chinese people will too. We have no other option.”

The statement shows the compulsion the world imperialism has created for Russia, for China, and for countries facing imperialist “friendship” – “sermons”, demands, pressures, interferences, intervention, conspiracies. Thence, these countries “have no other option” other than asserting sovereignty.

This signifies intensified contradiction within countries, and between countries as the world imperialism will not accept assertion of sovereignty by countries, which will lead imperialism to organize/renew/intensify conspiracy, subversion, interference and intervention. The world imperialism is going to boost up its old hirelings, hire new lackeys, engage them, and create subversion, social disturbance, “civil” disobedience, political turmoil, internal strife.

Referring to sanctions, Putin said: However harsh they may be, will not force Russia to abandon its independent stance in the world, Russians will never accept trade-offs at the expense of sovereignty.

Putin specifically mentioned the world imperialism’s target: The Russian economy. He added an extra note: The sanctions will eventually backfire on those who followed the US’ lead in “punishing” Russia.

Now, it’s the countries following their masters’ lead to consider whether to take into account assurances from their masters or to heed to Putin. It’s not in terms of pronouncements, but in terms of economic measures – trade, etc., and tradeoff.

To countries in Europe that depend on Russia to many extents including gas from the rising power, the question of being a follower of the world imperialism or not bears one type of action and consequence. To peripheral countries facing imperialist mastery, the question bears another type of measures.

To the first group, there’s question of collaboration/amalgamation of capitals. There are collusion, cooption, or, competition. There is collusion in one area while competition in another. Now-a-days, it’s an intricate arithmetic, or an amalgamation of arithmetic, algebra and geometry.

To the peripheral group, the question is different. It’s different from two aspects: from the aspect of ruling elites, and from the aspect of people. And, the two bear different meanings. In this case, the mathematics turns more intricate as opposing interests – of the ruling elites’ and of the people – are to operate within a reality of competing capitals trying to strengthen/establish respective grip. At the same time, for both the opposing interests, there’s a common ground – a space to maneuver. Then, the question comes: Which capital is the biggest/direst threat? None will differ: It’s the dominating imperialist camp.

The US-led sanctions against Russia hurt a number of economies in Europe. A number of European state leaders including Austrian vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache have expressed opinion not favoring the sanctions. The new government in Italy also bears similar position.

The EU is not happy with its US friends on the issue of US-introduced import tariffs on steel and aluminum – a gift from a friend. It’s the imperialist system’s one of the inherent problems – components’ interests very often move in incoherent way. It also creates scope for peripheral economies.

The Putin-assertion case turns difficult for the world imperialist order as the Russian leader is close to the Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Putin has described Xi Jinping as a “reliable partner and good friend”.

Their friendship is so strong that once they celebrated Putin’s birthday together: “Chairman Xi Jinping is the only one among all the world leaders, to have celebrated my birthday with me,” Putin said, referring to his 61st birthday, which he marked at the 2013-Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Bali.

Putin termed Xi Jinping as “very accessible”, “very sincere”, “very reliable”, “good friend”, “good analyst”, “it is interesting to discuss outstanding international issues, economy problems with him”, “we always strive to fulfill our obligations”.

This expression of friendship carries strong signal for all: enemy and ally. China is to be counted. It’ll be foolish to ignore China. And, it’ll be foolish to ignore the Putin-Xi friendship.

Putin informed: China is and will continue to be Russia’s number one foreign trade partner.

China is Russia’s largest trading partner. Trade between the two countries grew last year, according to Putin, to $87 billion, and the first four months of 2018 its growth “equaled the figure for the whole of last year.” It’s already a 30 percent increase. In 2016, the trade turnover between the two countries was $69.52 billion. Putin expressed the desire to accelerate it further.

There is possibility of alliance between China-led One Belt, One Road and Russia-led the Eurasian Economic Union.

The two countries are bypassing dollar and other western currencies, and trying to make settlements in ruble and yuan. In 2017, nine percent of payments for supplies from Russia to China were made in rubles, and Russian companies paid 15 percent of Chinese imports in the renminbi.

The two close strategic partners are coordinating their moves on regional and global issues, helping safeguard each other’s national interests, and supporting each other in taking up larger roles on the world stage.

General Wei Fenghe, China’s defense minister, said at the recently concluded Moscow International Security Conference:

“I am visiting Russia […] to show the world a high level of development of our bilateral relations and firm determination of our Armed Forces to strengthen strategic cooperation.”

The Chinese military leader added: The visit is “to show Americans the close ties between the Armed Forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation. We’ve come to support you.

“The Chinese side is ready to express with the Russian side our common concerns and common position on important international problems at international venues as well.

Wei said: The strengthened military cooperation between the two is important for international peace and security.

Reciprocating similar attitude General Sergei Shoigu, Russian defense minister, said: “The efforts of the leadership of the both countries […] today has reached principally new unprecedented level, and have become a critical factor in keeping peace and international security.”

The message is explicit. And, the message is for all. It’s for those facing imperialist disturbance and threat, and for those searching for sources of benefit from their imperialist masters. The message is also for the greatest imperialist power: The days of unilateral dominance is going to be over.

Dmitri Trenin, director, Carnegie Moscow Center, writes in his Should Fear Russia We? (November 2016):

“[M]ore of Russia’s natural and military-technological resources would be made available to China. […I]n the larger scheme of things concerning the world order, Beijing and Moscow will be on the same side.”

The scholar adds:

“The Greater Eurasia that they are constructing will not be run from a single center, but their continental entente will essentially be aimed at limiting US dominance on the edges of the continent and in the world at large.”

Coming days will hear more tough words, which will signal more complicated moves on the world stage.

Guatemalan government ignored calls for evacuation ahead of deadly Fuego volcano eruption

Andrea Lobo

The death toll, together with the number of injured and missing, continues to mount amid new eruptions of the Fuego Volcano in western Guatemala. The National Coordinator for the Reduction of Disasters (CONRED) has confirmed that at least 196 people are missing and 101 have died, with only a small fraction of them identified, since most were burned alive by the scorching pyroclastic flows released by the eruptions that began on Sunday.

Search operations were suspended on Thursday due to rains raising the danger of avalanches and continued flows of scorching volcanic materials containing explosive gases. Eruptions at the Fuego Volcano have not stopped, while the Santiaguito volcano, located a few miles from the city of Quetzaltenango, has been showing signs of increased activity.

The criminal negligence by government officials ahead of the potential disaster and the ruling class’ indifference to the suffering and mass deaths of workers and peasants have become increasingly clear. The lack of adequate preparations and response, however, are, more fundamentally, the result of the social ruin caused by decades of austerity and right-wing policies imposed to defend the interests of the ruling capitalist class in Guatemala and, above all, US imperialism.

In a hearing before Guatemala’s Congress on Wednesday, the heads of the volcanic institute INSIVUMEH and CONRED blamed each other for the disaster. CONRED officials claim that INSIVUMEH’s bulletins about the volcanic activity “said nothing” to warn them.

In reality, significant and increasingly explosive eruptions and pyroclastic flows were documented during the previous year, but they were virtually ignored by the government, which decided not to resettle communities known to be in the path of known channels of volcanic materials.

Moreover, at 6:00 a.m. on Sunday, INSIVUMEH issued a bulletin warning that an eruption of pyroclastic flows was beginning that could reach all known ravines down the volcano. It also noted “constant noises similar to a train locomotive” and recommended that CONRED implement the level of alert it considered “necessary.” Another bulletin at 10:05 a.m. warned that the eruption “can generate pyroclastic flows along any ravine around the Fuego Volcano, so it’s inadmissible to stay within or near these due to the eruption.”

At 11:00 a.m. CONRED tweeted: “For now, evacuations are not necessary.”

Hora Informativa interviewed a man who was working on his plot of corn when his six sons and daughters between the ages of four and 28 were all caught by the pyroclastic flows. He complained that CONRED did nothing to alert them. “CONRED got there, but to film its videos and not to prepare people and help them evacuate. What they say is a pure lie. They alerted us only when the lava was already on its way.”

Alicia García, 52, a grandmother who lived in San Miguel Los Lotes, told Nómada that the volcano “was thundering a lot” since earlier Sunday. CONRED representatives even visited her community that morning to take pictures of the volcano and allay concerns. “So, we didn’t have to leave, and we just had to lock ourselves in our houses, that is what they told us.”

When the pyroclastic flows reached her town at about 3:00 p.m., she was caught unawares. The stream of molten rocks burned her legs, but she was able to find refuge at her neighbor’s house with three small children who had all suffered burns as well. Shortly after, she relates, her son and firemen were able to rescue them.

“We are poor, my husband and son are construction workers, my daughter-in-law and I are housewives. They work to be able to eat, not to get possessions, but now we don’t have anything anymore,” Alicia commented holding back her tears.

The ill-preparedness and lack of equipment for the rescue teams were reflected in the injuring of dozens of rescuers. One CONRED rescuer died while seeking to save three trapped girls from new pyroclastic flows, while two volunteer firemen disappeared during the search efforts.

The monitoring of the volcano’s activity was sufficient to have provided serious and timely warnings about the coming disaster; however, the scientific equipment available was inadequate to provide more precise measurements, according to the INSIVUMEH. The agency had been requesting that the government set up four more seismographic stations, as the two existing ones were not enough to monitor the Fuego Volcano. Now, they are demanding $22 million for new equipment to better monitor all the active volcanoes in the country.

Legislators of the largest opposition party, National Unity of Hope (UNE), called on the head of CONRED, Sergio Cabañas, to resign and for the Public Ministry to prepare criminal charges. The Congress as a whole, however, had been ignoring a bill introduced last year by CONRED to improve its readiness for such disasters. Moreover, as President Jimmy Morales made clear on Sunday, the government’s austerity budget, which he proposed and the Congress approved, failed to include “a single cent for emergencies.”

It also took more than four days for the Foreign Ministry to establish accounts to receive aid collected from abroad, while 15 tons of aid from El Salvador were still sitting Thursday in customs. Angry condemnations of the criminal official response have come to dominate social media, with some users contrasting this indifference to the ministry’s eagerness to lick the boots of US imperialism by moving its embassy to Jerusalem, only two days after Washington made the same provocative move.

On Monday, President Morales visited shelters in Alotenango and asked the survivors for “patience.” Then, blaming the impoverished population for the calamity, he declared, “We call on all people who live in at-risk areas to help us prevent these types of situations. There are too many homes near rivers, ravines, foothills…”.

A woman from San Miguel Los Lotes, Carmen Corado, speaking to Infobae, responded to Morales: “If there is no help, one has to stay put. Where are we supposed to go?”

In fact, in a country with 17 million people, in which more than 80 percent of income earners don’t make enough to keep an average family out of poverty, there is a deficit of 1.5 million homes. Due to this extreme poverty and lack of housing, hundreds living in precarious settlements die each year from landslides and floods. These realities have continued to worsen even after the country and the world were shaken by the death of 300 people at the El Cambray II settlement in 2015.

Such life-threatening economic conditions, including levels of homicidal violence three times what the UN considers an “epidemic,” have led to a 661 percent increase in the number of Guatemalans seeking asylum and refuge in the US and Mexico since 2012.

Those who attempt the journey have been met with persecution and mass deportations by the Mexican and US authorities. Washington has deployed National Guard troops to the border, implemented the separation of children from their undocumented immigrant parents, condoned sexual abuse and violence against detained child immigrants, carried out mass deportation trials and other egregious attacks against refugees.

On top of the exploitation of Guatemala’s natural resources and workforce by imperialism, and the plundering of the country’s finances by Wall Street, Washington has demanded further austerity to pay for Guatemala’s participation in US military and border security operations. In February, Morales announced that 5,000 soldiers and police had been trained in Colombia and that the government is buying war ships for border security.

Since 2006, Washington has been exerting greater pressures on the Guatemalan ruling class by sponsoring the “anti-impunity” and “anti-corruption” commission CICIG and virtually controlling the Public Ministry to pursue select corruption cases against top business and political figures tied to the ruling party National Convergence Front (FCN), including members of Morales’ own family.

Calamities such as the Fuego Volcano eruption, the frequent landslides and even the death of 41 girls in a fire at a “safe home” last year have exposed the extreme levels of inequality in the country and the urgent social needs of the majority of the population. However, the Guatemalan ruling class has responded with further austerity measures, while seeking to contain social anger by scapegoating a handful of officials who showed particular negligence or were tied to corruption allegations.

The UNE and the rest of the political “opposition” have limited their appeals to fraudulent US-backed movements such as the “Citizen’s Front against Corruption” and to investigations and prosecutions by the CICIG and the Public Ministry. These maneuvers, however, only serve to cover up Guatemala’s underlying social misery and the capitalist policies responsible for these social crimes against the working class and poor.