Nauru government bans ABC journalists ahead of Pacific summit

Patrick O’Connor

The Nauru government announced last week that it was banning Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) journalists from entering the country to cover the Pacific Islands Forum summit being held in September.

Over the last five years, Nauru President Baron Waqa has established a virtual dictatorship. Backed by the Australian government, which uses the tiny Pacific state as one of its illegal offshore refugee concentration camps, the Waqa administration has deported and imprisoned opposition politicians, disciplined the police and judiciary, shut down social media web sites, and criminalised political dissent.

On July 2, the government announced that an ABC cameraman, who was part of a three-person pool of journalists selected by the Canberra press gallery, would not be issued a visa. A government statement accused the ABC of “blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 election, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our Government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

A follow up statement issued the following day condemned the ABC’s response to the ban as “arrogant, disrespectful and a further example of the sense of entitlement shown by this activist media organisation.”

The ABC and other journalists condemned the Waqa administration for attacking press freedom. Several outlets announced a boycott of the Pacific Islands Forum to protest the ABC’s exclusion, though it appears that Murdoch’s News Corporation outlets have rejected this. There is a definite element of cynicism in the outcry, given the Australian media’s silence over the persecution of WikiLeaks’ editor Julian Assange, which represents a far greater threat to press freedom than the travel bans of a tiny Pacific state.

Nauru is nevertheless proceeding with the full backing of the Australian government. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared that he “regretted” that the ABC would not be covering the Pacific Islands Forum, but “it is a matter for Nauru, Nauru is entitled to decide who comes into Nauru … we have to remember and respect Nauru’s sovereignty.” In other circumstances, Australian governments have used inflated media reports, particularly by the ABC to justify military/police interventions as in East Timor in 2006.

Canberra’s support for the increasingly repressive Waqa administration is driven by its concern to maintain geo-strategic dominance across the South Pacific and lock out rival powers, above all China. The upcoming Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru will be dominated by the Australian government’s efforts to impose a new “security agreement” that boosts the Australian and New Zealand military’s presence in the region, and discourages Pacific countries from collaborating with Chinese military activity.

Nauru functions as an Australian semi-colony, with its population of just 11,000 people living on an isolated island that is smaller in land mass than a major international airport. It is nevertheless located in a strategically important point, near the equator south of the US-controlled Marshall Islands, which serves as an important American army missile testing ground.

Nauru is also one of just 18 states internationally that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan, not the People’s Republic of China. The rejection of the “one China policy” by Nauru and several other Pacific states, such as Solomon Islands, now serves as one mechanism through which Australia checks Beijing’s regional influence.

The Waqa administration’s complaints stem from a series of broadcasts and news reports in 2015 and 2016. In June 2015, ABC’s “7.30” current affairs program publicised leaked email correspondence between President Waqa and other government members and an Australian-based phosphate company, Getax. The ABC alleged: “The emails reveal a plot to overthrow the Nauru government in 2010.”

Current Nauruan Justice Minister David Adeang emailed Getax in 2009, when he was in opposition, suggesting that the company could take over the country’s entire phosphate industry if he and his allies came to power. Getax director Ashok Gupta replied: “We give you full authority to mobilise or lubricate the MPs to secure the vote and win the battle.” According to the ABC, the company funnelled more than a half a million dollars in kickbacks to Adeang, Waqa, and other figures who came to power in 2013. A follow up story on the ABC later showed bank statements detailing the alleged bribes.

The ABC’s reporting reflects concerns about the Waqa administration from a section of the Australian foreign policy establishment that it might not be toeing Canberra’s line closely enough.

In 2005, the Australian government launched the Pacific Regional Assistance for Nauru program (PRAN). Modelled on Canberra’s flagship neo-colonial intervention the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI), PRAN saw Australian officials take over key elements of the state apparatus, including the finance ministry, police, and judiciary. This formed part of Australian imperialism’s efforts to maintain control over the South Pacific and shut out rival powers, above all China.

In 2013, however, several important Australian officials were sacked or deported after Waqa became president. The list included Nauru police commissioner and Australian Federal Police agent Richard Britten, magistrate and Supreme Court registrar Peter Law, chief justice Geoffrey Eames, solicitor-general Steven Bliim, Parliamentary Counsel Katy Le Roy, and former government media adviser Rod Henshaw.

These moves coincided with a broader shift towards authoritarian rule. New laws introduced in 2015 threatened seven-year jail terms for anyone who stated or published anything that “stirred up political hatred,” “caused emotional distress to a person,” or was “likely to threaten national defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.”

Law Societies in New Zealand and Australia agitated for a response, and in September 2015, the New Zealand government announced the suspension of all aid financing Nauru’s judiciary. There is no question that Waqa’s moves against Australian officials would have triggered concerns within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australian Federal Police. Comparable developments in other Pacific states have previously triggered determined regime-change operations, most notably in Solomon Islands 2006–2007.

The Australian government, however, has maintained its steadfast support for Waqa. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has repeatedly insisted that the Nauruan administration’s moves were “domestic matters” that she discussed “confidentially” with the president.

In addition to geo-strategic calculations, the Australian government relies on the Waqa administration to continue to assist its illegal refugee trafficking program. More than 1,000 men, women, and children who attempted to claim asylum in Australia after arriving by sea now reside on Nauru after being deported by Australian Border Force officials.

Most of the refugees and asylum seekers live in the general community, with around 400 remaining in the Australian-operated detention centre. The refugees suffer horrific mental health problems, with self-harm and suicide rife, lack of access to basic facilities, and are largely cut off from the outside world. Only vetted and favoured journalists have been allowed in to the country since 2014.

The Australian government’s sponsorship of the repressive and corrupt Waqa regime in Nauru further exposes the fraud that it promotes “democracy” and “humanitarianism” in the South Pacific. Amid mounting concern over China’s rising diplomatic and economic influence in the region, the predatory and ruthless nature of Australian imperialism is growing ever more transparent.

Nicaragua sees bloodiest clashes yet after months of protest

Bill Van Auken

Nicaragua saw its bloodiest clashes yet over the weekend, after nearly three months of protests, as security forces and armed government supporters moved to forcibly dismantle barricades erected by protesters.

The most violent clashes took place south of the capital of Managua in the towns of Diriamba and Jinotepe, where 35 people were reported killed. Another three died in the northern province of Matagalpa. Among the dead were protesters as well as several members of the police and paramilitary government supporters.

The government laid siege to the towns at dawn on Sunday, bringing in bulldozers to clear barricades from a key road linking Managua to the country’s south and the Costa Rican border. Security forces employed rubber bullets and live ammunition to quell the protesters.

Nicaragua has been gripped by nationwide protests since April 18, when President Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista Front for National Liberation announced pension cuts and increases in social security contributions dictated by the International Monetary Fund.

Initial demonstrations by students were met with deadly force and, as the protests have continued, their focus has become a demand for the ouster of Ortega and Rosario Murillo, who is both his wife and vice-president.

According to human rights groups, the number of people killed in clashes since April has risen to more than 310. The government has acknowledged only 47 deaths.

The protests and barricades have largely crippled Nicaragua’s economy. After the government forces demolished the barricades in Diriamba and Jinotepe, some 350 cargo trucks were able to pass after being stuck for a month.

An incident that took place in Diriamba on Monday may have more far-reaching effects than the bloodshed on the barricades. A group of Catholic bishops and priests led by the auxiliary bishop, Monsignor Silvio Jose Baez, and the Vatican’s representative in Managua, the Apostolic Nuncio Waldemar Stanislaw Sommertag, went to mediate a peace in the besieged town and secure the release of a group of protesters, journalists and clerics trapped inside a local church.

Upon their arrival in Diriamba, the group was surrounded by pro-government sympathizers, many of them wearing ski masks, who denounced the clerics as “assassins,” “coup supporters” and “pedophiles.” The pro-government elements then forced their way into the church, roughing up the priests and bishops and wounding one with a knife.

The Catholic Church’s Episcopal National Council of Nicaragua (CEN) has been mediating talks between the Ortega government and the opposition Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, a coalition of business interests together with student organizations, unions and other groups, some of which received funding from US government sources.

After the incident in Diriamba, Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes, president of CEN, declared, “What sense does it have to continue with the dialog, if the streets continue to be filled with blood?”

Last week, the CEN submitted an undisclosed proposal to the Ortega government that was thought to include moving national elections scheduled for 2021 up to next year.

Ortega explicitly rejected any such change in the electoral calendar in a speech delivered to supporters in Managua Saturday—his first public appearance in a month. “You can’t just change the [electoral] rules overnight because of a group of coup-plotters,” he said.

The US government, meanwhile, has steadily ratcheted up pressure on the government, imposing sanctions last week on three officials, including Francisco Díaz, a deputy chief of the national police force, whose daughter is married to one of Ortega’s sons.

The penalties are designed to “expose and hold accountable those responsible for the Nicaraguan government’s ongoing violence and intimidation campaign against its people,” a State Department spokeswoman said in a statement.

The State Department has also ordered all “non-essential” US diplomatic personnel to leave the country and has issued a travel warning against US citizens visiting Nicaragua.

Washington has been noticeably reticent until now about denouncing the state violence in Nicaragua, reflecting the amicable relations that it had forged with the Ortega government.

A leader of the FSLN guerrilla movement in the 1970s, Ortega had played a leading role in the toppling of the US-backed dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza in 1979, subsequently emerging as the head of a Sandinista government that Washington attempted to overthrow by means of a dirty war waged by a CIA-backed Contra terrorist army. After years of war and deprivation, the Sandinista government was voted out of power in 1990 in an election that was grossly manipulated by Washington, including through threats that if its chosen candidate, Violeta Chamorro, failed to win, both the war and an economic embargo would continue.

Ortega returned to power in 2007 on the basis of a right-wing pro-business economic program and an embrace of Christian Evangelicalism. He also forged close ties between the Nicaraguan military and the US Southern Command, which included joint military exercises and training programs.

At the same time, he and his wife monopolized an ever-greater share of both political and economic power, emerging as the richest people in Nicaragua and drawing comparisons between themselves and the old Somoza dynasty.

Ortega’s government was supported by both the major business associations in Nicaragua and foreign capital. It proved effective in suppressing the struggles of a restive and impoverished working class, including some 120,000 workers toiling in free trade zones for poverty wages.

enced by the ties it has established with both China and Russia. Trade with China has increased rapidly, even as Managua maintains ties to the government of Taiwan. The Ortega government also granted a license in 2013 to a Chinese investment firm to build and operate a canal across the country, linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and serving as a rival to the Panama Canal. Thus far, the project has remained stalled.

At the same time, Ortega forged military ties with Moscow, purchasing some 3,000 surface-to-air weapons and 50 tanks, while entering discussions on buying fighter aircraft. Russia has also set up a military training center in Nicaragua and plans are in the works for joint military exercises. Moscow has also set up a satellite-monitoring station in the Central American country.

In his 2018 statement to the US Congress, SOUTHCOM chief Admiral Kurt Tidd posed Russia’s involvement in Nicaragua as a strategic threat, providing Moscow “with persistent, pernicious presence, including more frequent maritime intelligence collection and visible force projection in the Western Hemisphere.”

“Left unchecked, Russian access and placement could eventually transition from a regional spoiler to a critical threat to the US homeland,” the admiral warned

Even as it sought to maintain close ties with Ortega, Washington has invested heavily in his even more right-wing and openly pro-US imperialist opposition. The National Endowment for Democracy has funneled $4.1 million into the country since 2014 to finance 54 separate opposition groups. USAID, meanwhile, had a budget for Nicaragua in 2018 of $5.2 million, most of it going to “civil society” operations.

US imperialism increasingly sees Latin America as a battleground in its “great power” conflicts with Russia and China. In Nicaragua, it aims to advance this agenda by replacing Ortega’s reactionary bourgeois government with an even more pliant US puppet regime.

Whether such a regime would prove any more capable of containing the social upheavals that have rocked the country, however, is by no means clear.

Concerted efforts to save May’s government and the chance of a “soft Brexit”

Chris Marsden 

In a day filled with high-profile declarations of support for Prime Minister Theresa May and opposing any leadership challenge, perhaps the most significant statement was that of the European Union’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier.

Speaking in New York while attending the Council on Foreign Relations, Barnier made clear the concern of the European powers that May’s beheading by the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives is to be avoided if possible.

After previously ridiculing the suggestion that the EU would accept any preferential “cherry-picking” arrangement for the UK, Barnier declared that “we have agreed on 80 percent of the negotiations” and that he was determined to agree on the remaining 20 percent.

“No deal is the worst solution for everybody. It would be a huge economic problem for the UK and also for the EU,” he added.

Barnier still stressed the EU’s position that the “four freedoms of movement of people, goods, services and capital” were “indivisible” and that “at the end of this negotiation that the best situation, the best relationship with the EU, will be to remain a member.” But he insisted, “I will negotiate only with the British government… so our next negotiations will be next Monday with the British delegation appointed by Mrs. May.”

However, the EU clearly calculates that the possibility of reversing Brexit at this point comes second to preventing a hardening of the Tories’ anti-Brexit stand in the aftermath of the resignation of Brexit Secretary David Davis, his minister Stephen Baker and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

Such concerns would have been highlighted by the resignation of two Conservative party vice-chairs, Ben Bradley and Maria Caulfield, only minutes before May was to begin a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the EU Western Balkans Summit in London that was dominated by questions over Brexit.

It is a measure of May’s crisis that she told Merkel not to answer questions from the British press, and to only take one question from a German reporter, which produced an expression of obvious surprise from the chancellor.

European fears will have been sharply focused by the comments of US President Donald Trump, made at the White House before flying to the NATO Summit and just two days before he arrives in the UK.

Trump has made no secret of his hostility to the EU and desire to weaken what he considers a rival trade bloc, including supporting Brexit and the more recent imposition of sanctions.

He said he expected to see a country in “turmoil” when he lands in the UK and viewed Johnson as a “friend of mine,” who had been “very nice” and “very supportive”.

“So I have NATO, I have the UK which is in somewhat turmoil, and I have [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all,” he declared.

Asked if May should stay in power, Trump said, “That’s up to the people, not up to me.”

Time after time, May’s Tory allies, including figures and newspapers closely associated with the campaign to leave the EU, have centred their opposition to the Brexiteers on warnings that they will only hasten the election of a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

Leading Brexiteer and former Tory Party leader Lord Michael Howard told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “I do think that it would be extremely foolish and extremely ill-advised for anyone to send in letters to mount a motion of no confidence in the prime minister.”

Referring directly to Johnson’s resignation letter, he added, “I do not believe the Brexit dream is dying.”

William Hague, another ex-leader and a Remainer who then declared for Leave following the referendum, wrote in the Daily Telegraph, house organ of the Tory right, describing Johnson and Davis as “romantics” who risked scuttling Brexit.

Tory MPs “with their pens hovering over letters demanding a vote of no confidence” might end up with an even softer Brexit or no Brexit at all by undermining the government. “The chances that such resignations will lead to the sort of Brexit they desire are around zero, but the possibility that they will give fresh momentum to demands for a second referendum or further weaken the negotiating position of the UK is considerable,” he insisted.

In the Daily Mail, Stephen Glover warned of his fear that “this orgy of infighting means a nightmarish age of Corbyn may almost be upon us.”

This “nightmarish age,” he explained, would be “a disaster by the side of which the worst possible outcome over Brexit would virtually pale into insignificance. Mass nationalisation, confiscatory taxes, rocketing public expenditure, hard-Left trade union leaders dictating policy, the embrace of odious foreign regimes and the boorish rejection of dependable allies such as the United States: these are just a few of the nightmarish consequences that would almost inevitably follow a Corbyn victory.”

Yet the object of this campaign of fearmongering, Corbyn, has been muted in his own statements precisely because he has no intention of implementing mass nationalisations, taxes on the rich, or any other serious measures against capitalism. His aim is to convince Britain’s ruling elite that Labour is a safe pair of hands, not just regarding ameliorating the impact of Brexit, but in suitably “moderating”, i.e., neutering, demands for social and political change among workers and youth.

Above all he will do nothing that threatens unity with his party’s right wing. In this regard, the most telling statement of support for May’s government came from Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson.

A second referendum on Brexit might become necessary, he said, but only if an increasingly divided Tory Party cannot agree a viable Brexit plan.

“It is conceivable that there is no majority position for any deal in the current arrangements in parliament,” he said, raising the “highly, highly, highly unlikely” prospect of “a people’s vote” if “parliament just can’t make a decision on it…”

Tory splits, he added, “electorally might help my party.” However, “We want to work with the government for best deal.”

“It’s not a question of Labour trying to bring the government down, it’s actually a question of Labour trying to help the government get a good deal and try and stop the government bringing itself down.”

Internet Society Youth@IGF Programme for Young Leaders (Fully-funded to Paris, France) 2018

Application Deadline: 22nd July 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Paris, France

About the Award: Many young people age 18-25 are the first generation of adults to grow up not knowing the world without the Internet. For those who do not have access, they are some of the people that are pushing hardest for it.
Young people are shaping online culture in so many ways. They use the Internet to meet people around the world, create the videos that go viral, create art that moves us, and start and stand behind online social movements that make us think.
They are building their dream Internet.
And yet, when it comes to policy discussions, most of them are not at the table.
The Internet Society, in collaboration with CGI.br, decided in 2015 to change that!
Together with our partners, NIC.MX, the Government of Mexico, Microsoft and Verizon, we have brought more than 160 youth to IGF 2015, 2016 and 2017, under the Youth@IGF program.
This time, we are sending even more young people to the IGF through the 2018 Youth@IGF program. Concretely, the top performers will have a chance to go to the Internet Governance Forum 2018 in Paris, France, in Paris the week of 12 November, as well as to be part of an Onsite Collaborative Leadership Exchange on November 11.

Type: Fellowship, Training

Selection Criteria: All applicants must be ISOC members* between the ages of 18-25 years.
Also, they must have:

• Basic awareness of Internet-related issues
• Fluency in English, French or Spanish
• Be able to write clearly
• Be comfortable with public speaking and communicating your positions
• Have regular access to the Internet
• Alignment with the Internet Society mission and vision
• Spend a minimum of 8 hours each week during each of the phases
• Be ready take part in the meetings or webinars (this is the single most important requirement and should be evaluated seriously by any potential applicant).

The selection committee is focused on professional, geographical and gender diversity in the overall selections. Also, please note that, while those selected will be on a global basis, regional considerations will be given and the majority of selected Fellows will likely be from Europe and MENA.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The program has the following phases:

1. Online course work
2. Travel fellowship to IGF 2018
3. Webinar lecture series
4. Onsite Collaborative Leadership Exchange

How to Apply: Apply now!

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Internet Society

Important Notes: There will be an additional selection process for the second phase (Travel Fellowship). It is only available for selected participants who have accomplished the online course with a minimum of 90% participation rate.

Beiersdorf International Internship Challenge for International Students (Win a Fully-funded internship in Germany) 2018

Application Deadline: 15th July, 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

Field of Internship: 

1. Brand Management and Digital Marketing
2. Sales & eCommerce
3. Supply Chain Management
4. Finance & Controlling.

About the Award: Once a year we host our Beiersdorf International Internship Challenge at our Corporate Headquarters in Hamburg, Germany. We invite 32 top international students to compete for four fully-funded international internships. Are you up for the challenge? Interns are enrolled in a university program in business administration/engineering, or they already hold a Bachelor’s degree and are about to start their Master’s (gap year) in order to be eligible for the three months long internship program.

Type: Internship

Eligibility: You want to join our event? This is what it takes:

• In your planned internship period (end of 2018/ in 2019) you are enrolled in a university program in business administration/engineering, or you already hold a Bachelor’s degree and are about to start your Master’s (gap year).
• You have a focus on one of these areas: marketing/sales, digital marketing/e-commerce, finance/controlling, or supply chain management.
• You have gained work experience through internships.
• You feel at ease in an international environment and have the courage to step off the beaten track.
• You have strong teamwork/communication skills and can work independently, with a high level of dedication.
• You have excellent analytical skills and no trouble to communicate fluently in English.

Value and Number of Award(s): The four strongest applicants will win a fully-funded international internship at one of our 150 subsidiaries across the globe or at Beiersdorf’s Corporate Headquarters in Germany.

Duration of Program: three months

How to Apply: 

• Show us who you are: Apart from your CV and relevant documents (last transcript of records/internship certificates), we want to see how motivated you are. Let us know why you are the perfect candidate to win an internship abroad.
• Do an Online Test: In the next step, we’ll invite you to take an online test including verbal, logical and numerical reasoning tasks.
• Submit a video interview: We’ll invite the best candidates to submit a pre-recorded video interview. It’s super easy: We’ll send you a link to a video portal where you’ll find several questions. You’ll have a week to answer them.
• Join our IIC in Hamburg: If you’re selected for the International Internship Challenge we’ll invite you to our Corporate Headquarters in Hamburg. Naturally, we’ll cover your travel and accommodation costs. This is a great opportunity to get to know us and the beautiful city of Hamburg.

Apply only for one position – your first choice. Throughout the application you will get the chance to mention other areas of interest.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Beiersdorf

Brazilian Government Graduate Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 31st August 2018 (Application opens 1st August)
Registrations for Proof of proficiency in Portuguese language 2018 are open until 13th July 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Brazil

About the Award: The Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) launched the selection of candidates for the Postgraduate Students-Agreement Program ( PEC-PG ), which aims to grant full scholarships for students, professors, researchers and other professionals of developing countries, with which Brazil maintains an Agreement for Educational, Cultural or Science and Technology Cooperation.

Type: Doctorate

Eligibility: Among the requirements to apply to the PEC-PG is that the candidate:

• must be a citizen of a developing country, with which Brazil has an agreement or memorandum of understanding in the area of ​​Educational, Cultural or Science and Technology Cooperation;
• can not have Brazilian nationality,
• even if binational, nor be the son of Brazilians;
• can not have a permanent visa in Brazil;
• must have a full undergraduate or masters degree;
• besides being financially responsible for the passage to Brazil and for its maintenance for a minimum of 60 days, until the receipt of the first monthly payment of the PEC-PG scholarship.

Number of Awards: 100 scholarships

Value of Award: 
Modalities:

• Full Doctor in Brazil

Benefits:

• Monthly
• Brazil – external passage (financed by MRE)

Duration of Programme:
The activity schedule is as follows:
– disclosure: June 2018;
– registration submission: 01 to 31 August 2018;
– disclosure of the preliminary result: until 15 November 2018;
– disclosure of the final result: until 30 November 2018;
– start of academic activities: from February 2019.
Duration: 48 months

How to Apply: In order to apply, candidates must present the registration to take the Certificate of Proficiency in Portuguese for Foreigners (Celpe-Bras). Candidates from Portuguese speaking countries are exempt from the proficiency exam. Celpe-Bras will be held this year at October 1st (registration until 13 July).
A preparatory course is available at Brazil-South Africa Cultural Centre (CCBAS – ccbas.pretoria@itamaraty.gov.br /phone: +27 12 366 5293) from 30 July to 26 September.

Online registration for CELPE-Bras: https://goo.gl/TfbkZH
We reiterate the importance of the candidate to register for the CELPE-Bras Exam until July 13 .

Visit Programme Webpage for Details   and  Here

Award Providers: The Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Staff (CAPES) of the Brazilian Government.

Merck Diabetes and Merck Hypertension Awards for African Medical Students 2018

Application Deadline: 30th September 2018

Eligible Countries: African and Asian countries

About the Award: The Award is divided in two (2) parts:

1. Merck Diabetes Award
2. Merck Hypertension Award

Merck Diabetes Award 2018:  All medical postgraduates and final year undergraduates are invited to apply for the Merck Diabetes Award 2018.
Theme: Every Day is a Diabetes Day

Submit a concept paper about:

• How to improve the awareness about Diabetes Early Detection and Prevention in your country.
• How to encourage your society, scientific community, local authorities, media and relevant stakeholders to Think and Act on Diabetes Every Day.
• Your ideas of developing new policies, strategies, social media campaigns and more.

Value and Duration of Program: Merck Diabetes Award 2018 is enrollment to a 1 year Online: “Post Graduate Diploma in Diabetes Management with University of South Wales”.

How to Apply: Please submit your one page concept paper to:
submit@merckdiabetesaward.com
Applicants Name, Gender, Age, Country, University/Collage, Expected year of completion of MBBS/Medical Graduation, address, email and Mobile number must be provided with the submission.

Merck Hypertension Award 2018: All medical undergraduates, interns and postgraduates are invited to apply for the Merck Hypertension Award 2018.
Theme: What the Healthy Heart needs
Submit a concept paper about:

• How to improve the awareness about hypertension control and prevention in your country.
• How to encourage your society, scientific community, local authorities, media and relevant stakeholders to Think and Act on Hypertension Every Day.
• Your ideas of developing new policies, strategies, social media campaigns and more.

Value and Duration of Program: Merck Hypertension Award 2018 is enrollment to a 1 year Online: “Post Graduate Diploma in Preventive Cardiovascular Medicine with University of South Wales”.


How to Apply: Please submit your one page concept paper to:
submit@MerckHypertensionAward.com
Applicants Name, Gender, Age, Country, University/Collage, Expected year of completion of MBBS/Medical Graduation, address, email and Mobile number must be provided with the submission. 


Type: Award

Number of Awards: Not specified

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Merck

Mexico Returns to Its Place in the Vanguard

Manuel E. Yepe

Mexico and Latin America are partying! Mexico elected a President who can rise to the nation’s role in history!

A broad, overwhelming and unquestionable electoral victory made Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) the next President of the United States of Mexico. His candidacy was put forth by the Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena), a party he founded and whose most recent national registration, forming the Together We Will Make History alliance, together with the Labor and Social Encounter parties.

His prestige rests mainly on his honesty and his election theme, la esperanze de Mexico (Mexico’s Hope) which has now become a reality.

The popular victory of AMLO in the homeland of the priest Hidalgo, Benito Juárez, Emiliano Zapata, Pancho Villa and Lázaro Cárdenas constitutes a political history of Latin America and the Caribbean. It is is a milestone in the political history of Latin America and the Caribbean. It significantly shifts the balance of power in favor of popular struggles, Latin American unity and the support for progressive governments against neoliberalism.

The rise of a popular government whose foreign policy heralds a constant struggle in defense of sovereignty, independence, non-intervention and peaceful resolution of conflicts. These were given in the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace agreed by the the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in its Second Havana Summit, a vital instrument for the defense of peace in the region.

Insecurity and violence; social inequalities and poverty, all linked to rampant corruption and a tense relationship with the United States, are some of the most urgent and arduous challenges that AMLO will have to face. He will take the presidency of Mexico on December 1, after a five-month transition. In addition, the US president has threatened to build a wall on the Mexican border to isolate himself from the world and to have it paid for by the Mexican treasury

With regard to Mexico’s and Latin America’s relations in with their neighbor to the north, this proverb always resonates: “Mexico, so far away from God and so close to the United States,” Today we recall the prophetic study published by AMLO in April 2017 in Le Monde Diplomatique, on the strategy that would lead to Donald Trump to the US presidency and the situation that would be created for Mexico under Trump’s presidency:

“About two years ago, the future president (Trump) and his advisers began to systematically study the mood of the American people. Among the most frequent feelings they cited were: disappointment, irritation, anger, sadness and despair. It was enough to take advantage of this general mood, to articulate it and to push this interpretation forward in the hope that it would permeate the whole society.

“Long before Trump’s inauguration, it was clear that his campaign, the anti-Mexican approach, did not originate in an economic analysis of his country, but rather in an economic one. that was (and still is) in the political interest of taking advantage of nationalist sentiment in the U.S..”

Mexico’s new president-elect promises to cut the “top of its head” off privileges”, ending the “power mafia”, ending the the corruption by example and giving priority to the poor.

This son of merchants, born on November 13, 1953 in Tepetitán, Tabasco, and known by his initials as AMLO, embodies for many Mexicans the desire for change.

He is a mass leader who conveys confidence and trust in his speech. With a single call from him, tens of thousands of fill up the public squares.

From an ideological point of view, he is not easy to pigeonhole, but the media and the people generally think of him as a politician of the left or as an honest politician.

In economic terms, he is committed to the internal market, to set prices guarantees for the countryside and to review the opening of the oil sector to private capital.

In the social area, AMLO seeks to reduce inequalities but steers clear of issues that would fall within a traditional agenda of the left, such as abortion and same-sex marriages.

After having lost in the 2006 and 2012 elections, in the current campaign, he moderated his tone to attract sectors that previously distrusted his progressive preaching but never got past it. of his identification with the humble.

In fact, he proposes a change comparable to the big transformations in history such as the Mexican Revolution of 1910, as part of the political system.

He has declared that he is inspired by the fathers of the homeland, who left lessons on the fight for justice, for democracy, and for national sovereignty.

When ISIS is Gone, Iraq Will Remain a Deeply Corrupt Country

Patrick Cockburn

Iraqis disagree about many things but on one topic they are united: they believe they live in the most corrupt country in the world, barring a few where there is nothing much to steal. They see themselves as victims of a kleptomaniac state where hundreds of billions of dollars have disappeared into the pockets of the ruling elite over the past 15 years, while everybody else endures shortages of everything from jobs and houses to water and electricity.

The popular rage against the political class that came to power in 2003 explains why the movement led by the populist-nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which demands political and social reform and is allied to the Iraqi Communist Party, topped the poll in the parliamentary election in May. But the low turnout of 44.5 per cent underlined a conviction on the part of many that nothing much is going to change, whatever the makeup of the next government – something still being patched together in snail’s pace negotiations between the parties. “Even friends of mine who did vote are disillusioned and say they will not vote again,” one Baghdad resident told me.

It is impossible to exaggerate the frustration of Iraqis who know they live in a potentially rich country, the second largest oil producer in Opec, but see its wealth being stolen in front of their eyes year after year.

I was in Ramadi, the capital city of the province of Anbar, west of Baghdad, looking at the war damage when I met Muthafar Abdul Ghafur, 64, a retired engineer who had just finished rebuilding his house which had been destroyed in an airstrike. “I did it all myself and got no compensation from the government,” he said, adding bitterly that some whose houses were largely intact had received compensation because, unlike him, they bribed the right officials. “Write that Iraq has no government!” he shouted at me. “It has only thieves!”

Back in Baghdad, I visited the upper middle-class districts of Mansour and Yarmouk to talk to a real estate dealer, Safwat Abdul Razaq, who said he was doing good business. The price of property in this area had doubled in the past two years, but he was less optimistic about the future because of the weak government and, above all, because of the pervasive state corruption. “The government has no credibility,” he said. “Wherever you go, they ask you for a bribe.”

He added that a contractor invariably had to pay off officials to win a contract and one of the three businessmen sitting in the office said that this could easily be 50 per cent of the contract price. There was plenty of private money in Iraq but little of it was invested there because corruption made any business activity insecure: “that is why I buy property in Jordan but not in Iraq.”

These are well-off people, but I heard the same complaints in the Shia working-class stronghold of Sadr city, where heaps of rubbish lie uncollected in the streets. “The young people are a lost generation, who can’t afford to get married because they have no jobs and no prospects unless they know somebody in the government,” said a local paramilitary. Water and electricity were in short supply and expensive to buy privately.

Grotesque examples of official theft have been frequent since a new class of leaders, mostly Shia and Kurdish, took power in Iraq after the US invasion. When the Iraqi government was supposedly fighting for its life militarily in 2004-2005, the entire $1.3bn (£980m) military procurement budget disappeared. A few years later, police at checkpoints in Baghdad were trying to detect car bombs with a useless device that cost a few dollars to make and which the government had bought for tens of thousands.

How did successive Iraqi governments get away with such blatant thefts for so long? For years they diverted attention away from their looting of Iraq’s oil revenues by claiming that the struggle against al-Qaeda in Iraq and later Isis was the only thing that mattered. They appealed to the sectarian solidarity of the Shia and, in northern Iraq, to the ethnic solidarity of the Kurds.

But a year after Isis suffered a decisive defeat in the siege of Mosul, these excuses no longer work. Security is better than at any time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, so Iraqis are more conscious than ever before of the failings of a parasitic leadership and a semi-functional state machine.

A word of caution here: Iraqis like to think of their country as uniquely cursed by corruption with billions of dollars paid to shell companies for projects in which not a single brick is placed on top of another. But Iraq is not alone in this, since all the states whose wealth is drawn entirely from the exploitation of their natural resources – usually oil – operate similarly. In each case, members of a predatory ruling elite – from Angola to Saudi Arabia and Iraq – plug into state revenues and grab as much as they can get their claws on.

Obscenely excessive expenditure by the ruling circles in these countries is notorious, but they are not the sole beneficiaries. All these resource-rich states have vast patronage systems whereby a large chunk of the population gets jobs, or receives salaries, though no work may be necessary. Iraqis and Saudis may denounce corruption at the top but millions of them have a stake in the system, which gives it a certain stability. In Iraq, for instance, some 4.5 million Iraqis work for the state and these are the plum jobs that others would like to have. Though political leaders in Baghdad talk about reforming this system, it is politically dangerous to do so because the networks of corruption and patronage established themselves too long ago and involve too many powerful people and parties.

“Anti-corruption campaigns” – in Iraq as in Saudi Arabia – are often just one group of super-rich trying to displace another. The patronage system is the only way that many Iraqis and Saudis get a share of the oil revenues and they will resist being deprived of this in the supposed interest of creating a more functional system.

In Iraq the mechanics of corruption operate in a slightly different way than elsewhere because of the role of the political parties. Mudher Salih, a financial adviser to the prime minister Haider al-Abadi, told me that “unless the political system is changed it is impossible to fight corruption”. He said that the reason for this is that parties use the government ministries they control as cash cows and patronage machines through which they sustain their power. This way of doing things is probably too ingrained, and in the interests of too many people, to be radically changed.

Corruption cannot be eliminated in Iraq, but it can be made less destructive. When al-Abadi became prime minister in 2014 Isis was advancing on Baghdad and oil prices were well. Salih said that in response to the crisis the government “cut expenditure by 37 per cent by removing ‘fishy’ items – money being spent for nothing at all”. Corruption will stay, but in future Iraqis can at least hope to get something for their money.

Australia’s foreign interference laws threaten whistleblowers and media freedom

 James Cogan

An exchange on June 28 in the parliament, prompted by questions from Green senator Andrew Bartlett, underscored the fact that Australia’s sweeping new “foreign interference” laws have immense implications, not only for whistleblowers, but for the right of media organisations to publish leaked information. Aspects of the legislation, relating to espionage and secrecy, appear to call into question what millions of Australians consider to be fundamental democratic rights and the freedom of speech.

Bartlett highlighted remarks made in an interview by Liberal-National Coalition government member Andrew Hastie—the former special forces officer who chairs the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which drew up much of the legislation.

Hastie insisted that the laws were needed, in part, to criminalise “seeking to get secrets from the United States.” He declared that Australia could not allow “radical transparency.” Asked to define this term, he said: “Radical transparency is Julian Assange dumping a whole bunch of Commonwealth secrets out for public consumption.”

In parliament, Bartlett challenged the government over Hastie’s statement. He commented: “The things he [Assange] exposed and, more specifically and definitely, that Edward Snowden exposed, are things that governments wanted hidden—things so-called democratic governments were doing to their own people. So now we have that definition—‘radical transparency is Julian Assange.’ These laws are attempts to criminalise and attack people like Julian Assange. Let’s not forget that Julian Assange is acknowledged as, and registered as, a journalist and actually won a Walkley Award for his work exposing governments acting against their own citizens.”

Government minister Zed Seselja denied that Assange and WikiLeaks were specific targets of the legislation. He then declared, however:

“With the exception of secrecy offences, it’s not appropriate to carve out journalists from the application of most of these offences. For example, the espionage offences apply where a person intends to or is reckless as to whether their conduct will prejudice Australia’s national security or advantage the national security of a foreign country. There must also be a link to a foreign principal. If a journalist engaged in the relevant conduct, and these circumstances existed, it would be appropriate for the espionage offences to apply.”

Seselja’s “explanation” raises staggering questions about the right to whistleblow on government criminality, and the right of the media to publish leaks that reveal it.

The legislation defines “national security” in the most sweeping terms. It includes, for example, the “protection of the integrity of the country’s territory and borders from serious threats” and, “the country’s political, military or economic relations with another country or other countries.”

“Foreign principal” is likewise defined in a broad and vague fashion. It includes foreign governments, bodies, state-owned entities and political organisations.

A “foreign political organisation” is defined as everything from a “foreign political party” and a “foreign organisation that exists to pursue political objectives.”

In a totally subjective characterisation, which could be interpreted in a completely different manner by opposed tendencies on the political left and right, “foreign political organisation” is also defined as “a foreign organisation that exists to pursue militant, extremist or revolutionary objectives.”

It is incumbent on all defenders of civil liberties and free speech to subject the foreign interference legislation to the most detailed, critical and public scrutiny.

Underpinning the legislation, and a central factor in its development, is the fact that Australia is in a formal military alliance with the United States. It hosts major US military facilities and provides basing arrangements for US ships, aircraft and troops. Its armed forces and intelligence agencies provide information to their US counterparts as part of the alliance and the Five Eyes network, and receive and store information in exchange.

In 2002–2003, Australian agencies were receiving briefings on the American attempt to fabricate a case against Iraq, with false claims its government was concealing “weapons of mass destruction.” At the same time, the same agencies were receiving information from other international, “foreign” sources, who were disputing and refuting the US claims.

In February 2003, Andrew Wilkie, then an Australian intelligence officer, resigned from his position and publicly denounced the case against Iraq as a tissue of exaggerations and lies. His revelations were a factor in the development of mass demonstrations in Australia and internationally against the looming Iraq War. The anti-war movement most certainly had the potential to lead to widespread democratic calls for an end to Australia’s “political” and “military” relations with the United States.

Wilkie could not be charged with any crime and has since become an independent member of parliament.

What would have been the situation if the new “foreign interference” laws had existed in 2003? Could Wilkie have been charged with espionage for exposing the fact that, based on information from “foreign organisations,” the US and Australia were preparing an illegal war of aggression? Could his actions have been labelled a “threat” to the “country’s political, military or economic relations” with another country—that is, with the United States, under conditions where both Australia and the US were preparing a terrible crime?

In 2010, Australian citizen Julian Assange, in his capacity as editor of the WikiLeaks media organisation, published a series of leaks, sourced within the US military, which exposed American war crimes, lies and diplomatic conspiracies.

Among the information revealed by the leaks was the US embassy’s cultivation, over decades, of what it calls “protected sources” among Australian politicians, including an entire cabal that was functioning at the highest levels of the Rudd Labor government.

After the Washington-inspired coup that ousted Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the government of new Labor Party prime minister and beneficiary of the coup, Julia Gillard, declared that WikiLeaks had engaged in “illegal activity.” The legal profession and the media stridently objected to that characterisation because, under Australian laws, nothing Assange and WikiLeaks had done was illegal. They had, as a media organisation and its editor, acted in the public interest and were protected.

What is the situation facing WikiLeaks under the new foreign interference legislation? Could it be classified, not as “media,” but as a “foreign organisation” seeking to “influence” Australian politics by exposing the extent of US intrigues in the country, and by revealing war crimes committed by the US?

In the United States, WikiLeaks was defined last year by the CIA director as a “non-state hostile intelligence agency.” If WikiLeaks had been defined in such a fashion in Australia, then Assange, an Australian citizen, could have potentially been charged with espionage, for assisting it in publishing the leaks.

Millions of ordinary people, of course, welcomed WikiLeaks’ activity because it fulfilled the democratic right of the vast mass of the population to know the truth. Assange not only published extensive information on the criminality of US imperialism. He also shed light on the constant efforts by the American government and its agencies to influence and determine the focus of Australian policy and politics.

The greatest source of “foreign interference” in Australian affairs is its military alliance with the United States.

In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked US National Security Agency (NSA) documents that exposed rampant spying on the world’s population, including by joint US-Australian intelligence bases operating on Australian territory. He did so to expose the extent of the illegal activities of the Five Eyes network, which includes the Australian government.

Snowden’s actions could well have been viewed by the Australian government as “militant” or “extremist.” Under today’s laws, if an Australian journalist, rather than publications in other countries, had been the first to publish the NSA leaks, would they have risked espionage charges, since they exposed the extent of Australian intelligence spying on other countries, and purportedly damaged “national security?”

Many questions relating to the scope and operation of the new foreign interference legislation have not been publicly canvassed. Most people have never even heard it, much less had the opportunity to hear it discussed and debated. One of the reasons for this is that the new laws were rammed through the Australian parliament in barely three days, without being subjected to anything even remotely considered as scrutiny.

The Australian people have been denied their right to be informed about, let alone to vote on, the most serious and punitive legislative measures to be enacted since the Second World War.

It is a fundamental precept of democracy that power derives from the consent of the people. The Coalition and Labor parties have no legitimate authority to deprive the population of the democratic rights that have been achieved through decades, and even centuries, of struggle against tyranny and despotism.

The Socialist Equality Party (Australia) is holding public meetings over the next weeks, beginning on Sunday July 15 in Sydney, in order to inform workers and youth about the dangers inherent in these laws, and the necessity for the development of a broad-based movement demanding the repeal of the foreign interference laws and all anti-democratic legislation.

Allies no more: Trump escalates threats against Europe

Andre Damon

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump will arrive in Brussels to attend a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) amid the greatest crisis in US-European relations since the Second World War.

“For the first time,” wrote the Financial Times, “the arrival of a US president on European shores is anticipated with trepidation and even fear.”

After the Trump administration launched a global trade war by levying tariffs on European steel and aluminum imports last month, and then exploded the G7 summit just ten days later by refusing to sign its communiqué, the European powers are worried that Trump might also blow up the NATO summit. US officials have anonymously told the press that Trump could do anything at the event, from announcing a withdrawal of US troops from Germany to threatening to exit the alliance itself.

All international relations, including those between the United States and its closest allies, have been thrown into disarray by Trump’s transactional “America first” approach to trade, geopolitics and diplomacy. As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas recently put it, the “old pillars of reliability are crumbling.”

It is dawning upon European leaders that Trump is not some fluke or traffic accident on the scene of global relations. His brand of politics—of extreme nationalism based on unadorned self-interest—represents a new world order embraced not only by the United States, but the European powers themselves.

In his demand that the EU countries contribute more to NATO’s rearmament, Trump expresses the predatory drive of US capitalism to extract concessions from the whole world, “allies” and enemies alike. Rearmament on this scale cannot be carried out without the destruction of the social safety net and workers’ living standards. This is a central aim of Trump’s agenda, not an accidental byproduct. The White House is telling the European powers, in effect, to get on with their attacks on the working class, in order to lower labor costs for American corporations operating in Europe.

Even before landing in Brussels, Trump began hurling rhetorical bombs. “I’m going to tell NATO: You’ve got to start paying your bills,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Montana last week. “The United States is not going to take care of everything.”

Trump lobbed insults at German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “Germany, which is the biggest country of the EU, European Union, Germany pays one percent. And I said, you know, Angela, I can’t guarantee it, but we’re protecting you, and it means a lot more to you than protecting us, because I don’t know how much protection we get by protecting you.”

Trump explicitly tied his demand that the US’s EU allies spend more on defense to the escalating trade war between the US and the EU, declaring on Monday, “On top of this the European Union has a Trade Surplus of $151 Million with the U.S., with big Trade Barriers on U.S. goods. NO!”

There is a growing consensus among EU figures that the actions of the Trump administration express an objective and growing divergence between the European powers and the United States.

“What is on the table right now, in a sort of brutal way is a real problem [that] is not created by President Trump and will not vanish at the end of the term or terms of President Trump,” a leading European official told the Guardian. “The transatlantic relationship that all of us around the table consider as a given—is not a given.”

“We used to roll our eyes at Trump’s policies, but now we are seeing the craziness becoming strategic,” another senior EU diplomat told The Hill. “We now have to seek out all kinds of partners to further our goals.” Notably, Trump’s arrival in Brussels was preceded by a visit to Berlin by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and talk of an EU-Chinese alliance to offset threats from the United States.

“The US is now being viewed in Europe as evolving from a strategic partner to a strategic problem,” Dan Price, a former advisor to George W. Bush told the Wall Street Journal. European Council President Donald Tusk echoed these sentiments, declaring that Trump “should not be underestimated,” because he “is systematic, consistent and has a method to undermine… European values.”

In other words, after the initial shock has worn off, European officials have themselves largely embraced an inverted version of Trump’s worldview, seeing the United States as a strategic competitor in the quest for markets, resources and economic advantages.

The central irony of the NATO summit, however, is the fact that despite the mutual recriminations between the NATO members over spending targets, all members of the alliance are rearming to the teeth.

NATO General-Secretary Jens Stoltenberg boasted in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that “last year NATO allies boosted their defense budgets by a combined 5.2%, the biggest increase, in real terms, in a quarter of a century. Now 2018 will be the fourth consecutive year of rising spending.”

“In 2014, only three allies—the United States, the United Kingdom and Greece—met the 2% target. This year, we expect that number to rise to eight, adding Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.”

To pay for its military rearmament, every member of NATO has slashed social spending and carried out a frontal attack on its working class, exemplified by French President Emmanuel Macron’s headlong offensive against France’s rail workers.

The alliance set its two percent spending target in response to the proxy war that erupted following the US/EU-backed and fascist-led putsch in Ukraine and the consequent annexation of Crimea by Russia. Since then, NATO has deployed thousands of troops in the Baltics and in Poland, and it has staged a series of provocative war games just a few hundred miles from St. Petersburg.

This week’s summit will aim to continue these policies, including the creation of a “30 times four” plan that would make 30 land battalions, 30 ships and 30 warplane squadrons ready to deploy on 30 days’ notice.

The summit will also set up two additional NATO commands, “one in Norfolk to focus on maritime issues, including reinforcement by sea, and one in Germany to tackle the logistics of moving troops across Europe,” Foreign Affairs noted.

Unsurprisingly, the NATO members’ breakneck pace of rearmament has not brought them unity. Rather, in the four years since 2014, NATO members have seen unparalleled divisions among them, not just between the US and Europe, but within the EU itself, expressed most directly by the UK’s 2016 vote to leave the European Union.

Following Brexit, the UK has been rocked by one crisis after another, culminating in this week’s exit by two high-level cabinet members and rumors that the May government might fall. The remaining EU members, meanwhile, have been locked in mutual recriminations as they race each other in a mad dash to the right on refugee policy.

In other words, the NATO members have responded to every crisis with military rearmament, nationalism, trade war, shutting their borders and retreating behind a “hedge of bayonets,” to borrow Leon Trotsky’s phrase. But each shift to the right has only created the conditions for new crises and conflicts.

A year and a half into Trump’s presidency, it is clear that the current resident of the White House represents not some deviation from the norm of capitalist politics, but rather its most concise expression. Global war, trade conflict, xenophobia, nationalism, the attack on refugees, the dismantling of democratic rights—all the hallmarks of Trump—are in fact the hallmarks of rotten and decaying capitalism.