16 Jan 2019

UK parliament votes down Prime Minister May’s Brexit deal

Robert Stevens & Chris Marsden

MPs voted by a massive majority Tuesday evening against Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed deal with the European Union (EU) on the terms of Britain’s exit from the bloc.
May was defeated by a majority of 230, with 432 MPs against the deal and just 202 for in the biggest vote against a sitting prime minister in history.
The vote was held after a five-day debate. Opposing May were 118 rebels from her own Conservative Party (nearly 40 percent of Tory MPs). They joined 248 MPs from the main opposition Labour Party and 35 from the Scottish National Party (SNP). May’s defeat would have been even greater had not three Brexit supporting Labour MPs, Ian Austin, Sir Kevin Barron and John Mann, not voted with her. Also voting with May were three Independents—former Labour MP Frank Field, Lady Hermon, and Stephen Lloyd.
Following the historic defeat, May announced that if Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn exercised his right to call a no-confidence vote it would be heard today. Making capital over his previous refusal to do so, she added that consideration would be given to a debate if one of the smaller opposition parties demanded one. If she won a no confidence vote, she would meet with the Tories’ “confidence and supply partner” the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), “and senior parliamentarians from across the House to identify what would be required to secure the backing of the House . ”
Corbyn immediately tabled a vote of no confidence that was backed by the SNP and the leaders of the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
May is expected to win the no confidence vote, to be held this evening at 7 p.m., with the DUP stating that it would continue to prop up the Tories and support her government. The pro-Brexit Conservatives in the European Research Group said they would also back her. Both said they would do nothing that would bring Corbyn and Labour to power. Leading Brexiteer and May’s former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, said that he would back May, but insisted that the scale of her Brexit deal defeat meant that she had to return to talks with the EU and demand a deal more amenable to the Brexiteers—including abandoning the “backstop” arrangements keeping Northern Ireland in a customs union.
May had cancelled a vote on her deal in December, on the basis that it was expected to be heavily defeated. She spent the next weeks seeking to gain concessions from the EU, in the hope that she could persuade her hard Brexit opponents to change their minds. But all May was able to present before the vote was a perfunctory exchange of letters with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and President of the European Council Donald Tusk. The EU leaders offered nothing that could satisfy hard Brexiteers, insisting that a backstop was the only way to prevent a hard-border with the Republic of Ireland until a future free trade agreement is signed between the UK and Brussels.
A letter from Juncker to May promised only to make “this period [when the backstop is in place] as short as possible.” This had no impact, with DUP leader Arlene Foster saying the party’s 10 MPs would vote against the deal and that “What we want the prime minister to do after today is to go back to the European Union and say that the backstop has to go.”
The vote was confirmation of parliament’s overall support for a soft-Brexit, with a core of Blairite Labour MPs, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and some Tories all favouring remaining in the EU and wanting a second “People’s Vote” referendum to reverse the 2016 result.
In expectation of the proposed deal with the UK being rejected by MPs, Juncker cancelled a planned engagement in Strasbourg Wednesday to return to Brussels for emergency talks on Brexit with May. MPs voted last week to ensure that May has only limited time to come up with a “Plan B” that parliament can vote on, meaning May must return to parliament with new proposals by next Monday. May promised to do so and that her deal would be subject to amendments.
The Confederation of British Industry called on May to quickly put forward a new deal. CBI director-general Carolyn Fairbairn said, “Every business will feel no deal is hurtling closer … All MPs need to reflect on the need for compromise and to act at speed to protect the UK’s economy.”
While the strategy of the EU leaders over the past two years has been to maintain a hard line against the UK in negotiations—in order to ward off any other countries contemplating an exit from the bloc—there are concerns that a no-deal Brexit will provoke serious economic and social turmoil. The EU’s official line prior to the vote was that the deal had taken two years to finalise and was the only one on the table. However, on Tuesday afternoon, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas declared, “If it goes wrong tonight, there could be further talks.”
Europe’s fears were articulated in the starkest terms by Deutsche Bank chief executive, Christian Sewing, who warned that a “disorderly Brexit” would have “dramatic consequences” for the British economy. He predicted, “The UK would fall into a recession for at least two years,” with economic output cut by half a percentage point in the remaining EU countries. This was dire, as “the distortions would be too great for trade, financing conditions and investor confidence.”
The most striking aspect of yesterday’s debate is how the interests of working people have been entirely excluded from official politics—with Corbyn playing the central role in his insistence that parliamentary arithmetic must be respected and restoring “national unity” must be prioritised.
A few hundred pro-EU and pro-Leave protesters demonstrated outside Westminster, but inside the Commons all discussion was on how best to secure a deal with the EU, combining an ability for UK business to sign independent trade deals with tariff-free access to the Single European Market.
The pro-Brexit Tories plans to fashion the UK as Europe’s Singapore are overtly based on ramping up the exploitation of the working class. But the Remain faction, including Corbyn, all know that EU membership or even some form of “customs union” is just as firmly rooted in ongoing effort to make the UK competitive against its rivals at the expense of the working class. They offer nothing to the 5,000 Jaguar Land Rover workers, 1,000 Ford workers and thousands of retail staff told they face redundancy this past week.
Austerity is hard-wired into the EU. The Social Europe think-tank issued a report on the day of the vote noting that, after a decade of attacks on workers’ living standards and based on the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for the EU as a whole (60 percent of median EU income or €9,760), the “EU-wide poverty rate is 28.2 per cent (equivalent to around 142 million out of a total EU population of around 500 million).”
Last week, a visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Athens provoked clashes between riot police and protesters, including striking teachers—giving expression to how millions of Greeks feel about EU-dictated austerity. The Syriza government of Alexis Tsipras, which Corbyn cites as a model and ally, is now so hated for imposing austerity that it is 10.5 percent behind the conservative New Democracy in opinion polls. The same sentiment animates France’s Yellow Vests, the strike wave gripping Poland and labour disputes throughout the continent.
The working class must break free of the straitjacket imposed by Labour and its allies in the trade unions. Rejecting the false choice between Brexit and support for the EU, workers must mobilise in an industrial and political offensive against the government and the employers in alliance with their brothers and sisters throughout Europe facing the same battle and the same enemy, in the fight for a socialist Britain and a socialist Europe.

India-Indonesia: A Natural Partnership for the Indo-Pacific

Ashutosh Nagda


During his May 2018 visit to India, Indonesia’s Co-ordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs, Luhut Panjaitan, laid emphasis on a closer cooperation between India and Indonesia, suggesting it to be “important for balance of power in the region.” For India, which is looking to deepen its engagement in Southeast Asia to emerge as a regional power, Indonesia’s forthcoming gesture is a good sign, and a stronger partnership with Jakarta would be in New Delhi’s interest.

Indonesia's Evolving Foreign PolicyAs the world's largest archipelagic country and Southeast Asia's biggest economy, Indonesia has demonstrated an intent to play a leading role in the Indo-Pacific framework—a running theme in the policies of its current and previous administrations. Indonesia’s former President, Susilo Yudhoyono, advocated a policy of “thousand friends, zero enemies.” The main strategy of the government, as referred to by its then Foreign Minister, Marty Natalegawa, was that of achieving “dynamic equilibrium.” The core objective of this strategy is to create and maintain a system that builds trust between all involved parties and mutually agreed norms to ensure that no sole actor dominates the rest. This is the strategy Indonesia is currently employing to balance the US-China rivalry in the region.

For instance, at present, Jakarta’s foreign policy is anchored in Indonesia’s Global Maritime Fulcrum (GMF) doctrine, one that incumbent President Joko Widodo announced in 2014. The doctrine envisions increasing Indonesia’s interconnectedness by decreasing the development gap between the main and outer islands. It also envisions the Indonesian navy as a strong actor in the region’s maritime domain. Indonesia's attempt, as explained by its incumbent Foreign Minister, Retno Marsudi, to “turn geopolitical competition into collaboration,” reflects the continuation of Yudhoyono's strategy of “dynamic equilibrium.”

Overall, this policy of achieving a balanced and cooperative Indo-pacific region has opened doors for collaboration between various actors in the region. For instance, in New Delhi’s attempts to enhance its position as a regional power, Jakarta has found consonance for its policy of dynamic equilibrium.

India’s Policy for the Indo-PacificSince 2014, India has placed a heavy emphasis on its ‘Act East Policy’ to play a proactive role in Southeast Asia. Given the increasing strategic significance of the seas in the backdrop of China’s increasing inroads into Southeast Asia, cooperation on maritime issues between India and the regional Indian Ocean littoral states has witnessed an upswing.

To illustrate, New Delhi has consistently advocated for a cooperative, secure and stable Indo-Pacific to foster collective growth and prosperity in the region. In his keynote address at the 2018 Shangri La dialogue, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined New Delhi’s vision for the Indo-Pacific as “a common rules-based order,” and not as “a club of limited members” or a “grouping that seeks to dominate” or corner any one country. In the same address, Modi explained India's vision of ‘Security and Growth for all in the Region’ (SAGAR) as a “creed” that India aims to follow to better connect with its "land and maritime partners to the east." Through SAGAR, which was announced in 2015, India aims to work towards cooperation, sustenance and peaceful development in the region.

India-Indonesia: Evolving ConvergenceEvidently, there exists a robust convergence in Indian and Indonesian regional outlooks and strategies as was the case during the Non-alignment Movement era. Modi's vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific and Natalegawa’s conceptualisation of “Dynamic Equilibrium” (which Jokowi has carried forward) are complementary. Both share a common objective of developing cooperative power structures as opposed to hegemony. This convergence has led to the adoption of the “Shared Vision on Maritime Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific” by the two countries. Among other objectives, this “Shared Vision,” envisions “strengthening their maritime cooperation for promotion of peace, stability and bringing in robust economic growth and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific region;” and fostering and upholding a sovereignty and “freedom of navigation and overflight.” The congruity in their respective strategies for the Indo-Pacific seems to have strengthened the case for mutual reliability. This is evidenced in the formulation of an India-Indonesia ‘Comprehensive Strategic Partnership' and the bilateral arrangement pertaining to Indonesia’s Sabang port – both of which were announced alongside the “Shared Vision.”

Looking AheadFor India, its active outreach in Southeast Asia has allowed it to present itself as a regional power capable of balancing prevailing dominant powers in the region. However, China, with its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), remains a power to be reckoned with. Specifically, Beijing has been Jakarta’s largest trading partner since 2013, and in 2016, became the largest market for the latter’s exports. Today, China is Indonesia's third largest source of foreign capital.

That said, Indonesia’s stance on the BRI is intriguing. For instance, Panjaitan, also doubles as Indonesia's envoy for the BRI. Moreover, though Jakarta has pitched its GMF as an alternative to Beijing’s BRI, it has also signed five cooperation contracts worth US$ 23.3 billion under the BRI and is offering new projects worth up to US$ 60 billion to Chinese investors.

Meanwhile, although India and Indonesia have regularly emphasised on their desire to enhance ties in spheres such as economy, the pace of follow-up has been slow. To harness the prevailing momentum in bilateral relations, India must focus on strengthening its economic engagement with Indonesia because its investment in the latter remains minimal. More importantly, the need of the hour is for both countries to optimise implementation strategies and timelines of their numerous congruent plans for a free, rule-based and equitable Indo-Pacific.

15 Jan 2019

Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academic Scholarship 2020 for Girls – South Africa

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: South Africa

To be taken at (country): South Africa

About the Award: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls – South Africa is a residential boarding, special learning school with 300 students enrolled in Grade 7. The Academy teaches the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme (IB MYP) in Grade 7. Grade 12 students write the Independent Examination Board (I.E.B.) NSC Examination.

Eligibility: Students qualify to apply for a scholarship if:
  • they are academically talented and have leadership potential
  • they are a South African Citizen or permanent resident
  • their family or household total income before deductions is less than R10 000 per month
  • they are currently in Grade 7
Number of Awardees: Not specified

How to Apply: Application forms are available for download here. An electronic (fill-able form) and printable version are available.
Download Electronic Version Download Printable Version

Completed application forms must be addressed and sent to:
Attention: Student Recruitment
P O Box 1485, Henley on Klip, 1962
Email to: student.recruitment@owlag.co.za

  • Applications will be disqualified if you fail to submit all the required documents. Should any information submitted be found to be incorrect or untruthful, your application will be disqualified.
  • A reference check will be conducted for every application.
  • If you have not heard from the Academy by 15 March 2019 your application has not been successful.
  • Terms and conditions apply. No correspondence will be entered into. The Academy’s Selection Committee’s decision is final.
Once all applications have been received and screened, testing will be arranged for those applicants who meet the criteria. There are several stages to the selection process.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme 2019 (Fully-funded to The Hague, in The Netherlands)

Application Deadline: 20th February 2019

Eligible Countries: United Nations member countries

To be taken at (country): Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands

About the Award: The Fellowship Programme consists of an annual six-week summer course at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. The participants attend lectures and seminars in international law organized by the Codification Division as well as the public international law session at The Hague Academy of International Law.
The lectures and seminars organized by the Codification Division are given by prominent international law scholars and practitioners from different regions and legal systems.
The Fellowship Programme is conducted in English or French. The 2019 Programme will be conducted in English.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

Selection Criteria:  To qualify for the Fellowship Programme, candidates must have a legal background with professional experience in the field of international law. The selected participants are required to submit a medical certificate of good health and to certify that they are able to attend the entirety of the course on a full time basis.
When selecting participants for the Fellowship Programme, due consideration is given to the candidates’ qualifications, to the scope of their professional duties, to the relevance of the training to their professional duties, geographical distribution and gender balance. Applications from female candidates are strongly encouraged.
Due consideration will also be given to candidates from Member States from which there has been no recent fellowship recipient for the International Law Fellowship Programme.

Number of Awards: 21

Value of Award:
  • The fellowships cover the fellowship recipient’s travel costs in economy class, accommodation, medical insurance, participation in the Fellowship Programme, the training material and the registration fee for The Hague Academy of International Law. In accordance with the policies and procedures governing the administration of United Nations fellowships, participants will also receive a stipend to cover other living expenses.
  • Qualified candidates may also apply for self-funded positions. Self-funded participants bear all costs associated with their participation (travel, accommodation, living expenses and registration fee for The Hague Academy of International Law). Training materials are provided to all self-funded participants free of charge.
Duration of Programme: from 1 July to 9 August 2019.

How to Apply: Complete the application form in English, typewritten. Answers should be clear and as detailed as possible. If you need extra space, you may attach additional pages. Incomplete applications will not be considered. 
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Provider: The United Nations International Law Fellowship Programme is organized by the Codification Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs.

YALI Regional Leadership Center Southern Africa 2019 for Young Leaders in Southern Africa

Application Deadline: 3rd February 2019

Eligible Countries: Young leaders from the following countries are eligible to participate in the programme: Angola, Botswana, Comoros, Lesotho, Malawi, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: The RLC SA will develop the young African leaders in Business and Entrepreneurship Development; Civic Leadership; and Public Management and Governance through a hybrid of innovative and complimentary approaches that include contact sessions; online mentoring; online self-paced tuition; industry placements and experiential learning.
The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) is a signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders. The need to invest in grooming strong, results-oriented leaders comes out of the statistics: nearly 1 in 3 Africans are between the ages of 10 and 24, and approximately 60% of Africa’s total population is below the age of 35.
Who will empower and lead these young Africans? Who will shape the future of business and entrepreneurship, civic leadership, and public management? In order to answer these questions, YALI promotes three models designed to identify and empower young leaders: the YALI Mandela Washington Fellowship, YALI Network, and now the establishment of Regional Leadership Centers across Africa.

Type: Training

Eligibility: The program is open to young African leaders aged 18 – 35 years old depending on their level of experience and track record in their chosen sector. Participants must meet the following criteria:
  • Age (18-35)
  • English language proficiency
  • Portuguese speaking participants will be accommodated in the Mozambique Hub at UEM
  • A commitment to positively impact Africa, their own countries as well as communities
  • Demonstrated leadership capabilities and interest in Public Management, Entrepreneurship Development and Civic Leadership
  • Commitment to serve the development agenda of the African continent
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: Selected participants will engage in leadership training across three tracks of study: (1) Business and Entrepreneurship, (2) Civic Leadership, and (3) Public Management in a 4-week residential format with a focus on individual and team leadership skills, innovation, creative learning, and communication. The program’s emphasis is on interactive and experiential learning which fosters each participant’s ability to contribute both individually and in teams.

Duration of Program: 4 weeks

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI)

Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowships 2019 in Public Health and Tropical Medicine for Low and Middle Income Countries – UK

Application Deadline: The preliminary application deadline is 25th April 2019 and full application deadline is 27th June 2019.

Eligible Countries: Low- and middle-income countries


To be taken at (country): Fellowships can be taken in Low- and middle-income countries (See list of countries below)

Fields of Study: Fellowships are awarded in the field of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.


About the Award: This scheme helps mid-career researchers from low- and middle-income countries establish independent research programmes in those countries. The scheme aims to support research that will improve public health and tropical medicine at a local, national and global level.


Type: Research (Intermediate career stage)


Eligibility: Students can apply for an Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine if they:

  • Are a national of a low- or middle-income country
  • Have a PhD or a degree in medicine and are qualified to enter higher specialist training
  • Have three to six years research experience.
  • you have made important contributions to your area of research eg publications, patents, software development or an impact on health policy or practice.
  • Students that do not have a PhD or degree in medicine, Welcome Trust may still be considered if they have a first or Master’s degree and can show substantial research experience.
Students must also:
  • Have a strong track record in your area of research and show the potential to become a scientific leader
  • Have sponsorship from an eligible host organisation in a low- or middle-income country
  • Have a research proposal that is within the public health and tropical medicine remit.
Selection Criteria: 
  • your research contributions
  • the scientific merit of your proposed project
  • the significance of the research
  • the feasibility of your proposal
  • the suitability of your sponsor and host environment for both your research and for the development of your independent career.
By the end of this fellowship you should:
  • have achieved international standing in your area of research
  • be leading your own research programme
  • have the skills and experience to apply for senior level fellowships or permanent positions at a research organisation.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: Support includes:

  • A basic salary (determined by your host organisation)
  • Personal removal expenses
  • Research expenses, directly related to your proposal
Scholarship can be taken in Low- and middle-income countries
Duration of Fellowship: An Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine is for up to five years and cannot be renewed. An Intermediate Fellowship can be held on a part-time basis.
List of Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep., Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia,  Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep., Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, FYR, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, RB, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen, Rep., Zambia and Zimbabwe

How to Apply: Applicants must submit their application through the Wellcome Trust Grant Tracker (WTGT).


Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  Wellcome Trust

Gordon N. Fisher/JHR 2019 Journalism Fellowship at University of Toronto for African Journalists

Application Deadline: 15th February 2019

Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): Massey College, in Toronto.

About the Award: The successful candidate can enroll in any graduate or undergraduate courses at the University of Toronto and have access to its facilities. She or he will live at Massey College, in Toronto.
There are no educational prerequisites for a fellowship. Fellows do not receive credits or degrees for work done during the year.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:
  • Open to journalists from Sub Saharan Africa and the Middle East, with preference given to candidates from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Tanzania, Malawi, South Sudan, DR Congo, Syria and Jordan
  • 5 years’ experience working in media.
  • Currently full-time news or editorial employee at a newspaper, radio station, television station, magazine or news service. Freelance journalists who have been working consistently in the media over an eight-year period will also be considered.
  • Proficiency in English
  • Three letters of references
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship covers travel costs and accommodation, all university fees and a monthly stipend.

Duration of Programme: over one academic year – September to May

How to Apply: For details on the application process, please download the Application Information Pack and Application Form
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East

Patrick Cockburn

A black rubber inflatable boat was found abandoned earlier this week on the shingle at Dungeness on the Kent coast. Eight men, reportedly Iranians or Kurds, were later found close to the beach or in the nearby village of Lydd.
An Iranian living in south London was later charged with helping the migrants to cross the Channel illegally from France to the UK.
Sea crossings by small numbers of asylum seekers are highly publicised because the short but dangerous voyage makes good television.
The number of migrants over a period of months is in the low hundreds, but politicians believe that the impact of their arrival is high, as was shown by the home secretary, Sajid Javid, rushing back from holiday and declaring the crossings “a major incident”.
Nobody forgets the effect of pictures of columns of Syrian refugees, far away from UK in central Europe, had on the Brexit referendum in 2016.
Three days after the little inflatable boat beached at Dungeness, the US secretary of state Mike Pompeo made a speech in Cairo outlining the Trump Middle East policy, which inadvertently goes a long way to explain how the dinghy got there. After criticising former president Obama for being insufficiently belligerent, Pompeo promised that the US would “use diplomacy and work with our partners to expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria; and that sanctions on Iran – and presumably Syria – will be rigorously imposed.
Just how this is to be done is less clear, but Pompeo insisted that the US will wage military and economic war in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria, which inevitably means that normal life will be impossible in all of these places.
Though the US and its allies are unlikely to win any victories against Iran or Bashar al-Assad, the US can keep a permanent crisis simmering across a swathe of countries between the Pakistan border and the Mediterranean, thereby ensuring in the long term that a portion of the 170 million people living in this vast area will become so desperate that they will take every risk and spend the last of their money to flee to Western Europe. Keep in mind that these crises tend to cross-infect each other, so instability in Syria means instability in Iraq.
Given the seismic impact of migration fueled by war or sanctions in the Middle East and North Africa on the politics of Europe over the last seven or eight years, it shows a high degree of self-destructive foolishness on the part of European governments not to have done more to restore peace. They have got away with it because voters have failed to see the linkage between foreign intervention and the consequent waves of immigrants from their ruined countries.
Yet the connection should be easy enough to grasp: in 2011, the Nato powers led by UK and France backed an insurgency in Libya that overthrew and killed Gaddafi. Libya was reduced to violent chaos presided over by criminalised militias, which opened the door to migrants from North and West Africa transiting Libya and drowning as they try to cross the Mediterranean.
In Syria, the US and UK long ago decided that they would be unable to get rid of Assad – indeed they did not really want to since they believed he would be replaced by al-Qaeda or Isis. But American, British and French policy makers were happy to keep the conflict bubbling to prevent Assad, Russia and Iran winning a complete victory. A result of prolonging the conflict is that the chance of the 6.5 million Syrian refugees ever returning home grows less by the year.
The economic devastation inflicted by these long wars is often underestimated because it is less visible and melodramatic than the ruins of Raqqa, Aleppo, Homs and Mosul. I was driving in northeast Syria last year, west of the Euphrates, through land that was once some of the most productive in the country, producing grain and cotton. But the irrigation canals were empty and for mile after mile the land has reverted to rough pasture. Our car kept stopping because the road was blocked by herds of sheep being driven by shepherds to crop the scanty grass as the area reverts to semi-desert because there is no electric power to pump water from the Euphrates.
The British and other governments try to distinguish between refugees seeking safety because of military action or because of economic hardship; yet they increasingly go together. Syria and Iran are both being subjected to tight economic sieges. But the casualties of sanctions – as was brutally demonstrated by the 13-year-long UN sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq between 1990 and 2003 – are not the members of the regime but the civilian population. Mass flight becomes an unavoidable option.
Iraq never truly recovered from a period of sanctions during which its administrative, education and health systems were shattered and its best-educated people fled the country. The first casualties of sanctions are always on the margins and never those in power, who are the supposed target. An example of this was the re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran in 2018, which led to the exodus of 440,000 low paid Afghan workers who are not going to get jobs back in Afghanistan (where unemployment is 40 per cent) and who in many cases will therefore try to get to Europe.
Wars that are not concluded trigger waves of migrants even when there is no fighting because all sides need to recruit more soldiers from an unwilling population. In Syria, families are terrified of their sons of military age being conscripted not only by the Syrian army but by the Kurdish YPG military forces or al-Qaeda type militias.
There is a clear connection between western intervention in the Middle East and North Africa and the arrival of boat people on the beaches of southeast England. But much of the media does not highlight this and, by and large, voters do not seem to notice it.
David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy never suffered political damage from their ill-advised role in destroying the Libyan state. A couple of years later Cameron was pressing for Britain to join the US in air attacks on Syria, which would certainly not have got rid of Assad without a prolonged air campaign similar to those in Iraq and Libya.
Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent MindsThe outcome of these interventions is not just the outflow of refugees from zones of conflict: the weakening or destruction of states in the region enables groups like al-Qaeda and Isis to find secure base areas where they can regroup their forces. A fragmented Syria is ideal for such purposes because the jihadis can dodge between rival powers. Pompeo’s bombast will be a welcome development for them.
The only solution in northeast Syria is for the US to withdraw militarily under an agreement whereby Turkey does not invade Syria, in return for the Syrian government backed by Russia absorbing the Kurdish quasi-state so hated by the Turks and giving it some degree of internationally guaranteed autonomy. Any other option is likely to provoke a Turkish invasion and two million Kurds in flight – a very few of whom will one day end up on the pebble beaches of Dungeness.

The Founder of Islam

Nauman Sadiq

In all, Prophet Mohammad married thirteen wives. But he married his first wife Khadija when he was 25 years old and she was 40. All other marriages were contracted after the death of Khadija when Mohammad was 50 years old.
Mohammad was 40 years old when he received his first divine revelation and Khadija was the first person to convert to Islam. It’s worth noting that Mohammad was illiterate and couldn’t read and write, whereas Khadija was a rich and erudite merchant belonging to the ruling tribe of Mecca, the Quraysh.
She frequently sent trade caravans to the Levant and appears to have been well-versed in the history and theology of Judaism and Christianity which were the dominant religion of the Levant then. Therefore it doesn’t come as a surprise that most of Islamic theology is based on those Abrahamic religions.
It was during the course of one such trade transaction to Syria that Khadija employed Mohammad as her agent. She was impressed by his skills and honesty, and subsequently sent a marriage proposal which Mohammad accepted.
Thus, it appears that the driving spirit behind the prophethood of Mohammad was actually Khadija, and most verses of the holy book of Muslims, the Quran, were inspired by her, particularly the knowledge of pre-Islamic Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity, found in the Islamic scriptures.
If we look at the evolution of Islamic religion and culture throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, it hasn’t been natural. Some deleterious mutations have occurred somewhere which have negatively impacted the Islamic societies all over the world.
Social conditioning plays the same role in social sciences that natural selection plays in biological sciences. It selects the traits, norms and values which are most beneficial to the host culture. Seen from this angle, social diversity is a desirable quality for social progress, because when diverse customs and value systems compete with each other, the culture retains the beneficial customs and values and discards the harmful traditions and habits.
A decentralized and less organized religion, like Sufi (mystical) Islam, engenders diverse strains of beliefs and opinions which compete with one another in gaining social acceptance and currency. A heavily centralized and tightly organized religion, on the other hand, depends more on authority and dogma than on value and utility. In addition, a centralized religion is also more ossified and less adaptive to change compared to a decentralized faith.
The Shi’a Muslims have their Imams and Marjahs (religious authorities), but it is generally assumed about Sunni Islam that it discourages the authority of clergy. In this sense, Sunni Islam is closer to Protestantism, at least theoretically, because it prefers an individual and personalized interpretation of scriptures and religion. Although this perception might be true for educated Sunni Muslims, on the popular level of the masses of developing Islamic countries, the House of Saud plays the same role in Sunni Islam that the pope plays in Catholicism.
By virtue of their physical possession of the holy places of Islam – Mecca and Medina – the Saudi kings are the de facto caliphs of Muslims. The title of the Saudi king: Khadim-ul-Haramain-al-Shareefain (the servant of the house of God), makes him the vice-regent of God on earth; and the title of the caliph of Muslims is not limited to a single nation state, the Saudi king wields enormous influence throughout the commonwealth of Islam, the Muslim Ummah.
Islam is regarded as the fastest growing religion of the 20th and 21st centuries. According to World Religion Database, the share of world population by religion during the last century was:
Christianity: 1910: 34.8% ; 2010: 32.8%
Islam: 1910: 12.6% ; 2010: 22.5%
Hinduism: 1910: 12.7% ; 2010: 13.8%
Agnosticism: 1910: 0.2% ; 2010: 9.8%
Chinese folk religion: 1910: 22.2% ; 2010: 6.3%
Buddhism: 1910: 7.9% ; 2010: 8%
Thus, while the number of adherents of all other religions has remained static or dwindled, the proselytization of Islam has nearly doubled during the last century.
The only feature that sets Islam apart from the rest of major cosmopolitan religions, like Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism, and which is also primarily responsible for this atavistic phenomena of Islamic resurgence in the modern era is that Islam as a religion and political ideology has the world’s richest financiers.
After the 1973 collective Arab oil embargo against the West in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war, the price of oil quadrupled; and the contribution of the Gulf’s petro-sheikhs towards the ‘spiritual well-being’ of Muslims all over the world magnified proportionally. This is the reason why we are witnessing an exponential growth of Islamic charities and madrassas (religious seminaries) all over the world and particularly in the Islamic world.
The phenomena of Islamic radicalism all over the world is directly linked to Islamic madrassas that are generously funded by the Gulf’s petro-dollars. These madrassas attract children from the most impoverished backgrounds in the Third World Islamic countries, because they offer the kind of incentives and facilities which even the government-funded public schools cannot provide: such as free boarding and lodging, free meals for destitute students, no tuition fee at all and free of cost books and stationery; some generously funded madrassas even pay monthly stipends to their students.
Moreover, it’s a misconception that the Arab sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and some conservative emirates of UAE generally sponsor the Wahhabi-Salafi sect of Islam. The difference between numerous sects of Sunni Islam is more nominal than substantive. Islamic charities and madrassas belonging to all the Sunni denominations get generous funding from the Gulf Arab states as well as from wealthy private donors.
Besides madrassas, another factor that promotes the Gulf’s Wahhabi-Salafi ideology in the Islamic world is the ritual of Hajj and Umrah. Every year, millions of Muslim men and women from all over the Islamic world travel to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina to perform the pilgrimage. When the pilgrims return home to their native countries, after spending a month or two in Saudi Arabia, along with cleansed hearts and purified souls, they also bring along the tales of Saudi hospitality and their supposedly ‘true and authentic’ version of Islam, which some Muslims, especially the backward, rural folks, find attractive and worth-emulating.
Yet another factor which contributes to the rise of Wahhabi-Salafi ideology throughout the Islamic world is the migrant workers. Millions of Muslim men, women and families from all over the developing Islamic countries live and work in energy-rich Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman. Some of them permanently reside there but mostly they work on temporary work permits.
Just like the pilgrims, when the migrant workers return home to their native villages and towns, they also bring along the tales of Saudi hospitality and their version of supposedly ‘authentic Islam.’ Spending time in the Gulf Arab states entitles one to pass authoritative judgments on religious matters, and having a cursory understanding of Arabic, the language of Quran, makes one equivalent of a Qazi (a learned jurist) amongst illiterate, rural Muslims; and such charlatans simply reproduce the customs and traditions of the Arabs as the authentic version of Islam to their backward, rural communities.
Finally, regarding the regression of Islamic culture and religion in the modern era, the designation caliphate was used to describe enlightened and majestic Islamic empires of yore, such as the Umayyads of Damascus, the Abbasids of Baghdad, the Ottomans of Turkey and the Mughals of India.
And now, it is being used as a slur to revile the repressive and medieval rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and two-bit warlords like the Taliban’s deceased chief, Mullah Omar, and the Islamic State’s fugitive leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, have appropriated the exalted Islamic titles of Ameer-ul-momineen and the caliph of Muslims.

Sri Lankan government proposes pay “formula” to end plantation workers’ struggle

W.A. Sunil 

Sri Lanka’s government has suggested a meagre wage increase over three years for plantation workers to suppress their demand for a 100 percent pay rise. For the past three months, workers have been campaigning for an immediate doubling of their daily wage, from 500 rupees ($US2.74) to 1,000 rupees. They launched an indefinite strike in December, but the trade unions shut it down after nine days.
Workers previously rejected a 20 percent or 100-rupee increase proposed by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC), which represents the plantation companies.
In separate meetings with the EFC and trade unions last Thursday, Plantation Minister Naveen Dissanayake and Labour Minister Daya Gamage suggested a three-year wage formula. During the first year, the basic wage would rise by just 125 rupees, or 25 percent. In the second year, it would increase by 25 rupees, or 4 percent, with another 25-rupee rise in the third year.
Dissanayake said workers could earn 1,000 rupees or more with various allowances. He noted that the pay increase would improve according to the “amount of tea leaves plucked.”
This means a worker could earn 1,000 rupees only with allowances directly tied to productivity, as proposed by the companies. Many workers are usually unable to meet the targets set for regular attendance and productivity. Allowances are also tied to price fluctuations in the global tea and rubber markets.
Dissanayake asked the companies and the unions to sign collective agreements accordingly. Together with the employers, the government wants to end the wage protests and impose these agreements with the unions acting as an industrial police force for driving up workloads.
Echoing the companies, Dissanayake declared that the unions needed to show “concern” about the industry and “it was not possible to add pressure on the companies.”
The employers requested time to decide on the proposal. According to the media, unions have “rejected” the proposal and said they were “firm” over the 1,000-rupee demand. This is bogus posturing. Well aware of the widespread opposition among workers to lowering the demand for a 100 percent increase, the unions are seeking ways to deflect the unrest in the plantations.
The unions participating in the discussions included the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC), Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union (LJEWU) and Joint Plantation Trade Union Centre (JPTUC). They have been engaged in secret talks with the employers and the government for several months and have shut down workers’ strikes and protests.
Exposing the so-called firmness of the unions, LJEWU general secretary Vadivel Suresh, who is also the state minister of plantations, said his union could agree to a 150-rupee rise this year, just 25 rupees more than the government’s proposal, with another 50-rupee increase next year.
National Union of Workers (NUW) leader P. Digambaram, another government minister, earlier told the Lanka newspaper the 1,000-rupee demand was “unjustified” at the moment because the plantation companies’ profits had dropped. Lanka, which is controlled by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), published his declaration without any comment, indicating agreement with the NUW leader.
The Planters’ Association made essentially the same assertion in a statement issued last month. “The demands of trade union leaders far exceed the capacity,” it insisted. “We urge all stakeholders, especially, those whose daily living depends on this industry, to consider the fatality of the industry.”
The plantation companies continually complain that low tea prices make it impossible to meet the workers’ demand for higher wages. They say the industry is hampered by factors beyond their control.
The low prices are a result of intensifying competition among tea-producing countries, including China, India and Kenya. As a result, Sri Lanka’s annual average tea export earnings declined from $1.63 billion in 2014 to $1.53 billion in 2017. Between January and August last year, the country’s tea export income dropped from $1 billion to $970 million, compared to the corresponding period the previous year.
To impose the burden of this crisis onto the workers, the government and the plantation companies insist on scrapping the wages system and implementing a so-called revenue-share system that aims to increase output several-fold.
Under this system, workers are given a plot of land with 1,000 or more tea bushes. The company sells them fertilisers and agrichemicals, deducting the cost from workers’ income. Where this system has been introduced already in some estates, the workers have rejected it, complaining they cannot earn enough income to live, even with their entire families doing the work.
All the indications are that the EFC and the unions, backed by the government, plan to enter into collective agreements soon, behind the backs of workers, which will include terms tying workers to supposed revenue-share schemes and other productivity requirements.
The plantation workers must reject these proposals and organise a common struggle, uniting with other sections of workers in Sri Lanka and internationally. Without a political fight against the government and the capitalist class, and the unions that prop up them, workers cannot defend their interests.
To carry out this struggle, workers should establish their own action committees in estates, workplaces and neighbourhoods, totally independent of the trade unions. Workers at the Abbotsleigh plantations, near Hatton, have taken such an initiative, forming an action committee under the guidance of the Socialist Equality Party.
Workers need a socialist program to defend their interests against the drive by the ruling class to impose the burden of its crisis. It is necessary to fight for a workers’ and peasants’ government that would nationalize the large estates, banks and all major enterprises under workers’ control, as part of the struggle for socialism internationally.

US, Turkey clash over Turkish plan to buy Russian S-400 missiles

Baris Demir

Amid intensifying negotiations between Turkey and the United States over Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria and Turkey’s threats to invade the country, a US technical team is visiting Turkey today and tomorrow. The US team is expected to stress that Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 air defence systems is unacceptable to Washington.
Previously, Washington had indicated that it could respond to a Turkish agreement with Russia to buy S-400 surface-to-air missile systems by blocking Turkey from buying F-35 warplanes, and would bring Turkey’s relations with the United States and the NATO alliance to a breaking point. The S-400 purchase would have vast military ramifications. By obtaining its first long-range air and anti-missile defence system from Russia, Turkey could conceivably close its skies to NATO fighters if necessary.
On December 18, the day before US President Donald Trump tweeted his announcement of the withdrawal of all 2,000 US troops from Syria, the State Department informed the US Congress of a proposed $3.5 billion deal to sell Turkey Patriot anti-ballistic missile systems made by Raytheon.
Washington has long urged Turkey to cancel its plans to purchase the Russian-made S-400 anti-ballistic missile system, but Turkey has replied that it would buy Patriot systems from Washington, but not on the condition of cancelling the purchase of S-400 system from Russia.
On January 10, Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu declared that Turkey would never accept US pressure to drop its purchase of S-400s from Russia to deploy Patriots. “The U.S. made its first offer for the Patriots. But we are not in a position to change our deal with Russia on the S-400s. We have an immediate need to cover air space. In fact, we may purchase Patriots in the future as well. … The S-400s are an accomplished deal. We never break our promises.”
Turkey’s attempts to purchase air defence systems has long been a sore point in Ankara’s relations with NATO, especially with the US. Ankara first decided to buy a long-range air defence system from a Chinese state-run company in 2013. Under US pressure, the Turkish government was forced to scrap the $3.4 billion programme altogether in November 2015.
After the project was cancelled and the Turkish air force shot down a Russian bomber on November 24, 2015, threatening all-out war with Russia, Ankara expressed its intention to independently develop a missile defence system. This aim was not realised, however. After Russia retaliated by escalating its military posture and imposed economic sanctions against Turkey, however, Ankara tacked back toward Russia, agreeing to purchase the S-400 air and missile defence system.
The decisive factor in Ankara’s shift closer to Russia and China was its violent hostility to Washington’s cultivation of the Kurdish nationalists as proxies in the Syrian war. As the Islamic State (ISIS) militia grew in Syria and invaded Iraq, the imperialist powers turned to the Kurdish nationalist groups as a proxy ground force against ISIS. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could not adapt himself to these sudden, violent shifts in imperialist war policy, and Ankara’s imperialist allies rapidly came to see him not as a “strategic partner,” but as an unreliable one.
The imperialist powers responded in July 2016 with an attempt to organise a military coup in Turkey to oust and murder Erdoğan. A section of Turkey’s military launched an abortive putsch out of NATO’s Incirlik air base, encouraged by Washington and Berlin. The failure of the coup attempt undermined Ankara’s relations with the NATO imperialist powers.
Ankara opposes Kurdish autonomy in Syria, fearing that it will provoke demands for Kurdish autonomy in eastern Turkey. To crush Kurdish nationalist forces still backed by Washington, Erdoğan has twice ordered the Turkish army to launch bloody invasions of Syria: “Operation Euphrates Shield” (in August 2016) and “Operation Olive Branch” (in January 2018), directed against the US-backed YPG.
In recent months, the Turkish government has threatened a new outright military occupation of large parts of Syria, targeting the YPG and other Kurdish forces, that could provoke war with Syria and a direct clash with US forces.
After Erdoğan’s threats, the Trump administration announced a withdrawal from Syria that flowed directly from an agreement reached between Trump and Turkey’s president during a telephone conversation on December 18.
As the WSWS previously noted: “While Washington is no doubt anxious to avoid a potential military confrontation with Turkey, a member of the NATO alliance, the Trump White House has taken other measures aimed at restoring US-Turkish relations, which have been strained since the abortive July 2016 military coup, which enjoyed covert backing from Washington.”
Despite the Turkish government’s repeated attempts to work out a deal with Washington to coordinate their policies, however, disagreements continue to mount. The conflict over a potential Turkish S-400 purchase comes just shortly after Trump threatened Turkey with economic destruction on Twitter if it attempted to attack the Kurds.
Whatever the outcome of the dispute within the US ruling class, Turkey seems determined to launch a bloody military occupation in north Syria. Its preparations for a possible operation east of the Euphrates river in Syria are continuing “intensely,” Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said on January 11, on a visit to Turkey’s border with Syria.
“We have Manbij and the east of Euphrates [River] ahead. Necessary plans have been made regarding this. Our preparation continues intensely,” Akar said.