Killing of US troops in Syria feeds furor over withdrawal

Bill Van Auken

A devastating suicide bomb attack on a popular restaurant in the northern Syrian city of Manbij Wednesday killed at least 20 people, including four US personnel.

Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The Pentagon confirmed the attack and US casualties, reporting that the dead included two US soldiers, a civilian Defense Department employee and a military contractor. Three other US personnel were wounded, one of them critically.

While initial reports suggested that the US personnel were conducting a “routine patrol” at the time of the bombing, apparently, they had routinely stopped to eat at the same restaurant, making them vulnerable to attack.

The bombing inflicted the worst losses suffered by US forces since they began their illegal intervention in Syria four years ago. Until now, just two American soldiers had been killed in combat and two others lost their lives in non-combat incidents.

The dead and wounded included civilians as well as members of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the US proxy ground force that is comprised predominantly of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.

The deaths of the US troops immediately became fodder for the bitter internecine conflict within Washington and the US military and intelligence apparatus over US President Donald Trump’s announcement last month of his decision to withdraw all US troops—officially numbering 2,200, but according to some reports, 4,000—from Syria.

Both the US media—which led the nightly news with worried accounts highlighting the supposed dangers of a US withdrawal—and leading political figures from both major parties rushed to exploit the bombing to oppose any end to the US intervention in Syria.

A clueless speech delivered Wednesday by Vice President Mike Pence before an audience of State Department personnel hailing the “leadership of the commander in chief” in defeating ISIS, while saying not a word about the casualties in Syria, only served to stoke the anti-withdrawal furor.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who had initially voiced strong opposition to Trump’s Syria withdrawal plan and then claimed to have reached an understanding with the US president—apparently reassured that it would not impinge upon US imperialism’s predatory aims in the region—responded to the casualties in Manbij by voicing new denunciations of the pullout.

"My concern, by the statements made by President Trump, is that you set in motion enthusiasm by the enemy we're fighting,” Graham said Wednesday. “You make people we're trying to help wonder about us. And as they get bolder, the people we're trying to help are going to get more uncertain. I saw this in Iraq. And I'm now seeing it in Syria.”

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated: “Today's bombing, which took place in a Syrian city patrolled by U.S.-backed forces, is a stark reminder that the Trump Administration needs a clearly developed and articulated strategy to secure the gains we have made in the fight against terror that includes those on the frontlines of this ongoing fight …The United States must do more to work with our allies to develop a comprehensive approach that secures our long-term interests in the region.”

These “long-term interests” have been pursued under successive administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, for decades. They are bound up with the assertion of US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and the rolling back of influence in the region by Iran, Russia and China. This, not ISIS, is the principal aim of Washington’s intervention in Syria.

The troop withdrawal announcement triggered the resignation of US Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis as well as Washington’s envoy to the anti-ISIS “coalition” Brett McGurk, precisely because of concerns over these strategic interests.

Over the past week, top administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton have made it clear that Washington is by no means abandoning these interests and will not cease its intervention in Syria, no matter the troop withdrawal announcement.

In his speech in Cairo a week ago, Pompeo declared that the US would continue its intervention in Syria “to expel every last Iranian boot.” He insisted that the troop withdrawal was merely a “tactical change” and that the US would pursue its militarist campaign by other means. Bolton has voiced similar aims, as news reports have revealed his request from the Pentagon for plans for military strikes against Iran.

As for the troop withdrawal, no US soldiers have been pulled out of Syria and there is no timetable for their departure, with the Pentagon insisting that it will be based on conditions on the ground. At most, some of the vast amounts of military hardware brought into Syria has been shipped out, and a few of the dozens of bases established by the US military on Syrian territory have been evacuated.

Manbij, the site of the blast that killed the American soldiers, is becoming an increasingly volatile flashpoint in the protracted conflict resulting from the regime change operation launched by Washington and its regional allies in 2011 with the aim of using CIA-funded and armed Al Qaeda-connected militias to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

While this effort failed, with Syrian government forces backed by Iran and Russia retaking 60 percent of the country and the vast majority of its major population centers, Washington has continued its intervention with the deployment of thousands of US special forces troops in northeastern Syria, ostensibly to combat ISIS, and the recruitment of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia as its proxy ground force.

With Trump’s announcement of the US withdrawal, Turkey has threatened to intervene to drive out the Kurdish militia from Manbij, which is on the west bank of the Euphrates, as well as the rest of the Syrian-Turkish border area to the east. Ankara regards the YPG as a branch of the Turkish Kurdish separatist movement, the PKK, which it brands as “terrorist” and against which it has fought a bloody counterinsurgency campaign for the last 35 years.

Turkish troops and armor have been mobilized on the border, 20 miles north of Manbij, and fighters of a Turkish Islamist militia have been deployed near the city for a possible assault.

Trump issued a statement over the weekend warning that Turkey would face “economic devastation” if it were to attack the Pentagon’s Kurdish proxies.

While the Erdogan government condemned the statement, the Turkish president followed it up with a phone conversation with Trump on Monday, which apparently centered upon Trump’s off-hand suggestion that a “security zone” could be set up, carving out a 20-mile swath of Syrian territory along the border with Turkey. Erdogan jumped on the proposal, insisting that Turkey could set up the zone.

The Syrian government denounced Turkey’s proposal as the “language of occupation and aggression.”

The Kurdish YPG, meanwhile, has asked the Syrian government to intervene with its forces to protect against the threat of a Turkish invasion, and has initiated talks with Moscow on a proposal to reach an accommodation with Damascus.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared on Wednesday that the territories on Syria’s northern border must be placed under control of the Syrian government. “We are convinced that the best and only solution is the transfer of these territories under the control of the Syrian government, and of Syrian security forces and administrative structures,” Lavrov said

The Manbij bombing and the conflicting interests of the US, Turkey and Russia expose the mounting dangers that Trump’s proposed troop withdrawal has only laid the basis for the explosion of a wider and far more dangerous war in the region.

Sustainable Energy Development Scholarship Program 2019/2020 for Developing Countries (US$ 23,000/year)

Application Deadline: 8th March, 2019 (23:59, UTC-05:00).

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients are eligible to apply.

To be taken at (country): All universities are eligible for the ESED scholarship. It is preferable that the candidate pursues her/his studies in a university outside his home country.

Accepted Subject Areas: Programs eligible for this scholarship must show a 75% focus on renewable energy and/or the power sector in general.

About Scholarship: The purpose of the Education for Sustainable Energy Development [ESED] scholarship is to support outstanding students from developing countries pursuing advanced studies in sustainable energy development and to encourage meaningful contributions to the collective body of knowledge about this subject. These scholarships are available to up to 10 outstanding students from developing countries and economies in transition, for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree, awarded annually.

Type: Masters

Offered Since:  2001

Selection Criteria: The Global Sustainable Electricity Partnership considers an outstanding student to be one who:

• graduates with excellent grades in the top 20% of her/his class
• is determined to advance her/his knowledge and understanding
• has a history of community involvement
• is committed to sustainable energy
• is committed to return and contribute to her/his home country

Who is qualified to apply? To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, students must

• plan to undertake studies at the Masters level in areas directly related to sustainable energy development
• be citizens of the developing countries and territories identified for OECD official development aid in the DAC List of ODA Recipients

Number of scholarships: Up to ten (10) Masters scholarships will be awarded annually.

Value of Scholarship: Scholarships of US$ 23,000 per year.

Duration: Scholarship will last for a period of up to two years for Masters Degree

How to Apply: 

• Applications should be submitted using the Online Scholarship Application.
• As the volume of incoming applications is extremely heavy around the deadline, we strongly urge you to submit your file as early as possible.

Visit Scholarship webpage for details

Government of Turkey Undergraduate and Postgraduate Scholarships (Türkiye Burslari) 2019/2020 for International Students

Application Deadline:  20th February 2019

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: See List below.

To be taken at (Universities): Turkish Universities

Fields of Study: Courses offered at the universities

About Scholarship: Türkiye Scholarships include both scholarship and university placement at the same time. Applicants will be placed in a university and programme among their preferences specified in the online application form. Candidates can apply only one scholarship programme in accordance with their educational background and academic goals.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD

Eligibility: To be eligible for Turkiye scholarship, applicants must;

• be a citizen of a country other than Turkey (Anyone holding or ever held Turkish citizenship before cannot apply)
• not be a registered student in Turkish universities at the level of study they are applying.
• There is also age condition candidates are required to meet:• For applicants applying to Undergraduate Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1998,
  • For applicants applying to Master’s Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1989,
  • For applicants applying to Ph.D Degree: Those who were born no earlier than 01.01.1984,
• Applicants shouldn’t have any health problems barrier to education.
• have at least 75 % cumulative grade point average or diploma grade over their maximum graduation grade or have at least 75 % success in any accepted national or international graduate admissions test.

Required Documents

• Online application
• A copy of a bachelor or master’s diploma or document indicating that the candidate is bachelor or master’s senior student
• A certified bachelor and/or master’s transcript (indicating courses taken and relevant grades of the candidate)
• A copy of a valid ID card (passport, national ID, birth certificate etc.)
• Passport photo

Number of Scholarships: several

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship Covers:

• Monthly stipend (600 TL for undergraduate, 850 TL for master and 1.200 TL for PhD )
• Full tuition fee
• 1-year Turkish language course
• Free accommodation
• Round-trip air ticket
• Health insurance

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

• How To Apply
• GOODLUCK!

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: Turkish Government

Government of Mauritius Scholarships 2019/2020 for African Students

Application Deadlines: 

• Electronic application to be submitted: 18th February 2019
• Hard copies to be submitted: 25th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Countries in the African Union

To be taken at (country): Mauritius

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, PhD

Eligibility: 

• Applicants should be above 18 years of age and should not have reached their 26th birthday at the closing date of application;
• For Master’s programmes, applicants should not have reached 35 years and,
• for PhD programmes, applicants should not have reached 45 years by the closing date of application
• Applicants must have applied for full-time on-campus studies at any public Tertiary Education Institution in Mauritius for academic year starting in 2019;
• The scholarship will be for a maximum of four (4) years or the minimum course duration whichever is lesser.
• Qualification entry requirements
  • Candidates should have successfully completed end of secondary school to be eligible and should satisfy the minimum grade requirements as indicated below: : (i) 24 points at GCE A – Level which will be computed on the basis of the following grades obtained in three Principal subjects: A+=10, A=9, B=8, C=7, D=6 & E=5; OR (ii) at least an overall average of 70% or an overall average of, 14/20; OR (iii) criteria equivalent to (i) or (ii) above.
  • In case the language of instruction is not English in the qualifying examination, the candidate will have to provide a valid TOEFL or IELTS test results with a minimum score not less than 550 or 5.5 respectively, or an appropriate proof of English Language proficiency.
• Candidates who are already holders of an undergraduate degree will NOT be eligible under this scholarship scheme.
• Self-financing candidates already studying in Mauritius in will NOT be eligible under this Scholarship scheme.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Scholarship will support successful candidates in meeting tuition fees and contribute to their living expenses during their studies in Mauritius. Furthermore, the airfare, by the most economical route, from the country of origin at the beginning of studies and back to the country of origin at the end of the studies will be covered. This will be valid for travel from the country of origin at the beginning of the studies and back to the country of origin upon successful completion of studies.

Duration of Scholarship: 

• Undergraduate Diploma Three (3) years
• Undergraduate Degree Four (4) years
• Master’s Two (2) years
• PhD Three (3) years

How to Apply: 

• Application form Postgraduate
• Application form Undergraduate​  ​

It is important to go through the Scholarship Webpage for application instructions before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden

Cesar Chelala

Harvey Weinstein never imagined that actresses’ complaints against his abusive behavior would trigger a worldwide movement for women’s justice and fair treatment by men. Despite continued acceptance of physical and sexual violence against women, both women and men are now organizing across cultures and socioeconomic classes to challenge and change gender-based abuse and injustice.

Recently, in Argentina, the denunciation by actress Thelma Fardin that she was raped by the well-known Argentine actor Juan Darthés when she was 16 and he was a 45-year-old man forced him to leave the country in shame. In Sao Pablo, Brazil, where Darthés was hired to work in a restaurant, he was met by the loud complaint of a large group of Brazilian women.

Worldwide, the most common kind of gender violence is domestic violence, which occurs in the home or within the family. It affects women regardless of age, education or socioeconomic status. Although generally women are the victims, men are also abused by their wives or partners. Violence also occurs among same-sex partners.

Although physical violence and sexual violence are easier to see, other forms of violence include emotional abuse, such as verbal humiliation, threats of physical aggression or abandonment, economic blackmail and confinement at home. Many women report that psychological abuse and humiliation are even more devastating than physical violence because of the negative long-lasting effects on their self-confidence and self-esteem.

In many countries violence against women, especially in the domestic setting, is seen as acceptable behavior. Even more disturbing, a large proportion of women are beaten while they are pregnant. Comparative studies reveal that pregnant women who are abused have twice the risk of miscarriage and four-times the risk of having low-birth-weight babies than non-battered pregnant women.

Extent of the problem

Few precise figures on violence against women exist, but existing numbers are shocking. In every country where reliable studies have been conducted, statistics show that between 10% and 50% of women report that they have been physically abused by an intimate partner during their lifetime.

According to Mexico’s Health Ministry, about one in three women suffer from domestic violence, and it is estimated that over 6,000 women in Mexico die every year as a result. A study of women in Mexico sponsored by the government (Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares 2006), reported that 43.2% of women over 15 years old have survived some form of intra-family violence over the course of their last relationship.

Domestic violence is rife in many African countries as well. In Zimbabwe, according to a United Nations report, it accounts for more than six in ten murder cases in court. According to surveys, 42% of women in Kenya and 41% in Uganda reported having been beaten by their partners. Although some countries such as South Africa have passed women’s rights legislation, the big test — full implementation, with teeth — has not been passed.

In China, according to a national survey, domestic violence occurs in one-third of the country’s 270 million households. A survey by the China Law Institute in Gansu, Hunan and Zhejiang provinces found that one-third of the surveyed families had witnessed family violence and that 85% of victims were women.

In Japan, as in many other countries, the number of reported cases has increased in recent times. According to some advocates working to end domestic violence, this may signal that survivors may be overcoming cultural and social taboos that once forced them into silence. According to the National Police Agency, the number of consultations with the police from survivors of domestic violence in 2017 rose 3.6 percent compared to the previous year to reach a total of 72,455.

In Russia, estimates put the annual domestic violence death toll at more than 14,000 women. Natalya Abubikirova, executive director of the Russian Association of Crisis Centers, in a statement to Amnesty International, drew a dramatic parallel to capture the scope of the problem, “The number of women dying every year at the hands of their husbands and partners in the Russian Federation is roughly equal to the total number of Soviet soldiers killed in the 10-year war in Afghanistan.”

In a study conducted by the Council for Women at Moscow State University, 70% of the women surveyed said that they had been subjected to some form of violence — physical, psychological, sexual or economic — by their husbands. Some 90% of respondents said they had either witnessed scenes of physical violence between their parents when they were children or had experienced this kind of violence in their own marriages.

Research carried out in several Arab countries, indicates that at least one out of three women is beaten by her husband. Despite the serious consequences of domestic violence, and the increasing frequency of violence against women, not enough is done by the governments of Arab and Islamic countries to address these issues. “To date, there is no comprehensive and systematic mechanism for collecting reliable data on violence against women in Arab countries,” states the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).

In many Islamic countries, or in countries with a substantial Muslim majority, passages from the Koran are sometimes used to justify violence against women. Yet many religious experts state that Islam rejects the abuse of women and advocates equality in the rights of women and men. In many cases, violence against women — including killings — are based more on cultural than religious grounds and are justified by the need to protect a family’s honor.

There is no single factor that accounts for violence against women, but several social and cultural factors have kept women particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon. What they have in common, however, is that they are manifestations of historically unequal power relations between men and women. In Latin America, a culture of machismo often gives license for such abuses.

When this kind of relationship becomes established, people become conditioned to accept violence as a legitimate means of settling conflicts — both within the family and in society at large — thus creating and perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Women who marry at a young age are more likely to believe that sometimes it is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife, and are more likely to experience domestic violence than women who marry at an older age, according to a UNICEF study.

Lack of economic resources and the capacity to lead economically independent lives also underscore women’s vulnerability to violence, and the difficulties they face in extricating themselves from a violent relationship.

Consequences of violence against women

Worldwide, violence is as common a cause of death and disability among women of reproductive age as cancer. It is also a greater cause of ill health than traffic accidents and malaria together. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) violence against women claims almost 1.6 million lives each year — about 3% of deaths of all causes.

What’s more, sexual violence increases women’s risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS (through forced sexual relations or the difficulty in persuading men to use condoms), increases the number of unplanned pregnancies, and may lead to various gynecological problems such as chronic pelvic pain and painful intercourse.

According to the WHO’s “World report on violence and health,” between 40% and 70% of female murder victims in Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States were killed by their husbands or boyfriends — often within the context of an ongoing abusive relationship.

Studies conducted in the United States reveal that each year approximately 4 million women are physically attacked by their husbands or partners. One U.S. study concludes that violence against women is responsible for a large proportion of medical visits, and for approximately one-third of emergency room visits. Another study found that in the United States, domestic violence is the most frequent cause of injury in women treated in emergency rooms, more common than motor vehicle accidents and robberies combined.

In the United States, 25% of female psychiatric patients who attempt suicide are survivors of domestic violence, as are 85% of women in substance abuse programs. Studies carried out in Pakistan, Australia and the United States show that women survivors of domestic violence suffer more depression, anxiety, and phobias than women who have not been abused.

Domestic violence can have devastating consequences on children as well. According to a UNICEF report, as many as 275 million children worldwide are currently exposed to domestic violence. One of the findings of the report is that children who witness domestic violence not only endure the stress of an atmosphere of violence at home but are more likely to experience abuse themselves.

It is estimated that 40% of child-abuse victims also have reported domestic violence at home. In addition, children who are exposed to domestic violence are at greater risk for substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, and delinquent behavior.

Although doctors and health personnel can greatly help the victims, many times they are not trained to diagnose abuse accurately. And women are often reluctant or afraid to report abuse.

Various cultural and socioeconomic factors, including shame and fear of retaliation, contribute to women’s reluctance to report these acts. Legal and criminal systems in many countries also make the process difficult. Currently, in the U.S., the fear of deportation has kept many immigrant women, particularly from Central America, from denouncing violence at the hands of their husbands and partners. Men threaten to report women to immigration authorities should they seek legal assistance.

Frequently, fear keeps women trapped in abusive relationships. It has been found that almost 80% of all serious gender violence injuries and deaths occur when female survivors of violence attempt to leave a relationship — or after they have left.

Preventing violence against women

Governments and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been increasingly responsive to women groups’ demands to deal seriously with this issue. In Bangladesh, new laws make violence against women a punishable offense. Belgium, Peru, and Yugoslavia have amended laws to more clearly define sexual harassment.

The Dominican Republic, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay, and Belgium, among others, have passed laws that increase penalties for domestic abuse. The Kingdoms of Jordan and Morocco have made strides to protect women’s rights — denouncing so-called honor killings in the former and providing confidential victims’ assistance hotlines in the latter.

In India and Bangladesh, a traditional system of local justice called salishe is used to address abuse on a case-by-case basis. For example, when a woman is beaten in Bangladesh, the West Bengali non-governmental organization Shramajibee Mahila Samity sends a female organizer to the village to discuss the situation with the people involved and helps find a solution, which is then formalized in writing by a local committee.

In China, there has been some progress regarding this issue as well, such as placing posters on some roads and in subways stressing the problems that domestic violence represents to society. The All-China Women’s Federation has been playing a significant role in bringing domestic violence into the legislative and policy-making processes.

Given the difficulties in properly diagnosing abuse or reluctance report it, prevention of violence against women is a key strategy. As a World Health Organization report states, “The health sector can play a vital role in preventing violence against women, helping to identify abuse early, providing victims with the necessary treatment and referring women to appropriate and informed care. Health services must be places where women feel safe, are treated with respect, are not stigmatized, and where they can receive quality, informed support.”

Studies carried out in industrialized countries shows that public health preventive approaches to violence can lower the negative impact of domestic violence. Prevention acts at three levels: primary prevention stops the problem from happening; secondary prevention stops it from progressing further; and tertiary prevention teaches survivors, after the fact, how to avoid its repetition. In England, primary prevention strategies have included educating children and youth in schools and community centers about effectively managing challenging emotions such as anger and frustration which can lead to violence. Lessons also focus on promoting positive gender relations and healthy self-esteem which can mitigate violence,

Many governments find it difficult to work with women at the community level, which is where NGOs come into play. This is the case in Jamaica, Malaysia, and Mozambique, among others, where these organizations have been particularly active. In Ethiopia, the Association of Women’s Lawyers is actively working against sexual violence and domestic abuse.

However, more work needs to be done if this pandemic is going to be controlled. Government and community leaders should spearhead an effort to create a culture of openness and support to help eliminate the stigma associated with women victims of violence. Also, stricter laws should be enacted and enforced, followed up with plans for specific national action.

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has devised a set of strategies to help control this kind of violence through a technical package of programs, policies, and practices. Because it has a comprehensive approach, its use can have a definite effect in lowering the considerable burden of intimate partner violence.

The involvement of men is also critical to curb the spread of violence. In this case, also, NGOs have proven to be more effective than government agencies. In Cambodia, Jamaica and the Philippines, NGOs are working effectively with men to support women’s empowerment and rights. The Women’s Centre of the Jamaica Foundation counsels young male parents and trains male peer educators through its program Young Men at Risk.

Domestic violence is a threat to equality and justice. Forced out of the shadows and into the light, violence against women is finally being addressed worldwide, but efforts need continued attention and mobilization in order to succeed in the long term.

César Chelala is an international public health consultant and a winner of several journalism awards. He is the author of “Violence in the Americas” and “Maternal Health”, both publications of the Pan American Health Organization.

How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?

Barbara Nimri Aziz

“Every family has someone outside.” Conversations about Nepal’s dysfunctional economy invariably lead to its four million citizens, mainly young men, working abroad. (Some say they number seven million– either way, a sizable slice in a population of 28 million.)

Those workers are migrants to Arab Gulf States, Malaysia and India. Their remittances, supporting millions of families at home, form the unhealthy backbone of Nepal’s economy.

One hardly gets beyond the alarming statistic when a culprit is identified –“The Arabs”. Maybe a suppressed guilt is behind Nepalis’ litany of hardships which “Arabs” and by implication Muslims inflict on their four million compatriots. “Look how Nepali workers are mistreated!” “Someone should protect them.” “Hundreds arrive home in boxes!” “No human rights there.”

With no check on exaggerations and misinformation, prejudice continues unabated.

There’s abundant sympathy for exploited countrymen, while any suggestion that conditions within Nepal could be responsible for the exodus is absent. Don’t overseas remittances actually help workers’ families? There’s no acknowledgment of the benefits of employment, anywhere. Consider how many businesses, from rental properties to food services, are sustained by families receiving remittances. Kathmandu has hundreds of low cost private schools enrolling children of overseas workers seeking a better chance for the next generation. Where are the anecdotes of returned workers investing what they’ve saved to lift themselves out of an otherwise hopeless cycle of poverty?

All we hear are stale, decades-old, stories of “Arab exploitation”, stories that help conceal Nepal’s failure towards its citizens. Let’s be honest: workers look overseas for redress because of hopeless conditions at home.

Is it time for me to speak up? Having worked in Nepal for so long, I am viewed as a Tibetan-speaking American ‘friend’, not Arab or Muslim. Taking up the matter, finally, is not about defending Arabs or Islam; it’s about questioning this nation’s policies that allow prejudice against Arab people to distract from its responsibilities. As a ‘friend’, I call on Nepal to admit some liability for its hapless citizens. This country refuses to address fundamental structural problems, its neglect of industry, its shoddy public schools that even poor families are abandoning, its lack of agricultural support programs, its avoidable reliance on foreign aid.

Much of what we read about Arab state policies is indefensible. Their excesses are embarrassing for many like me who share Arab heritage and faith. Visiting homes in the Middle East, I myself feel embarrassed seeing how some overseas employees are treated (however mild and however much in common with domestic workers’ treatment in USA).

How can anyone defend workers toiling in extreme weather conditions without proper rest, food, medical attention or protection from harm? How can one not demand action against abusive employers?

Fifteen years ago, with the collapse of an exploitative carpet manufacturing industry within Nepal (where nobody blamed Tibetan managers’ treatment of child laborers) Malaysia and Arab Gulf countries became a market for Nepal’s millions of jobless. Mainly young, poorly educated men, seeing overseas earnings as a solution to dim prospects at home, joined citizens from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan seeking work abroad. In desperation, they naively signed contracts that left them highly vulnerable and in debt.

Despite obstacles and fears, migrating is the easiest (sic) alternative to hopelessness at home. (This applies to educated Nepali professionals too.) Traveling to distant lands for work is an established pattern, with departures increasing by the month.

Ram is one of many who, working as drivers, cooks, carpenters, or plumbers earn as much as 150,000 Nepali rupees (about $1,500) monthly. A few expatiates operate cafes catering to other workers. After 3-4 years they return to Nepal and purchase a car to hire out, or they invest in a business, usually with relatives (also returned migrants). Few resume agricultural work however. Abandoned fields met Broughton Coburn on his recent visiting to a Gurung village after three decades; it’s a widespread phenomenon across Nepal, a result of villagers leaving for overseas. (Declining domestic production increases Nepal’s unhealthy reliance on imports too.)

Yet, speaking with returned workers, I don’t hear tales of despair. Indeed, they report they learned valuable work habits abroad. Past sufferings seem of less concern than the corruption they face at home when applying for licenses, when seeking an affordable school.

Migrants’ positive experience is unarguably not 100%. Some recount heartbreaking stories: they were beset by thieves who stole their savings (cash transported in a suitcase); they fell ill, exhausted savings, and returned empty-handed. Some die overseas–from heart attacks, in labor accidents or other mishaps, their bodies shipped back to a family burdened by debt. Some women experienced sexual abuse by employers or brokers. (To address this Nepal passed a law prohibiting women from working in Arab counties.)

My colleagues, investigative journalist Devendra Bhattarai and filmmaker Kesang Tseten, were the first to report on the hardships of Nepal’s overseas workers and mistreatment by Arab employers. (Bhattarai recently posited that 90% of workers are more than satisfied with their overseas experience.) Perhaps because of those early exposés, difficulties of migrant workers were widely publicized and some checks were instituted. Anecdotal accounts of “Arab” malfeasance still define the public’s view of Arabs and Muslims while Nepal itself remains unaccountable for its people’s hardships.

“Hundreds return in boxes every month” is how one colleague opens a discussion of his country’s economy. My rejoinder about irresponsible government policies is met with silence.

Few Nepalis forget the fate of twelve citizens working in Iraq in 2004; all were executed after being held hostage by extremists opposing the U.S. invasion. The shock those killings created in Nepal led to anti-Muslim riots; for weeks Nepali Muslims (an established minority in the country) feared leaving their homes. The nation had known nothing as cruel, even during their recent civil war. That image of massacred Nepalis feeds persistent anti-Muslim feelings; it’s the prism through which they view any story about migrant employment.

By contrast the public here retains its amnesia over the role of Nepali UN peacekeepers in the spread of cholera in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. The cholera strain, traced to Nepal through Nepali peacekeepers stationed in Haiti, killed up to 9,000 and sickened tens of thousands. (When investigators confirmed the link, the United Nations denied victims’ compensation . The Nepali press hardly covered the issue.)

Prejudice against Arabs festers despite more recent investigative work by a leading Nepali news outlet. The Nepali Times has taken a more sobering look into Nepal’s migration crisis: first is joblessness at home; second, the government neither assists farmers to increase yields nor helps develop markets for farm produce; third, policy planning does not include supporting manufacturing which would train and employ Nepal’s least educated. Workers’ problems, it notes, begin with officials demanding bribes for permits; applicants are next confronted by fraudulent Nepali labor brokers. Nepal’s embassies abroad offer no help. The Nepali Times series also suggests that the government may hope to avoid unrest among jobless youths at home by encouraging their exodus.

Nepal’s unaccountability is endemic. Its avoidance of responsibility is actually bolstered by a lenient and loyal foreign donor base. China’s disregard of Nepali ineptitude, noted in my recent article, is matched by other countries and aid agencies.

Examples of failed programs due to corruption and incompetence on Nepal’s side are abundant, and commonly overlooked. Perhaps overseas employment should therefore be viewed as Nepal’s singularly successful aid program.

Bangladesh government oversees police attacks on protesting garment workers

Wimal Perera

Thousands of garment workers in the Ashulia district on the outskirts of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, protested on Monday to express their opposition to a meagre wage rise announced by a government-appointed committee the day before. Heavily armed police backed by Bangladesh Border Guard troops dispersed the workers.

Monday’s demonstrations, which were accompanied by strikes, were the eighth consecutive day of protests by garment workers who have launched a renewed struggle against their poverty-level wages and onerous conditions.

On Sunday, a tripartite committee composed of ten representatives from the Awami League-led government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, along with factory owners and union officials, outlined a revised pay deal aimed at diffusing the protests.

The latest offer follows Hasina’s introduction last September of a minimum monthly wage of 8,000 taka ($US95). Workers, however, had called for double that amount. Workers on mid-level wage grades did not receive any pay rise as a result of the government increase.

The committee asserted that its Sunday announcement would result in a rise for those workers who had not experienced one in September.

Workers rejected this claim and condemned the committee for failing to meet their demands. They have stated that wage disparities are increasing and that pay for long-term and mid-level employees is either stagnating or declining. Some have said that companies are shifting workers from one pay grade to another to ensure that they do not receive any, even minimal, rise.

The government appointed the tripartite committee early last week after workers in the Ashulia and Savar districts resumed their protracted campaign for improved wages on January 6.

On January 7, thousands of workers from five factories in the Ashulia industrial belt took to the streets, blockading the Abdullahpur-Baipayl highway. Police attacked the demonstrators with batons, tear gas and rubber bullets, injuring around 100 workers. One protester, Sumon Mia, who was employed at the Anlima Textile factory in Savar’s Kornopara area, was shot dead by police.

When workers rejected Sunday’s wage announcement and continued to protest, Siddiqur Rahman, President of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) threatened to impose a lockout. He told workers that if they did not end their struggle, “you will not be paid any wages and we will shut down factories for an indefinite period.”

Yesterday, having attacked Monday’s demonstrations, the government mobilised armed police and Border Guard Bangladesh troops inside and outside factory premises. The Daily Star reported that police repeated Rahman’s threats, using loudspeakers to warn: “If you do not join work you will not be paid.”

Many of the protesting garment employees returned to their factories. The Star reported that on Tuesday workers were met by “additional police forces… outside most of the factories,” and that “security was beefed up inside the factories as well.”

The government, police and factory owners are also unleashing a witch-hunt against workers. Sana Shaminur Rahman, the superintendent of industrial police in Dhaka, told the media yesterday that his department was “investigating people who are acting as instigators of the unrest in the sector.”

Rahman added: “For instigating unrest in the RMG sector some perpetrators have been detained and we will take action against them.” Police have already filed cases against some of those involved in the protests.

The unions have also made plain their role as an industrial police force for the companies and the government, joining Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the major industrial associations in demanding that workers end their protests.

Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation President Babul Akter told the media this week: ‘We had to accept it as the proposal came from our prime minister. How can we dishonour it? We urged all workers to resume work. We hope the prime minister will ensure our proper wages in the near future.”

There are signs of intense hostility among workers towards the unions. Montoo, an operator at a garment factory in Ashulia, told the Daily Star, “We don’t have any trust in the union leaders.” He added that many workers had stopped paying any attention to the statements of union officials.

Garment workers in Bangladesh are among the lowest paid in the global industry. The government’s changes to pay rates are aimed at entrenching the super-exploitation that prevails throughout the sector.

Khondaker Golam Moazzem research director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue published a paper this month comparing wage levels between September 2013 and 2018. He noted that as a proportion of the total gross pay that garment workers earn, the guaranteed basic wage had declined, compared with allowances that can be easily eliminated or cutback by the corporations.

According to the study, in 2013, the gross monthly wage for a grade seven worker was 5,300 taka. The basic wage accounted for 3,000 taka, or 56.6 percent of that sum. Last year, after the minimum gross wage increase to 8,000 taka, the basic wage accounted for 4,200 taka, or 52.5 percent of the pay for a grade worker.

Moazzem noted that the declines in the basic wage could be used to lower various allowances, which are often set as a proportion of the guaranteed pay of a worker.

The struggle for a 16,000 taka monthly wage began in December 2016, when some 150,000, workers in the Ashulia industrial belt staged demonstrations for 10 days. The government brutally suppressed the movement, overseeing the sacking of at least 1,600 workers. Around 1,500 were charged with various offences including “inciting” the agitation, “trespassing,” “vandalism” and “theft.” Most of those targeted were blacklisted, preventing them from finding work in the industry.

The Hasina government and the corporate elite, along with the unions and the entire political establishment, are preparing similar repression. They are terrified that the current dispute could be the spark for a mass movement of the Bangladeshi working class. Garment workers in the country number 4.5 million.

The struggles in Bangladesh are part of a resurgence of the international working class. They coincide with a two-day general strike by more than 150 million Indian workers last week, a walkout by more than 33,000 teachers in Los Angeles in the United States and weeks-long demonstrations by “yellow vest” protesters in France.

Grenfell Tower: Class action lawsuit in US against flammable cladding manufacturer

Paul Bond

A class action lawsuit in the United States against Grenfell Tower cladding manufacturer Arconic underscores how culpability for the fire that killed 72 is an open secret. It also reveals the extent to which the institutions of the British ruling class are going in order to prevent any pursuit of the guilty.

The case starkly reveals capitalism’s priority of profits over lives.

The suit, first filed one month after the fire of June 14, 2017 by shareholder Michael Brave, accuses Arconic of defrauding shareholders over its supply of cladding panels at Grenfell Tower. Brave is seeking to recoup “significant” shareholder losses stemming from the company’s failure to disclose its use of “highly flammable” Reynobond PE cladding panels prior to the fire.

Between June 14 and June 27, 2017—when the company finally announced it would stop selling the panels for use in high-rise blocks—Arconic’s share price fell 21 percent, reducing its market value by more than $2.5 billion. Prices rallied after the company’s announcement.

US shareholders commonly sue companies over unexpected stock price falls they believe could have been avoided. The suit alleges that the “precipitous decline” in share price after the fire cost them money.

Arconic was created in 2016 through a division of Alcoa Inc. into two independent companies. It makes vast profits manufacturing cladding panels, including ones that are highly combustible—showing revenues of $13 billion (£10.3 billion) in 2017, the year of the fire. The suit encompasses the decisions and actions of parent and offspring companies—one of the claims is that an inaccurate prospectus was provided for a $1.3 billion share issue in 2014—and alleges that there is some continuity in their boards.

Brave argued that shareholders had been deceived by inadequate disclosures over the panels. The suit’s starting point was that use of the panels significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury or death in buildings containing them. Brave described Arconic’s public statements as “materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”

Brave named as defendants Arconic’s former Chief Executive Klaus Kleinfeld and its current Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth Giacobbe, insisting they should be held liable for the content of public statements.

The suit’s scope has since expanded considerably and now includes banks alleged to have misled investors in underwriting the share issue, including the US arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and others.

More board members have been named, including Alcoa director Ratan Tata, head of trusts holding a 66 percent stake in the multinational Tata group’s holding company; Ernesto Zedillo, who as Mexican president presided over privatisations and austerity measures and has since served on the boards of multinationals like Citigroup; Stanley O’Neal, former chairman of investment bank Merrill Lynch; and Sir Martin Sorrell, former head of WPP, one of advertising’s global “big four” companies.

Sorrell was Britain’s highest paid FTSE 100 CEO in 2016, when he earned £48 million from WPP, and he was a non-executive director of Alcoa/Arconic from 2012 until March 2017. He told the press he was “greatly saddened by the horrific events at Grenfell. However, I left the board of the company in March 2017 and I cannot comment on the legal actions.”

The lawsuit’s implications are that the company’s actions before the fire did make it culpable.

The suit claims the Alcoa Inc./Arconic board “made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose” and that “Arconic knowingly or recklessly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond polyethylene (PE) cladding panels for use in high-rise buildings.”

The suit cites a Reuters report, published in June 2017, which revealed emails between Arconic and Harley Facades and Rydon, the contractors responsible for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Between May and July 2014 Deborah French, Arconic’s UK sales manager, handled inquiries on the availability of samples of different types of Reynobond aluminium-covered (ACM) panels.

Arconic manufactures Reynobond panels in three types: one with a non-combustible core (A2), one with a fire-retardant core (FR), and one with a polyethylene core (PE). In their brochures Arconic described PE panels as suitable for buildings up to 10 metres high, and FR panels as suitable for buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height A2 panels should be used.

All five types of panel discussed in the emails were only available in combustible PE and FR versions. Grenfell Tower was over 60 metres high.

Arconic told Reuters it had known the panels were for Grenfell Tower, but said it was not the company’s role to decide on whether they were compliant with local building regulations or not.

Rydon and Harley had claimed their work complied with regulations.

Arconic’s own brochure warned of flammability. “[I]t is crucial to choose the adapted products in order to avoid the fire to spread to the whole building. Especially when it comes to facades and roofs, the fire can spread extremely rapidly.”

In a statement that should damn all those responsible, it noted, “As soon as the building is higher than the fire fighters’ ladders, it has to be conceived with an incombustible material.”

Arconic declined to tell Reuters if they knew how tall the tower was. The emails do not discuss the building’s height, but do refer to “Grenfell Tower” and mention other high-rise projects. Reuters pointed out that Arconic knew how many panels were being supplied, so were aware of the total coverage of the building.

A source from one company told Reuters that Arconic had “full involvement” throughout the contract bidding. Omnis Exteriors, which cut the tiles to shape for the cladding contractor, said it had “fulfilled the order as directed by the design and build team.”

German and US regulators have banned some forms of plastic-filled cladding, like the Reynobond PE, on high buildings because of the fire risks.

The US “rules-based” approach to regulation requires specific legislation for each example. Advocates of the UK’s “principles-based” approach argue that by placing responsibility on companies to operate safely, based on common understanding of risks, it avoids the emergence of loopholes by requiring companies to take account of new information immediately.

What Grenfell demonstrates is that both systems are implemented on behalf of corporations. When challenged on the emails, Arconic issued its “sympathies” and pledged to “fully support the authorities as they investigate.”

The official inquiry has repaid their confidence. It was deliberately not intended to bring the guilty to justice. The 2005 Inquiries Act, under which it was called, states categorically, “An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person’s civil or criminal liability.” It separated discussion of the events of that night from broader national or political issues.

Having limited the list of issues to be covered, the inquiry then deferred the bulk of the substantial material relating to the actions of companies involved in Grenfell’s refurbishment to its second phase. It has now been announced that this phase will not begin until late 2019 at the earliest.

The corporations have run rings around the inquiry to the extent that Arconic felt able to make a bullishly hostile closing statement. Their counsel told the final day of Phase One of the inquiry that the spread of the fire was not due to the flammable cladding, but to the combination of materials used in the refurbishment, including the window frames and insulation.

He further claimed it was “impossible to argue that ACM PE was non-compliant” with building regulations. Arconic asserted at the beginning of the inquiry that the panels were “at most, a contributing factor.”

As we noted at the closure of Phase One, “The fact that Arconic felt emboldened enough to deliver such a self-serving and unremorseful denial of responsibility for the spread of the fire, indicates that it feels safe in the knowledge that the inquiry will do nothing to bring those who are guilty to justice.”

The shareholders’ lawsuit demonstrates that capitalism takes more seriously the threat to investors’ finance than the lives of the working class. All those responsible for the decisions that cost 72 lives must be arrested and charged, not allowed to hide behind who bears the lion’s share of responsibility for social murder at Grenfell Tower.