German International Parliamentary Scholarship Program 2019 for Young Leaders in North Africa

Application Deadline: 31st January 2019

To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany

About the Award: The German Bundestag invites you to spend four weeks in Berlin in September 2018. The programme is intended for talented Arab people who are interested in politics and who are keen to play an active role in promoting core democratic values in their home countries. The German Bundestag is offering you the opportunity to get to know the German parliamentary system during an intensive programme.

In light of the Bundestag elections taking place in 2018, you will have the opportunity during a one-week internship in a Member’s constituency to experience the work carried out there and to come into contact with political decision-makers. Successful candidates will be chosen by the German Bundestag’s independent selection panel.

Type: Training, Conference

Eligibility: 

• Citizenship of an eligible country
• Under the age of 35 at the start of the scholarship
• University degree
• Very good knowledge of German
• An interest in politics, and social/political commitment

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Participants will receive a monthly scholarship of 500 euros. In addition, accommodation in an apartment complex will be provided free of charge, and the costs of travel to and from Berlin will be covered, as well as the costs of health, accident and personal liability insurance

How to Apply: Interested candidates should go through the application requirements on the Scholarship Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Send your completed application documents by email as a PDF-file to the German mission in your home country; the PDF-file name should consist of your surname, followed by your given name (i.e. “surname-first name”).

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

East Africa Digital Rights and Online Freedom of Expression Litigation Surgery 2019 for Lawyers in East Africa

Application Deadline: 7th February 2019

Eligible Countries: Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda

To be taken at (country): Kampala, Uganda

About the Award: MLDI provides legal support to journalists, bloggers and independent media. In recent years, MLDI has supported a significant number of cases involving online media. These have included challenging social media blocking and internet shutdowns, contesting cybercrimes legislation, ‘false news’ laws and intermediary liability, as well as calling for greater protections for online privacy and protection of journalistic sources.
Specifically, the objectives of the litigation surgery training are:

• To equip participants with the skills and knowledge to litigate using national and international laws as well as regional and international mechanisms relevant to freedom of expression online;
• To build a digital rights network and help facilitate its engagement with international legal mechanisms and global civil society initiatives; and  
• To assist and develop working relationships between lawyers undertaking such cases.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Participants will be selected on the following criteria:

• The surgery is open to lawyers who work and reside in Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda;
• Applicants can either be working in private practice or be working for or be affiliated with NGOs promoting the right to freedom of expression in East Africa through litigation. Exceptionally strong applications will be considered from lawyers who have not yet undertaken freedom of expression work, but have experience litigating other human rights cases and have a strong interest in undertaking freedom of expression work;
• Applicants must be proficient in English;
• Applicants must have a demonstrated interest in and/or knowledge of the right to online freedom of expression, digital rights, internet freedom and/or related issues;
• The lawyers must have a demonstrated interest in and/or knowledge of international and regional human rights law;
• As part of the application, interested lawyers are asked to submit a case study of a case which they are either litigating or intend to litigate and that could be discussed during the litigation surgery. For participants who do not have a case that is pending it will suffice to have identified a relevant law, practice or policy relating to online freedom of expression that they would like to challenge in court. However, such participants must demonstrate their ability and willingness to pursue the case after the surgery;
• The cases submitted must involve a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression online;
• The following non-exhaustive list of themes are a guide for the type of cases that could be submitted with the application: 
  • Cybercrime laws;
  • Intermediary liability;
  • Internet shutdowns;
  • Restriction of online media;
  • Online privacy;
  • National security; and
  • Anonymity online.

MDLI is committed to advancing equality and diversity; and will therefore consider gender, age, and country of origin in the selection of participants.

Number of Awards: A maximum of 12 participants will attend the training. 

Value of Award: MLDI will cover airfare, accommodation, travel expenses and a modest per diem.  

Duration of Programme: 8 – 12 April 2019

How to Apply: 

• Please complete the attached application form and submit it to Michael Moss at michael.moss@mediadefence.org.

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

West African Research Association (WARA) Travel Grants 2019 for African Scholars

Application Deadlines: 15th March 2019

Eligible Countries: West African countries

To be taken at (country): Any African country of candidate’s choice.

About the Award: The WARC Travel Grant program promotes intra-African cooperation and exchange among researchers and institutions by providing support to African scholars and graduate students for research visits to other institutions on the continent

Type: Research Grants

Eligibility: This competition is open only to West African nationals, with preference given to those affiliated with West African colleges, universities, or research institutions.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Grants: The WARC Travel Grant provides travel costs up to $1,500 and a stipend of $1,500. Travel grant funds may be used to:

1. attend and present papers at academic conferences relevant to the applicant’s field of research;
2. visit libraries or archives that contain resources necessary to the applicant’s current academic work;
3. engage in collaborative work with colleagues at another institution;
4. travel to a research site.

Duration of Grants:  Between December 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019 for the 15th Sept 2018 deadline

How to Apply: All applications must be submitted online here
It is important to go through Application requirements before applying.

Visit Grants Webpage for details

Award Provider: Funding for WARA’s Fellowship Program is provided by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the US Department of State through a grant from the Council of American Overseas Research Centers.

A Global Battle of Values and Ideals

Graham Peebles

With each day that passes the conflict and animosity between the conservative reactionary forces and the global movement for progressive change becomes more acute, uglier and increasingly dangerous; wherever one looks in the world the battleground between groups on either side of the divide rages. In essence it is a battle of values and ideas, of what kind of society we want to live in, but as the extremes, particularly those on what is commonly called the ‘right’, assert themselves, the space for rational, open debate is being crushed and a febrile intolerant atmosphere fueled.

Decades of systemic failure, environmental vandalism and social injustice have caused widespread discontent and anger among people in many countries, injustice made more severe by policies of crippling austerity following the 2008 banking crash. Among the 38 members of the wealthy OECD nations it is said that 50% of the population feel disenchanted with the political-economic system.

Consistent with the times we are living in – times in which the forces of the past are receding and the energies of the new are increasing in potency, the reaction to such discontent has been polarized. While large numbers of people recognize systemic change is needed and are calling for greater levels of cooperation between people and nations, others, in many cases equally great in numbers, blame external forces and immigration, and retreat into a narrow form of nationalism, seeking security.

Antagonisms have been enflamed by politicians who either fail to understand the impact of their poisonous rhetoric or simply don’t care what effect they have. The resulting political divisions are acute and, in many cases, compromise between groups on either side of the debate appears impossible as, for example, the government shut down in America and the Brexit deadlock demonstrate. Brexit has become the burning issue of conflict in the UK, fueling fractious, volatile political debate and entrenched national divisions. As one pro-EU protestor told The Observer, “this is civil war without the muskets…it is appalling.”

Throughout Europe and America a huge increase in hate crimes against immigrants and other groups is one of the consequences of these tensions, as is distrust of the mainstream media and the abuse of MPs, particularly of women: a report (surveying 55 female MPs from 39 countries) from the Inter-Parliamentary Union reveals that 44.4% of all women elected to office have received threats of either “death, rape, beatings and/or abductions.” In Britain, the BBC relates that, “Labour MP Jess Phillips said in one night she received 600 rape threats and was threatened with violence and aggression every day.” Other female members of parliament in the UK, especially those from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups, have consistently been the victims of such disturbing attacks, and on the 7th January online abuse spilled on to the streets when MP Anna Soubry, a pro-Europe member of the Conservative party, was verbally attacked and physically intimidated by a group of far right activists who support the UK leaving the European Union. The men surrounded her outside the House of Commons, called her a ‘Fascist’ and a ‘Nazi’, and blocked her way as she tried to enter Parliament; these men are “not protestors” said Soubry, “they are thugs.” And, as the murder of the MP Jo Cox on 16th June 2016 so tragically showed, in the hands of such people, vile words can easily become violent actions.

Such intolerance and hate flows from fear and ignorance, both of which are constantly agitated by misinformation. People increasingly live in like-minded bubbles, their views – no matter how extreme – are constantly reinforced by what they choose to read and watch and who they listen to; alternative positions remain unheard, balance denied. As one right-wing protestor, who supports a plethora of conspiracy theories, told the Observer, “I find news the way I need to find it…if I can get it from a family member then that’s it…The country should prepare for riots,” he says. “They can’t expect the people to be law-abiding citizens when government is as corrupt as it is. All them people in here [inside Parliament] are getting paid backhanders all the way through the system.”

This level of suspicion makes discussion, cooperation and compromise impossible, divisions inevitable, leading potentially to conflict. Walls are erected, some constructed from steel or concrete, others, perhaps even more dangerous, made up of prejudice and distrust. Both strengthen isolation and deepen divisions, nationally and globally, which makes dealing with any type of global crisis, e.g. a pandemic or economic crash, a greater risk than would otherwise be the case.

The polarization of politics and large numbers of the public has come about as a result of the enormous resistance to fundamental change that has been consistently shown by weak politicians of all colors; this inability to respond to the demands of the times has created great uncertainty. The longer change is resisted, and the ways of the past are perpetuated, the more intense the divisions and insecurities will become.

It is the conservative-leaning political parties, institutions and corporations of the world that are most firmly attached to the existing systems and modes of living. And despite the fact that the prevailing socio-economic order has fueled unprecedented levels of inequality, concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population and trapped working class people in economic uncertainty and in many cases poverty, it is this very demographic that is energizing the reactionary groups that are working to maintain the status-quo.

The toxic movement towards isolation, intolerance and division is a crystallized fearful response to the unstoppable current of change that is sweeping the world, and the determination by those who have benefited from the current systems to resist change at all costs.

Every age has its own specific qualities; the last two thousand years or so have seen the emergence of individuality on a mass scale, of which tribal nationalism is an extreme and negative form of expression. Individuality is a most valuable and positive quality, but when, as is often the case, it is expressed as selfishness, and self-centered activity it becomes destructive. In order to breach the prevailing divisions and overcome the various crises facing humanity the strengths of the individual, the diversity and beauty of people and nations needs to be placed at the service of the wider community, and not simply used for the benefit of the individual or the particular country.

Building on from the achievement of mass individuality the key ideals of the time and the age that stretches before us are unity, cooperation and tolerance; such qualities necessitate and encourage a shift away from a narrow ‘me first’ approach to living to an awareness and responsibility for society more broadly and the natural world. Sharing is the essential element in the manifestation of such Principles of Goodness, through its expression trust is cultivated, and where trust exists barriers break down.

New Questions About Ritual Slaughter as Belgium Bans the Practice

Martha Rosenberg

No, Animal Welfare is Not Religious Bigotry

Another country has banned the cruel practice of ritual slaughter––kosher slaughter, sanctioned by Jewish law and halal slaughter, sanctioned by Islamic law. In both practices, cattle, sheep, goats and poultry have their throats cut while they are fully conscious and capable of experiencing great fear and pain.

Starting in 2019, Belgium will no longer grant exemptions from humane slaughter laws (that require an animal be stunned before it is killed) for ritual slaughter, joining Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Slovenia which also outlaw the practice.

Other European countries are considering tightened slaughter laws. The Netherlands, for example, has considered a law that states that no more animals can be killed for kosher and halal meat than “necessary to meet the actual need of the religious communities present in the Netherlands” and that if an animal is not “insensitive to pain” within 40 seconds of slaughter, it must be put out of its misery and shot.

The US Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

In the US, humane slaughter, requiring that an animal be stunned before it is killed, became the law of the land (the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act) a year after a disturbing film of hog slaughter was shown to Congress in 1957. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act and remarked that “if I depended on my mail, I would think humane slaughter is the only thing anyone is interested in.”

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was opposed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who last year allowed US slaughterhouses to kill 175 chickens per minute, up from 140 birds per minute––a move that greatly pleased industry. Even without the increased speeds, chicken kill lines in the US move so fast that 700,000 chickens a year miss the stunner (to render them insensitive to pain) and are boiled alive.

In 1978, former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) introduced amendments to strengthen the Act, which had originally only applied to suppliers of meat to the federal government. Also added were methods for enforcement.

Still, the US allows ritual slaughter––religious exemptions to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act––and according to one USDA administrator I spoke to, regulation can be almost non-existent. One halal slaughter facility, says the administrator, was not visited by a religious figure for six years, though a visit is required every year.

Ritual Slaughter is Falsely Believed to be More Humane

It is ironic that many believe ritual slaughter to be “more humane” than traditional slaughter when it is just the opposite.  In 2004, undercover video at the Agriprocessors’ kosher slaughterhouse surfaced, showing cows that did not die from having their throats cut but got up and thrashed around in heartbreaking agony. The video led to a USDA investigation that reported many violations of animal cruelty laws at the plant. (US President Trump commuted the sentence of an Agriprocessors’ owner for financial wrongdoing late last year.) The undercover activists who shot the video were later identified as Hannah and Philip Schein, a married couple who keep kosher themselves, dispelling charges that their motives were anti-Semitic.

When the grisly video surfaced, a coalition of rabbis and kosher certifying agencies in the United States was quick to defend the images. “After the animal has been rendered insensible, it is entirely possible that it may still display certain reflexive actions, including those shown in images portrayed in the video,” they wrote on a kosher-certification website.

“These reflexive actions should not be mistaken for signs of consciousness or pain, and they do not affect the kosher status of the slaughtered animal’s meat.  There may be exceptional circumstances when, due to the closing of jugular veins   or a carotid artery after the shechita cut, or due to the non-complete severance of an artery or vein, the animal may rise up on its legs and walk around. Cases when animals show such signs of life after the slaughter process are extremely rare, and even such an event would not invalidate the shechita if the trachea and esophagus were severed in the shechita cut.”

Animal Expert Weighs In

Temple Grandin , Professor of animal science at Colorado State University, disagrees and contends that ritual slaughter is capable of causing great suffering. “Some plants use cruel methods of restraint, such as suspending a conscious animal by a chain wrapped around one hind-limb,” she writes. “They persist in hanging large cattle and veal calves upside down by one hind-leg. There is no religious justification for use of this cruel method of restraint. The plants that suspend cattle/calves by one hind-leg do so in order to avoid paying the cost of installing a humane restraint device. Humane restraint devices can often pay for themselves by improving employee safety.” The cries of agony can be heard outside the plants writes Grandin.

“At no time, either during or after stunning should the animal vocalize (squeal, moo or bellow). Vocalization is a sign that a sensible animal may be feeling pain,” continues Grandin. “It is easy to evaluate insensibility after an animal is hanging vertically on the bleed rail; it should hang straight down and have a straight back, and the head should be limp and floppy. If the stunned animal has kicking reflexes, the head should flop like a limp rag. If the animal makes any attempt to raise its head, it may still be sensible. An animal showing a righting reflex must be immediately re-stunned. There should also be no rhythmic breathing and no eye reflexes in response to touch. Blinking is another sign of an animal that has not been properly stunned and thus may still be sensible. As slaughterhouses are increasingly privatized with no federal inspectors these humane guidelines are thrown out the window.”

It is important to note that halal and kosher slaughter do not represent the only time animals experience terror and pain at the end of their lives because they have not been stunned before slaughter. In 2001, the Washington Post ran a shocking expose of fully conscious animals routinely killed at traditional US slaughterhouses.

Ritual Slaughter Holidays

Animal rights advocates are especially strong critics of ritual slaughter when it comes to the holiday of Eid al-Adha during which Muslims ritually slaughter sheep and other animals, often in public.

Turkey, particularly, has had a hard time with the Eid al-Adha animal sacrifice holiday. In 2017, Forestry and Water Affairs Minister Veysel Eroğlu finally announced that animals should “be slaughtered rapidly” to prevent recurring images of suffering animals fighting for their lives that have horrified Western tourists.

Eid al-Adha is not a sight for the squeamish writes Gamal Nkrumah on the Egyptian website Al-Ahram. “One can tell from the nervous restlessness that the defenseless animals sense danger. The darting eyes and incessant bleating are tell-tale signs.” The “look of absolute terror in the eye of the beast is hard to miss” and some “streets are awash with blood,” writes Nkrumah.

Religious Persecution or Animal Protectionism?

After the Netherlands sought to tighten its ritual slaughter laws, Joe M. Regenstein, a professor of food science who runs a kosher and halal food program at Cornell University said, “This is not about animal rights”––”It’s an invitation to Jews and Muslims to leave.”

The Belgian decision has raised similar ire. Such animal protection laws are a disguised attempt to stigmatize or even drive out religious minorities, some claim. The ban violates “the Belgian freedom of religion” says Joos Roets, a lawyer representing Islamic institutions. “The government could take other steps to reduce animal suffering.”

The new law has the effect of making it difficult for observant Jews to live according to their traditions said Rabbi Schmahl of Belgium whose duties include fielding halachic queries and certifying kosher restaurants. Belgium has roughly 500,000 Muslims and 30,000 Jews.

Even the New York Times, in an editorial, called bans on ritual slaughter possible “smoke screens for bigotry against Jews and Muslims.” It warned that “those who really care about the welfare of animals should be wary of making common cause with right-wing nationalists whose hostile intent is to make life more difficult for religious minorities.”

Charges of religious persecution might be heightened as they come on the heels of “cow protection” laws passed by India’s Hindu nationalist party in 2018 through which hundreds of Muslims in the meat trade industry lost their jobs.

Yet animal lovers contend there are ways to preserve the intent of ritual slaughter––that an animal is in perfect health and disease-free––without inflicting such suffering. They also question where religious boundaries end and secular laws begin. “If a religious practice specified beating a child would it prevail?” asked one animal rights activist.

There is a final irony in this battle between the religious practice of ritual slaughter and animal protection. Kosher and halal slaughter are so similar to each other that Muslims often substitute kosher foods when their own ritually produced and certified halal foods are not available. Yes–slaughter is one of the few precepts that fundamentalism Islam and fundamentalism Judaism agree upon.

A Saudi Teen and Freedom’s Shining Moment

Kani Xulam

The first Saturday of 2019 didn’t start well for Rahaf al-Qanun, the Saudi teen, who wanted to make a dash for freedom in Australia via Thailand.

The forces of “order” blocked her path in the Thai capital.

On the second Saturday, January 12, she landed at Toronto Pearson International Airport in Ontario. Chrystia Freeland, the foreign minister of Canada, was among those who welcomed her to her new homeland.

What catapulted this unknown Saudi teen into stardom is an incredible story of freedom and its glorious victory with the help of Twitter, journalists and ordinary people with smartphones all over the world.

Steve Jobs, the child of a Syrian immigrant, can rest in peace for gifting humanity a splendid invention. If awards were given to gadgets, his would have garnered the liberty’s highest honor.

Rahaf al-Qanun, the daughter of an Arab governor in Saudi Arabia, grew up in the lap of luxury and took advantage of what the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia offers to its privileged youth: education.

But the more she expanded her mind, the less she liked her country. Wealth had put her in a class of its own with severe restrictions, but she wanted to be free—and if needed poor.

Her sex was a liability. She refused to accept her lot.

She plotted an escape plan and as luck would have it, her family went on a trip to Kuwait. In the more liberal Arab state, she was able to board a plane for Australia via Thailand and landed in Bangkok on January 5.

In the Thai capital, her passport was confiscated. She was placed in a hotel room and told: she would have to wait till the notification of her relatives.

Rahaf al-Qanun was trying to put a distance between herself and her relatives in Saudi Arabia. She had already violated her country’s strict laws by flying solo. She was not a masochist and was not going to volunteer for it.

In her hotel room, she set up a Twitter account and began tweeting—first in Arabic and then in English—that her life was in danger and she didn’t want to do anything with the country of her birth.

Those who received her tweets and re-tweeted them to journalists didn’t need convincing that her life was indeed in danger. The stories of Dina Ali Lasloom and that of Jamal Khashoggi were still fresh on their minds.

Dina Ali Lasloom, a Saudi woman, had also wanted to make a dash for freedom in Australia via Philippines. Arrested in Manila, she was flown back to Riyadh, a day later, with her mouth taped and arms and legs bound like some wild animal.

That was 20 months ago—and no one has heard from her since.

Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist, had met a violent end at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

That was three months ago—and his loved-ones are still waiting to bury his missing corpse.

That savage act had galvanized the world public opinion against the kingdom and it looked like, Rahaf al-Qanun, might, with a bit of luck, become its first deserving beneficiary.

The tipping point came when Sophie McNeill, an Australian reporter, saw one of her distressing tweets and flew to the Thai capital and offered to barricade herself in the same hotel room with her.

With a lover of their common sisterhood on her side, her tweets became more potent, and the photos and videos more graphic.

In a ten-second video soon seen by more than a million people, an anxious Rahaf al-Qanun looks into her smartphone’s camera—held by her new sister Sophie—and eloquently states:

“I am not leaving my room till I see someone from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I want asylum.”

With thousands following her case live, the Thai officials were compelled to let the UNHCR personal meet with her. Well versed with the plight of women in the kingdom, they took her into their custody, as was their mandate.

They appealed to the Australian government on her behalf, but were told she would not be treated differently and must get in line behind 25.4 million other asylum seekers in the world.

Meanwhile, the Saudi Chargé d’affaires in Bangkok was doing his best to thwart the plans of Rahaf al-Qanun. He conceded to one huge blunder on the part of his hosts: “They should have taken her smart phone instead of her passport.”

Not wanting to take chances with the life of Rahaf al-Qanun in Thailand, the UNHCR personal reached out to the other embassies for help. Canada offered to process her paper work right away, enabling her to fly to Canada one week after landing in the Thai capital.

An Egyptian journalist, Mona Eltahawy, said of the climactic moment, “Mark my word: Rahaf al-Qanun is going to start a revolution in Saudi Arabia.”

Will she?

I don’t know. What I do know is this: if you are a female Muslim and feel the oppression of the male members of your family and society, invest in a smartphone and befriend a smarter journalist like Sophie McNeill.

They are your tickets to freedom, for now that is, until we make the Middle East safe for all its children.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO

David Swanson

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70^thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

‘Broken extended ‘ families and their significance

Sheshu Babu

Though the trend towards ‘ nuclear’ families where the family unit is mainly parents and children is increasing, there are indications of increase in families which are neither nuclear nor joint. These may be called ‘broken extended ‘ families.

Modern trends

Over half of India’s households have been recorded as nuclear families since 1990s. Joint families make just 16% of all house – holds. About a third of households are neither ‘ nuclear’ nor ‘ joint’ . Recently released 2011 census data shows that there is a whole range of households between nuclear and joint.

Numerically biggest among these is ‘ supplemented nuclear’ households making up 16% of the 25 crore families in India (‘ Supplemented nuclear’ families make 16% of Indian households, by Subodh Verma, published on Jul 5, 2017 , timesofindia.indiatimes.com). These house holds are households where an unmarried relative of husband or wife or an elderly aunt stays along with them. But the curious fact is that share of ‘ broken extended’ house holds in terms of total households. It is 4% or 1 crore households. These have grown about 180% in a decade. ‘Broken extended’ households are defined as those with a head of the household without a spouse, and some other relatives in residence, not more than one of whom is married. For example, an elderly widowed woman staying with her elderly widowed sister-in-law and their married nephew and spouse. Female headed households of such types have increased seven times in the past decade. This may be due to increased life expectancy of women and people migrating to work.

The total number of households increased by 29% between 2001- 2011 while joint family system had only 9% increase. This may indicate breakdown of joint family system .

Significantly, joint families are increasing in cities and reducing in rural areas. They rose by 29% in urban areas and just 2% in rural areas in the decade.

Factors

Economic factors are mainly responsible for increase of such families. The young are migrating to cities in search of jobs as the agriculture sector is declining due to lack of proper policies that assist growth of this sector. Alongwith the young, their family members who depend economically are forced to migrate. The expensive urban life in urban areas is also contributing for the rapid increase of combined living. Housing facilities in urban areas are lacking and thus, nuclear families are forced to accommodate other members or relatives

More women working in urban areas may also contribute to rise in some form of joint families in cities. But data shows women participation in work is pathetic. Despite higher education levels, women drop out from work after marriage. A survey of 1,000 women in Delhi found that 18-34 percent women work after having a child. (Where are Indian Working Women, by Mandakini Devasher Surie , March 9, 2016, asiafoundation.org). According to statistics of government, women labor participation rate fell from 29.4% from 2004-2005 to 22.5% in 2011-12. But analysis shows that women participation in work in urban areas is on the rise.( Urban India and its Female Demographic Dividend, Shriya Anand and Jyothi Koduganti, July 30, 2015, indiaspend.com). The number of women working and seeking work grew 14.4% annually between 1991 and 2011 even though the population of urban wonen grew at only 4.5% during the same period.

Future

The trend of extended families in urban area and towns may rise due to various factors. Cities are becoming overpopulated as people are deserting villages in search of jobs. The agriculture sector is being slowly wiped out due to fast growing industrialisation. Hence, rural employment should be addressed so that migration might be reduced. The cities are becoming cramped and environmentally hazardous. Balanced development is crucial for preservation of healthy family system in the country.

Is US Hubris Taking The World To The Edge?

Askiah Adam

Another US regime change undertaking is about to begin. Meanwhile, the Syrian misadventure will, hopefully, end soon and Bashar Al Assad’s enduring presence in Damascus is Washington’s failure writ large.

But that is not stopping the neoconservatives. Washington is beating the war drums again, this time in Latin America.

Venezuela, and its Bolivarian socialist revolution has long irked the United States. And, when on 10thJanuary last the re-elected Nicolas Maduro was sworn-in for his second six-year term as President, US imperial vitriol was unleashed, unfettered.  The pomp and ceremony was attended by 94 international delegations — among them Russia and China — and the presidents of Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba, and too the celebrating crowds of Venezuelans. Obviously, neither Maduro nor Venezuela is isolated.

The US National Security Advisor, John Bolton, declared that Washington is not recognising President Maduro whose claim to power the US considers illegitimate. As has become the norm this decision was based on lies. Bolton claims the latter’s election was “not free, fair or credible” but the international Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America found it to be perfectly legitimate despite US meddling. The same tact is being voiced by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.For his part he promises that “the United States will work diligently to restore a real democracy to that country.”

Given the news blockade imposed on Venezuela there is no way mainstream media reporting on the country can be balanced and fair. With regard the 20th May 2018 elections, mainstream media reported it as heavily rigged to favour Maduro, the dictator. However, former president Jimmy Carter whose Carter Centre has a Democracy Programme said, “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

If then a resounding victory over his opponent does not make Maduro the winner, what does? Over 60 per cent of a turnout of 46.02 per cent of eligible voters cast their votes for him. Even Donald Trump won the US presidency on a minority vote smaller than that commanded by Maduro. In today’s democracies, with the exception of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, who can claim otherwise?

That it is mere pretext used to destabilise Venezuela further cannot be denied. A US-led economic war against Venezuela has been on-going. A financial blockade is already in place leaving the Venezuelan economy vastly weakened with inflation spiraling out of control. The blockade has crippled its oil industry, the country’s main foreign currency earner. All this to facilitate US multinational corporations like Exxon-Mobil. Meanwhile the people suffer. And yet, Nicolas Maduro is returned to power peacefully via the ballot box because his policies ensure that the ordinary Venezuelan is fed, schooled and employed: the CLAP Boxes programme distributes food boxes to households; there is free healthcare and education; and, wages are protected.

Unfortunately, regime change is already underway. The US is supporting a move by the leader of the National Assembly to step in as interim president. But the National Assembly is held in contempt by the country’s Supreme Court for swearing-in three deputies under investigation for election irregularities. And the former has been unwilling to accept the judgement until today, making all its actions null and void. Such a move by the US is nothing short of contemptuous. Furthermore, the needs of governance forced Maduro to convene another elected assembly, the National Constituent Assembly, a move provided for by the Venezuelan Constitution, meaning that democracy is alive and well.

In the meantime, the US ambassador to Germany is throwing his weight around, behaving as if he’s the colonial master, threatening German companies involved in the Nord Stream2 project with sanctions. Prior to this he openly supported the right wing, anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), to the point where he was accused by the German media of attempting a “regime change”. However, this interference is not new. Under President Obama America’s intelligence tapped into the personal phone calls of Chancellor Merkel.

If an ally is treated with scant respect, what more a government unwilling to acquiesceto Washington’s will?

However, the signals emanating from Washington, at the moment, are conflicting. President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria was vociferously attacked, not by a handful, but nearly everyone who matters in Washington including Bolton and Pompeo who were desperately trying to walk back that decision. And, if reports are to be believed the President has again reaffirmed his wish to withdraw from Syria thus negating his own advisors.

Several instances suggest that he is being actively subverted by his own administration and that the Democrats’ call for his impeachment could be bipartisan and is being stage-managed by the Deep State.

In Venezuela, however, he appears to be at one with them and has yet to repudiate the threats made by both Pompeo and Bolton to change the elected government in Caracas. This is true also with regard Ukraine where the failed regime, actively backed by the US, is acting as its proxy. The overt provocations against Russia, as in the recent Kerch Strait incident, is proof.

How does one explain Washington’s bizarre foreign policy, one that has resorted to nabbing individuals almost literally off the streets and holding them in detention, the latest being the Press TV anchorwoman and journalist Marzieh Hashemi? At the time of writing she has been held for some 48 hours with no reasons given.

A nuclear superpower going rogue is a frightening spectacle. What more when its chief executive appears to be finding it near impossible to assert his authority. And, not forgetting, too, the flagrant violations of international law by the US. Is the world helpless to defend itself against such unpredictable volatility?